Aydoğan-Gebelere Yönelik Depresyon Tarama Ölçeği’nin Geliştirilmesi ve Gebelerin Depresyon Düzeyinin Belirlenmesi

Abstract

Amaç: Çalışmanın amacı gebelik döneminde görülen depresyon taraması için “Aydoğan - Gebelere Yönelik Depresyon Tarama Ölçeği”nin (A-GDÖ) geliştirilmesi, geçerlik ve güvenirliğinin test edilmesidir. Yöntem: Metodolojik tipteki çalışma 369 gebe üzerinde gerçekleştirildi. A-GDÖ 4’lü Likert tipinde olumlu ve olumsuz önermelerden oluşan bir öz bildirim ölçeği olarak tasarlandı. Kapsam geçerliği, yapı geçerliği ve ölçüt geçerliği değerlendirildi. Güvenirliği değerlendirmek için iç tutarlık analizleri, madde analizi ve test - tekrar test uygulaması yapıldı. Kestirim puanı ROC analizi ile belirlendi. Bulgular: A-GDÖ’nün tüm geçerlik ve güvenirlik analizlerinden elde edilen sonuçların yeterli düzeyde olduğu görüldü. A-GDÖ’nün 4 alt boyut ve 21 maddeden oluştuğu, toplam açıklanan varyansın % 56.3, Cronbach Alfa güvenirlik katsayısının 0.919 olduğu bulundu. Ölçekten alınan toplam puanın artışı depresyon şüphesinin arttığını göstermektedir. Ayrıca 41 puan ve üzeri depresyon şüphesinin var olduğunu göstermektedir. Çalışmada gebelerin % 29.5’inde depresyon şüphesi olduğu tespit edildi. Sonuç: A-GDÖ’nün gebelerde depresyonun taranması amacıyla kullanılabilecek geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçek olduğu sonucuna ulaşıldı. A-GDÖ kullanılarak depresyon taraması yapılması, gebelerin ruhsal durumlarının A-GDÖ ile izlenmesi, bir değişiklik olduğunda depresyon için erken uyarı olarak algılanması ve ileri inceleme için bir psikiyatri uzmanına yönlendirme yapılmasının faydalı olacağı düşünülmektedir.

Keywords

• Depresyon
• gebe
• gebelik
• geçerlik
• güvenirlik
• tarama

Development of the Aydoğan-Depression Screening Scale for Pregnant and Determination of Depression Risks of Pregnant Women

Abstract

Objective: The aim of the study is to develop the “Aydoğan-Depression Screening Scale for Pregnant” (A-DSP) for depression screening during pregnancy and to test its validity and reliability. Method: This methodological study was conducted with 369 pregnant. A-DSP was designed as a 4-point Likert-type self-report scale consisting of positive and negative propositions. Content, construct and criterion validity were evaluated. Internal consistency analyses, item analysis and test-retest were performed to evaluate reliability. The cut-off score was determined by ROC analysis. Result: The results obtained from all validity and reliability analyses of A-DSP were at a sufficient level. It was found that A-DSP consisted of 4 subdimensions and 21 items, total explained variance was 56.3%, and Cronbach's Alpha was 0.919. An increase in scores indicates an increase in the suspicion of depression. In addition, it is accepted that there is a suspicion of depression at a score≥41. It was determined that 29.5% of the pregnant women had a suspicion of depression. Conclusion: It was concluded that A-DSP is a valid and reliable scale that can be used to screen for depression in pregnant women. It is thought that it would be beneficial to screen for depression using A-DSP, to monitor the mental status of pregnant women by A-DSP, to perceive it as an early warning for depression when there is a change, and to refer to a psychiatrist for further examination.

