Aralıklı Kateterizasyon Uyum Ölçeği ve Aralıklı Kateterizasyon Zorluk Anketinin Türkçe Geçerlilik ve Güvenilirlik Çalışması

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı “Aralıklı Kateterizasyon Uyum Ölçeği” ve “Aralıklı Kateterizasyon Zorluk Anketi ”nin kültürlerarası Türkçe uyarlamasını yapmak, geçerlik ve güvenirliklerini incelemektir.Bu çalışma 105 hasta ile yürütülen metodolojik bir çalışmadır. Veriler “Tanımlayıcı Özellikler Formu”, “Aralıklı Kateterizasyon Uyum Ölçeği” ve “Aralıklı Kateterizasyon Zorluk Anketi” kullanılarak toplanmıştır. Omurilik yaralanması olan hastalar bu ölçekleri içeren bir anket formunu doldurmuşlardır. Her iki ölçeğin kapsam geçerlilik indeksi 0,80 ile 1 arasında değişmektedir. AK- Uyum Ölçeği nin Cronbach alfa değeri 0,73 (tekrar test, 0,93) ve AK-Zorluk Anketi 'nin Cronbach alfa değeri sıklık alt ölçeği için 0,82 (tekrar test, 0,92) ve yoğunluk alt ölçeği için 0,80 (tekrar test, 0,91) olarak bulunmuştur. IC-Adherence Ölçeği'nin Türkçe versiyonunun orijinal yapısında olduğu gibi tek boyuttan oluştuğu belirlenmiştir. IC-Adherence Ölçeğinin DFA modelinde RMSEA değeri 0,08; SRMR değeri 0,09; x2/df değeri 1,60; CFI değeri 0,98; TLI değeri 0,96 olarak bulunmuştur. “Aralıklı Kateterizasyon Uyum Ölçeği” ve “Aralıklı Kateterizasyon Zorluk Anketi’nin kültürel olarak Türkçe'ye uyarlanmıştır ve daha sonraki çalışmalarda kullanılmak üzere geçerli ve güvenilir görünmektedir. ,,,

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Aralıklı Kateterizasyon
• Geçerlilik
• Güvelinirlik
• Hasta Uyumu

Reliability and Validity Studies of Turkish Versions of Intermittent Catheterization Adherence Scale and Intermittent Catheterization Difficulty Questionnaire

Öz

This study aimed to perform the transcultural adaptation of the “Intermittent Catheterization Adherence Scale” and the “Intermittent Catheterization Difficulty Questionnaire” to Turkish language and analyze their validity and reliability.This is a methodological study conducted with 105 patients. The data were collected using a “Descriptive Characteristics Form”, the “Intermittent Catheterization Adherence Scale”, and the “Intermittent Catheterization Difficulty Questionnaire. The patients with chronic spinal cord injury who completed a survey form that included these scales. The content validity index of both scales was between 0.80 and 1. The Cronbach’s alpha of the Intermittent Catheterization Adherence Scale was 0.73 (re-test, 0.93), and the Cronbach’s alpha of the Intermittent Catheterization Difficulty Questionnaire was 0.82 (re-test, 0.92) for the frequency subscale and 0.80 (re-test, 0.91) for the intensity subscale. It was determined that the Turkish version of the Intermittent Catheterization Adherence Scale consisted of one dimension, as in its original structure. In the CFA model of the Intermittent Catheterization Adherence Scale, RMSEA value was 0.08; SRMR value was 0.09; x2/df value was 1.60; CFI value was 0.98; TLI value was 0.96. The Turkish versions of the “Intermittent Catheterization Adherence Scale” and the “Intermittent Catheterization Difficulty Questionnaire” were successfully culturally adapted to the Turkish language and seemed valid and reliable to be used in further studies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Intermittent Urethral Catheterization
• Patient Adherence
• Reliability
• Validity

Kaynakça

1. Anselmi, P., Colledani, D., Robusto, E. A comparison of classical and modern measures of internal consistency. Frontiers in psychology, 2019, 10: 2714.
2. Bardsley, A. Assessing and teaching female intermittent self-catheterization. Journal of Community Nursing. 2015;20(7): 344-346. DOI: 10.12968/bjcn.2015.20.7.344.
3. Batista-Miranda JE, Martínez P, Bassas-Parga, A. Decreasing frequency pattern in patients with clean intermittent catheterization for bladder voiding dysfunction. Archivos espanoles de urologia .2014; 67(10):831-838.Spanish.
4. Brown TA. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York (NY): Guilford publications; 2015.
5. Bull C, Byrnes J, Hettiarachchi R, M Downes. A systematic review of the validity and reliability of patient‐reported experience measures. Health Services Research. 2019;54.5: 1023-1035. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.13187
6. Büyüköztürk Ş, Kılıç-Çakmak E, Akgün Ö, Karadeniz Ş, Demirel F. Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (25 th ed.). Ankara,Turkish. 2008; 1-360.
7. Cameron AP, Wallner LP, Tate DG. Bladder management after spinal cord injury in the United States 1972 to 2005. The Journal of urology. 2010;184(1):213-217. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.03.008.
8. Cobussen‐Boekhorst H, Beekman J, van Wijlick E, Schaafstra J, van Kuppevelt D, Heesakkers J. Which factors make clean intermittent (self) catheterisation successful?. Journal of clinical nursing. 2016;25(9-10): 1308-1318. DOI: 10.1111/jocn.13187.

