The Adaptation of Inpatient Dignity Scale Into Turkish: A Validity and Reliability Study

Öz

In this study, it is aimed to analyze whether the Turkish form of “Inpatient Dignity Scale” is a valid and reliable tool to measure the expectations and satisfaction of the patients related to dignity in their daily care. This is a methodological study. The population of the study includes 2.646 patients receiving inpatient treatment between the dates of January-February 2021. 26 of the patients were in psychiatry, 1.123 in internal medicine and 1.497 in surgical departments. Stratified sampling method was used to determine how many patients would be included from the clinics, and random sampling method was used in the selection of the patients. The construct validity of the scale was measured by confirmatory factor analysis, internal consistency by Cronbach alpha coefficient and test-retest reliability by Intraclass Correlation Coefficient. DFA regression coefficients and corrected item-total correlation values were as follows respectively: 0.79-0.93 and 0.66-0.88 for expectation, and between 0.57-0.89, 0.57-0.77 for satisfaction. Cronbach alpha index was 0.97 for expectation and 0.94 for satisfaction. The test-retest reliability overall ICC value of the scale was 0.99 for expectation and 0.96 for satisfaction. Model fit indices were in the acceptable interval: χ2/df=2.88, CFI=0.96, RMSEA=0.08 for expectation and χ2/df=2.71, CFI=0.91, RMSEA=0.09 for satisfaction. As a result of the study, it has been revealed that Inpatient Dignity Scale is a valid and reliable assessment tool that can be used in the evaluation of the expectations and satisfaction levels of the patients hospitalized in Turkey regarding dignity in daily care.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Inpatient
• physician
• nurse
• dignity
• scale adaptation

Yatan Hasta Haysiyeti Ölçeğinin Türkçeye Uyarlanması: Geçerlilik ve Güvenilirlik Çalışması

Öz

Bu çalışmada, “Yatan Hasta Haysiyeti Ölçeği” Türkçe formunun hastaların günlük bakımda haysiyet ile ilgili beklentilerini ve memnuniyetlerini ölçmek için geçerli ve güvenilir bir araç olup olmadığının incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Çalışma metodolojik tiptedir. Araştırmanın evrenini Ocak-Şubat 2021 tarihlerinde yatarak tedavi gören 2.646 hasta oluşturmuştur. Hastaların 26’sı psikiyatri, 1.123’ü dahili ve 1.497’si cerrahi bölümlerin kliniklerindedir. Kliniklerden kaçar hasta alınacağı tabakalı örnekleme; hastaların seçiminde ise basit rasgele örnekleme yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Ölçeğin yapı geçerliliği doğrulayıcı faktör analiziyle, iç tutarlılığı Cronbach alfa katsayısıyla ve test-tekrar test güvenilirliği Intraclass Correlation Coefficient ile ölçülmüştür. DFA standardize regresyon katsayıları ile düzeltilmiş madde-toplam korelasyonu değerleri sırasıyla; beklenti için 0.79-0.93, 0.66-0.88; memnuniyet için 0.57-0.89, 0.57-0.77 arasındadır. Cronbach alfa indeksi beklenti için 0.97 ve memnuniyet için 0.94’dür. Ölçeğin test tekrar test güvenilirliği genel ICC değeri beklenti için 0.99 ve memnuniyet için 0.96’dır. Model uyum indeksleri kabul edilebilir aralık içindedir: Beklenti için χ2/df=2.88, CFI=0.96, RMSEA=0.08; memnuniyet için, χ2/df=2.71, CFI=0.91, RMSEA=0.09. Araştırmada, Yatan Hasta Haysiyeti Ölçeği’nin Türkiye’deki hastanelerde yatan hastaların günlük bakımda haysiyetle ilgili beklenti ve memnuniyet düzeylerinin değerlendirilmesinde kullanılabilecek geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğu ortaya konmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yatan hasta
• hekim
• hemşire
• haysiyet
• ölçek uyarlama

Kaynakça

1. 1. Jacobson N. Dignity and health: a review. Soc Sci Med 2007;64(2):292-302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.08.039
2. 2. Shotton L, Seedhouse D. Practical dignity in caring. Nurs Ethics 1998;5(3):246-55. https://doi.org/10.1177/096973309800500308
3. 3. Mains ED. Concept clarification in professional practice: dignity. J Adv Nurs 1994;19(5):947-53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.1994.tb01173.x
4. 4. Haddock J. Towards further clarification of the concept of ‘dignity’. J Adv Nurs 1996;24(5):924-31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.1996.tb02927.x
5. 5. Transvåg O, Synnes O, McSherry W. Stories of dignity within healthcare: research, narratives and theories. Nurs Stand 2017;31(20):30. https://doi.org/10.7748/ns.31.20.30.s36
6. 6. Fenton E, Mitchell T. Growing old with dignity: a concept analysis. Nurs Older People 2002;14(4):19-21. https://doi.org/10.7748/nop2002.06.14.4.19.c2212
7. 7. Baillie L. Patient dignity in an acute hospital setting: A case study. Int J Nurs Stud 2009;46(1):23-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2008.08.003
8. 8. Turnock C, Kelleher M. Maintaining patient dignity in intensive care settings. Intensive Crit Care Nurs 2001;17(3):144-154. https://doi.org/10.1054/iccn.2000.1562