Keywords

• Depression
• pregnant
• pregnancy
• validity
• reliability
• screening

References

1. 1. Woody C, Ferrari A, Siskind D, Whiteford H, Harris M. A systematic review and meta-regression of the prevalence and incidence of perinatal depression. Journal of Affective Disorders. 2017;219:86-92.
2. 2. Breedlove G, Fryzelka D. Depression screening during pregnancy. Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health. 2011;56(1):18-25.
3. 3. Altshuler LL, Cohen LS, Vitonis AF, Faraone SV, Harlow BL, Suri R, et al. The Pregnancy Depression Scale (PDS): a screening tool for depression in pregnancy. Archives of Women's Mental Health. 2008;11:277-85.
4. 4. Campagne DM. The obstetrician and depression during pregnancy. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 2004;116(2):125-30.
5. 5. Su K-P, Chiu T-H, Huang C-L, Ho M, Lee C-C, Wu P-L, et al. Different cutoff points for different trimesters? The use of Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale and Beck Depression Inventory to screen for depression in pregnant Taiwanese women. General Hospital Psychiatry. 2007;29(5):436-41.
6. 6. Bennett HA, Einarson A, Taddio A, Koren G, Einarson TR. Depression during pregnancy: overview of clinical factors. Clinical Drug Investigation. 2004;24:157-79.
7. 7. Tran TD, Tran T, La B, Lee D, Rosenthal D, Fisher J. Screening for perinatal common mental disorders in women in the north of Vietnam: a comparison of three psychometric instruments. Journal of affective disorders. 2011;133(1-2):281-93.
8. 8. Ji S, Long Q, Newport DJ, Na H, Knight B, Zach EB, et al. Validity of depression rating scales during pregnancy and the postpartum period: impact of trimester and parity. Journal of Psychiatric Research. 2011;45(2):213-9.

9. 9. Bennett HA, Einarson A, Taddio A, Koren G, Einarson TR. Prevalence of depression during pregnancy: systematic review. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2004;103(4):698-709.
10. 10. Comrey AL, Lee HB. A first course in factor analysis. Psychology Press; 2013.
11. 11. Osborne JW. Best practices in quantitative methods. Sage Publications; 2008.
12. 12. Aydin N, Inandi T, Yigit A, Nalan Sahin Hodoglugil N. Validation of the Turkish version of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale among women within their first postpartum year. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology. 2004;39:483-6.
13. 13. Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology. 1975;28(4):563-75.
14. 14. Sürücü L, Maslakçı A. Validity and reliability in quantitative research. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal. 2020;8(3):2694-726.
15. 15. Watson JC. Establishing evidence for internal structure using exploratory factor analysis. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development. 2017;50(4):232-8.
16. 16. Williams B, Onsman A, Brown T. Exploratory factor analysis: A five-step guide for novices. Journal of Emergency Primary Health Care (JEPHC). 2010;8:1-13.
17. 17. Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen MR. Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods. 2008;6(1):53-60.
18. 18. Yonkers KA, Wisner KL, Stewart DE, Oberlander TF, Dell DL, Stotland N, et al. The management of depression during pregnancy: a report from the American Psychiatric Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. General Hospital Psychiatry. 2009;31(5):403-413.
19. 19. Arkar H, Şafak C. Exploring dimensions of the Beck Depression Inventory in a clinical sample. Turkish Journal of Psychology. 2004;19(53):117-127.
20. 20. Tatar A, Saltukoglu G. The adaptation of the CES-Depression Scale into Turkish through the use of confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory and the examination of psychometric characteristics. Bulletin of Clinical Psychopharmacology. 2010;20(3):213-227.
21. 21. Jomeen J, Martin C. Replicability and stability of the multidimensional model of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale in late pregnancy. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing. 2007;14(3):319-24.
22. 22. Brouwers EP, van Baar AL, Pop VJ. Does the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale measure anxiety? Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 2001; 51(5):659-663.
23. 23. Jomeen J, Martin CR. Confirmation of an occluded anxiety component within the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) during early pregnancy. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology. 2005;23(2):143-54.
24. 24. Adouard F, Glangeaud-Freudenthal N, Golse B. Validation of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) in a sample of women with high-risk pregnancies in France. Archives of Women’s Mental Health. 2005;8:89-95.
25. 25. Töreki A, Andó B, Keresztúri A, Sikovanyecz J, Dudas RB, Janka Z, et al. The Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale: translation and antepartum validation for a Hungarian sample. Midwifery. 2013;29(4):308-15.
26. 26. Heale R, Twycross A. Validity and reliability in quantitative studies. Evidence-Based Nursing. 2015;18(3):66-67.
27. 27. Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International Journal of Medical Education. 2011;2:53-55.
28. 28. Bujang MA, Baharum N. A simplified guide to determination of sample size requirements for estimating the value of intraclass correlation coefficient: a review. Archives of Orofacial Science. 2017;12(1):1-11.
29. 29. Hajian-Tilaki K. (2013). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis for medical diagnostic test evaluation. Caspian Journal of Internal Medicine. 2013;4(2):627-635.
30. 30. Matthey S, Ross-Hamid C. (2011). The validity of DSM symptoms for depression and anxiety disorders during pregnancy. Journal of Affective Disorders. 2011;133(3):546-552.