İyileşme Aşamasını Öz Değerlendırme (SISR) Ölçeği Türkçe Formu: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Öz

Amaç: Bu araştırma İyileşme Aşamasını Öz Değerlendirme (SISR) ölçeğinin Türk kültürüne uygun olup olmadığını değelendirmek için geçerlik ve güvenirliğini belirlemek amacıyla yapılmıştır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Araştırmanın evrenini Karaman Eğitim Araştırma Hastanesi psikiyatri servisinde tedavi alan hastalar oluşturmaktadır. Araştırma verileri Şubat-Nisan 2024 tarihleri arasında toplanmıştır. Araştırmada kullanılan ölçeğin orijinal formunun soru sayısı 10 olduğu için 50- 100 hastaya ulaşılması yeterli görülmektedir. Buna bağlı olarak araştırmanın evrenini 86 katılımcı oluşturmaktadır.Veri toplama aşamasında kişisel bilgi formu ve Andresen ve arkadaşları tarafından 2003 yılında geliştirilmiş İyileşme aşamasını öz değerlendirme ölçeği kullanılmıştır. Analizlerde SPSS 22 ve Jasp 0.18.3 programları kullanılmıştır. Bulgular: Analizler sonucunda ölçeğin yapı geçerliği için açımlayı faktör analizi (AFA) ve açımlayıcı faktör analizi (DFA) yapılmıştır. Faktör analizine geçmeden önce veri setine ait KMO değeri ve Bartlett küresellik testi sonuçları incelenmiştir. Analiz sonucunda KMO değeri 0,80 olarak bulunmuştur ve Bartlet küresellik testi sonuçları anlamlıdır (ꭕ=194,181, sd=10, p<0,001). Bu sonuçlar veri setinin faktör analizine uygun olduğunu göstermektedir. Ölçeğin güvenirliği için Cronbach alfa iç tutarlık katsayısı incelenmiştir ve 0.85 olarak bulunmuştur. Sonuç: Ölçeğin orijinal kaynakta olduğu gibi 5 maddelik ve tek faktörlü bir yapıya sahip olduğu ve ölçeğin Türkçe formunun geçerli ve güvenilir olduğu bulunmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ruh sağlığı
• Ruhsal iyileşme aşaması
• Öz değerlendirme
• Geçerlik
• Güvenirlik.

Self-Identified Stage of Recovery (SISR) Scale Turkish Form: Validity and Reliability Study

Öz

Objective: This study was conducted to determine the validity and reliability of the Stage of Recovery Self-Identified (SISR) scale to assess whether it is appropriate for Turkish culture. Materials and Method: Patients undergoing treatment in Karaman Training and Research Hospital's mental unit made up the research population. The study's data was gathered in 2024 between February and April. Ten items make up the initial version of the scale used in the study, which is thought to be adequate to reach 50–100 patients. 86 people made up the study's population as a result. The self-identified recovery stage scale created by Andresen et al. in 2003 and the personal information form were used throughout the data collecting phase. For the analysis, SPSS 22 and Jasp 0.18.3 were used. Results: Additionally, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to evaluate the construct validity of the measure. The KMO value and the data set's Bartlett's test of sphericity results were reviewed prior to the factor analysis. The analysis's KMO value was 0.80, and the results of Bartlet's test of sphericity showed that it was significant (ꭕ=194.181, sd=10, p<0.001). These findings demonstrate that factor analysis can be performed on the data set. An analysis of the scale's reliability revealed that its Cronbach's alpha internal consistency coefficient was 0.85. Conclusion: The scale, which has a 5-item and single-factor structure like the original source, is valid and reliable in Turkish form.

Kaynakça

1. Acharya, T., & Agius, M. (2017). The Importance Of Hope Against Other Factors In The Recovery Of Mental Illness, Psychiatria Danubina, Vol. 29, Suppl. 3, pp 619-622. PMID: 28953841.
2. Akgül, A. (2003). Statistical Analysis Techniques and SPSS Applications in Medical Research. Sample Selection 3rd edition, Ankara. ISBN: 9781111120214
3. Andresen, R., Oades, L.G., & Caputi, P. (2003). The experience of recovery from schizophrenia: towards an empirically-validated stage model. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 37, 586–594. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1614.2003.01234.x.
4. Andresen, R., Caputi, P., & Oades, L. (2010). Do clinical outcome measures assess consumer-defined recovery? Psychiatry Research, 177(3), 309-317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2010.02.013.
5. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2019). Data analysis handbook for social sciences statistics, research design SPSS applications and interpretation. 26th Edition. Ankara: Pegem Akademi. ISBN: 978-975-6802-74-8.
6. Chiba, R., Kawakami, N., Miyamoto, Y., & Andresen, R. (2010). Reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the Self-Identified Stage of Recovery (SISR) for people with long term mental illness. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 19(3):195-202. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1447-0349.2009.00656.x.
7. Costello, A.B., & Osborne, J.W. (2005). Best practices inexploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your anal ysis. practical Assessment,10(7):1-9. https://doi.org/10.7275/jyj1-4868.
8. Çam, O., & Yalçıner, N. (2018). Mental illness and recovery. Journal of Psychiatric Nursing, 9(1), 55-60. https://doi.org/10.14744/phd.2017.49469.