9. 9. Chochinov HM. Dying, dignity, and new horizons in palliative end-of-life care. CA Cancer J Clin 2006;56(2):84-103. https://doi.org/10.3322/canjclin.56.2.84
10. 10. Geyman JP. Dying and death of a family member. J Fam Pract 1983;17(1):125-134.
11. 11. Rousseau P. Death with dignity: is there such a thing? J Pain Symptom Manage 2017;54(6):936-937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2017.06.009
12. 12. Danbury CM, Waldmann CS. Ethics and law in the intensive care unit. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 2006;20(4):598-603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpa.2006.10.002
13. 13. Ohlén J. Violation of dignity in care-related situations. Res Theory Nurs Pract 2004;18(4):371-385. https://doi.org/10.1891/rtnp.18.4.371.64088
14. 14. Matiti MR. Patient dignity in nursing: a phenomenological study. Thesis. University of Huddersfield 2002.
15. 15. Magee H, Parsons S, Askham J. Measuring dignity in care for older people: a research report for help the aged. Oxford, UK: Picker Institute; 2008; Date of access 01 June 2021. https://www.communitycare.co.uk/2009/01/09/research-realities-measuring-dignity-in-care-for-older-people/
16. 16. Anderberg P, Lepp M, Berglund AL, Segesten K. Preserving dignity in caring for older adults: a concept analysis. J Adv Nurs 2007;59(6):635-643. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04375.x
17. 17. Jacelon CS, Dixon J, Knafl KA. Development of the attributed dignity scale. Res Gerontol Nurs 2009;2(3):202-13. https://doi.org/10.3928/19404921-20090421-03
18. 18. Chochinov HM, Hassard T, McClement S, et al. The Patient Dignity Inventory: a novel way of measuring dignity-related distress in palliative care. J Pain Symptom Manag 2008;36(6):559-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2007.12.018
19. 19. Ota K, Yahiro M, Eguchi A, et al. Towards creating an International Patient Dignity Scale: the development of a Japanese version as the first step. In: The 13th International Nursing Ethics Conference; 4th e 6th October; 2012; International Conference of Nursing Ethics, Izmir, Turkey. http://hemarge.org.tr/haber/13_uluslararasi_hemsirelikte_etik_kongresi_-3.html
20. 20. Ota K, Maeda J, Gallagher A, et al. Development of the Inpatient Dignity Scale Through Studies in Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom. Asian Nursing Research 2019;13(1):76-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anr.2019.01.008
21. 21. Floyd FJ, Widaman KF. Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychol Assess 1995;7(3):286-99. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.286
22. 22. Jöreskog KG, Sörbom D. (1996). LISREL-8 user's reference guide. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific International.
23. 23. Lluch-Canut T, Puig-Llobet M, Sánchez-Ortega A, Roldán-Merino J, Ferré-Grau C. Assessing posi-tive mental health in people with chronic physical health problems: correlations with socio-demogra-phic variables and physical health status. BMC Public Health 2013;13(1):928. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-928
24. 24. Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology 1975;28(4):563-575.
25. 25. Ayre C, Scally AJ. Critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio. Revisiting the original methods of calculation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development 2014;47(1):79-86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175613513808.
26. 26. Veneziano L, Hooper J. A method for quantifying content validity of health-related questionnaires. Am J Health Behav 1997;21(1):67-70.
27. 27. Kline RB. (2016). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. 4th Ed. New York, Londan, The Guilford Press, 188-336.
28. 28. Hair Jr JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. (2013). Multivariate data analysis. 7th ed. Nova Jersey: Pearson Education Limited.
29. 29. Crocker L, Algina J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Ohio (ABD): Cengage Learning press, 287-477.
30. 30. Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of cronbach’s alpha. Int J Med Educ 2011;2:53-55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd.
31. 31. Özdamar K. (1999). Paket Programlar ile İstatistiksel Veri Analizi I. Eskişehir, Kaan Kitabevi.
32. 32. Büyüköztürk Ş. (2007). Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El Kitabı. Sekizinci baskı, Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık.
33. 33. Er Ü. (2019). Sağlık Hukuku. 2. Baskı, Ankara, Savaş Kitabevi.
34. 34. Berna A, Şahinoğlu PS. (1995). Tıbbi Etik: Tanımı, İçeriği, Yöntemi ve Başlıca Konuları. Ankara Tıp Mecmuası, 48:323.