9. Çulha, Y., & Acaroğlu, R. Validity and reliability of Turkish version of Self Confidence Scale in Clean Intermittent Self Catheterization. Çukurova Medical Journal. 2020; 45(4), 1690-1697. doi: 10.17826/cumj.780942
10. Davis LL.Instrument review: getting the most from a panel of experts. Appl Nurs Res 1992;5(4):194‐197. https://doi.org/10. 1016/S0897-1897(05)80008-4
11. Dorsher PT, McIntosh PT. "Neurogenic Bladder", Advances in Urology, vol. 2012, ArticleID 816274, 16 pages, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/816274
12. Engberg S, Clapper J, McNichol L, D Thompson, VW Welch, M Gray. Current evidence related to intermittent catheterization: a scoping review. Journal of Wound Ostomy & Continence Nursing. 2020;47(2):140-165. DOI: 10.1097/WON.0000000000000625.
13. Galeoto G, Marquez MA, Ottone L, Sellitto G, Panuccio F, Gonzalez-Bernal J, Tofan M, Berardi A. Intermittent Catheterization Adherence Scale (ICAS): Italian translation, cultural adaptation and validation. Signa Vitae. 2022. 18(2);56-62. DOI: 10.22514/sv.2021.145
14. Ghroubi S, Chmak J, Borgi O, N El Fani, S El Arem, MH Elleuch. Translation and validation of the Intermittent Catheterisation Difficulty Questionnaire (ICDQ) in an Arabic population. Arab Journal Of Urology. 2020;18(1):22-26. DOI:10.1080/2090598X.2019.1694762.
15. Girotti ME, MacCornic S, Perissé H. Determining the variables associated to clean intermittent self-catheterization adherence rate: one-year follow-up study. International Braz J Urol. 2011;37:766-772. DOI: 10.1590/s1677-55382011000600013.
16. Guinet‐Lacoste A, Jousse M, Tan E, Caillebot M, Le Breton F, Amarenco G. Intermittent catheterization difficulty questionnaire (ICDQ): A new tool for the evaluation of patient difficulties with clean intermittent self‐catheterization. Neurourology and urodynamics. 2016; 35(1), 85-89.
17. Guinet‐Lacoste A, Charlanes A, Chesnel C, E Blouet, E Tan, F Le Breton, G Amarenco. Intermittent Catheterization Adherence Scale (ICAS): a new tool for the evaluation of patient adherence with clean intermittent self‐catheterization. Neurourology and Urodynamics. 2018;37(8):2753-2757. DOI: 10.1002/nau.23746.
18. Hervé F, Ragolle I, Amarencob G, A Viaene, A Guinet-Lacoste, V Bonniaud, K Everaert. Assessment of intermittent self-catheterization procedures in patients with neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction: Dutch translation and validation of the intermittent catheterization satisfaction questionnaire, intermittent catheterization acceptance test, intermittent self catheterization questionnaire and intermittent catheterization difficulty questionnaire. Urologia Internationalis. 2019;102.(4):476-481. https://doi.org/10.1159/000499884
19. Karakoç A, Dönmez L. Basic Principles Of Scale Development. The World of Medical Education.2014; 13(40): 39-49.Turkish.
20. Kelly L, Spencer S, Barrett G. Using intermittent self-catheters: experiences of people with neurological damage to their spinal cord. Disability and Rehabilitation. 2014;36(3): 220-226.
21. Le Danseur M, Stutzman SE, Wilson J, I Sislak, DWM Olson. Is the CABIC clean intermittent catheterization patient education effective?. Rehabilitation Nursing 2018;43(1):40-45. DOI:10.1002/rnj.306
22. Motavasseli D, Chesnel C, Charlanes A, Menoux D, Charoenwong F, Le Breton F, Amarenco G. Adherence to anticholinergic therapy and clean intermittent self-catheterization in patients with multiple sclerosis. International Neurourology Journal. 2018;22(2): 133. DOI: 10.5213/inj.1836054.027.
23. Newman DK, Willson MM. Review of intermittent catheterization and current best practices. Urologic nursing. 2011;31(1). DOI:10.7257/1053-816X.2012.31.1.12
24. Ozcelik, D., & Buyukgonenc, L. (2024). Nursing Care Of An Elderly Person With Hip Fracture Due To Fall According To Faye Abdellah and 21 Nursing Problem Theory: A Case Report. Journal of Health Care and Rehabilitation, 2(3), 9-20.
25. Pinder B, Lloyd AJ, Elwick H, Denys P, Marley J, Bonniaud V. Development and psychometric validation of the intermittent self-catheterization questionnaire. Clin Ther. 2012;.34:2302–2313. DOI: 10.23736/S0393-2249.16.02744-2.
26. Seth JH, Haslam C, Panicker JN. Ensuring patient adherence to clean intermittent self-catheterization. Patient Preference And Adherence. 2014;8:191. DOI: 10.2147/PPA.S49060.
27. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using Multivariate Statistics (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn& Bacon. 2001
28. Taber KS. The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research In Science Education. 2018; 48.6: 1273-1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2.
29. Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. Int J Med Educ. 2011. 27;2:53-55. Doi: 10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd.
30. World Health Organization (WHO). (2017). Process of translation and adaptation of instruments. Retrieved from http://www. who. int/substance_abuse/research_tools
31. Yeşil H, Akkoc Y, Yıldız N, FA Calıs, A İnceoğlu, R Isık, EF Yıldız. Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the intermittent self-catheterization questionnaire in patients with spinal cord injury. International Urology and Nephrology. 2020;52(8):1437-1442. DOI: 10.1007/s11255-020-02445-7