9. De Silva, K.T., Cockshaw, W.D., Rehm, I.C., & Hancock, N. (2021). A short form of the Recovery Assessment Scale-Domains and Stages: Development and validation among adults with anxiety disorders. Clin Psychol Psychother. Sep;28(5):1135-1145. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.2563.
10. Doğan, R. (2021). Developing the Mental Healing Scale and Testing its Reliability and Validity in a Sample of Individuals Diagnosed with Cancer. Doctoral Thesis. University of Health Sciences. (Thesis no:684399).
11. Erdoğan, S. (2014). Validity and Reliability in Measurements. (Eds) Erdoğan S, Nahcıvan N, Esin N. Research in Nursing, Istanbul: Nobel Medical Bookstore. ISBN:978-605-335-346-1.
12. Esin, M.N. (2014). Data collection methods and tools & reliability and validity of data collection tools. Erdoğan S, Nahçivan N, editors. Research in Nursing: Process, Practice and Critique. 1st Edition. Istanbul: Nobel Medical Bookstores;. p.193- 234. ISBN:978-605-335-346-1.
13. Gordon, S. E., & Ellis, P. M. (2013). Recovery of evidence based practice. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 22(1), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1447-0349.2012.00835.x.
14. Gözüm, S., & Aksayan, S. (2003). Guidelines for cross-cultural scale adaptation II: Psychometric Properties and Cross-Cultural Comparison. Journal of Research and Development in Nursing. (Accesslink:http://hemarge.org.tr/ckfinder/userfiles/files/2003/2003-vol5-sayi1-65.pdf)
15. Güler, C., & Gürkan, A. (2019). Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Recovery Assessment Scale. Neurological Sciences, 32, 309-319. https://doi.org/10.14744/DAJPNS.2019.00045.
16. Hampson, M.,Watt, B., & Hicks, R. (2018). Perspectives on Recovery in Psychosis. Journal of Recovery in Mental Health, 2(1), 53-67. ISSN: 2371-2376 https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/rmh/article/view/31912.
17. Karakaş, M., & Gürhan, N. (2022). Validity and Reliability Study of the Healing Stages Scale in Individuals with Mental Illness. Value in Health Sciences, 12(2), 292-300. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.33631/sabd.1115218.
18. Karasar, N. (2024). Scientific Research Method. In: Validity and Reliability Methods, 39th edition Ankara 3A Research Education Consulting, ISBN: 978-605-5426-58-3.
19. Lau, S.W., Law, C.K. & Ng, S.M. (2023). Validation Of The Chinese Version Stage Of Recovery İnstrument-30 (STORI-30) For Adults With Severe Mental İllness. BMC Psychiatry, 4;23(1):485. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-023-04954-y.
20. Leonhardt, B.L., Huling, K., Hamm, J.A., Roe, D., Hasson-Ohayon, I., McLeod, H.J. & Lysaker, P.H. (2017). Recovery and serious mental illness: a review of current clinical and research paradigms and future directions. Expert Rev Neurother.17(11):1117-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737175.2017.1378099.
21. Öner, N. (2008). Examples of Psychological Tests Used in Turkey, 2nd ed. Istanbul, Boğaziçi Printing House, ISBN: 9786054238804.
22. Özdamar, K. (1997). Statistical Data Analysis with Package Programs. 5th edition Eskisehir. Kaan Bookstore, ISBN: 9789756787106.
23. Seçer, İ. (2021). Psychological test development and adaptation process. 3nd Edition. Ankara: Anı Publishing, ISBN : 9786051700144.
24. Senocak, S.U., Arslantaş, H., & Yüksel, R. (2019). A New Direction to Psychiatric Wellness: Recovery Oriented Approach. Journal of Archival Resource Review, 28(2):83-97. https://doi.org/10.17827/aktd.415053.
25. Tan, C. H. S., Ishak, R. B., Lim, T. X. G., Marimuthusamy, P., Kaurss, K., & Leong, J. Y. J. (2017). Illness management and recovery program for mental health problems: reducing symptoms and increasing social functioning. Journal of clinical nursing, 26(21-22), 3471-3485. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13712.
26. WHO (2013). Mental health action plan 2013-2020. Geneva: World Health Organization. (Access date and link:20.12.2024, https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241506021)
27. Yalçıner, N., Türkmen, S. N., Irmak, H., Tavşanlı, N. G., & Elma, F. (2019). The validity and reliability of the Recovery Process Inventory Turkish Form. Anatolian Journal of Psychiatry, 20( Annex 1), 32-40. https://doi.org/10.5455/apd.19601.
28. Yildiz, M., Erim, R., Soygur, H., Tural, U., Kiras, F., & Gules, E. (2018). Development And Validation Of The Subjective Recovery Assessment Scale For Patients With Schizophrenia. Psychiatry and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 28(2), 163-169. https://doi.org/10.1080/24750573.2017.1405579.