Vajinal Doğuma İlişkin Öz Yeterlik Ölçeği Türkçe Versiyonunun Geçerlik ve Güvenirliği: Metodolojik Bir Çalışma

Abstract

Amaç: Araştırmanın amacı Vajinal Doğuma İlişkin Öz-yeterlik Ölçeği'nin Türkçe geçerlik ve güvenirliğini test etmektir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Metodolojik tipteki çalışma, bir üniversite hastanesinde 165 gebe kadın ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Veriler "Kişisel Bilgi Formu", "Vajinal Doğuma Öz Yeterlilik Ölçeği" ve "Doğum Öz Yeterlilik Ölçeği - Kısa Formu" kullanılarak toplanmıştır. Ölçeğin geçerliliğini test etmek amacıyla dil geçerliliği, içerik geçerliliği, doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ve ölçüt bağımlılık geçerliliği yapılmıştır. Ölçeğin güvenirliği madde-toplam korelasyonu, Cronbach alfa katsayısı, iki yarı test yöntemi ve test-tekrar test analizi kullanılarak değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular: Ölçeğin kapsam geçerlilik indeksi 0,80'in üzerinde bulunmuştur. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizinde uyum iyiliği indekslerinin tamamı kabul edilebilir değerlere sahiptir. Madde-toplam korelasyonları her bir madde için 0,167 ile 0,809 arasında değişmekte olup, ölçek toplamı ile pozitif yönde ilişkili olduğu belirledi. Uzmanların önerileri doğrultusunda ölçekten herhangi bir madde çıkartılmadı. Ölçeğin 9 madde olarak tek faktör altında toplandığı belirlendi. Ölçeğin iki yarısı arasındaki korelasyon 0,76, Spearman-Brown katsayısı 0,86 ve Gutmann Split-Half katsayısı 0,85'tir. Ölçeğin geneli için hesaplanan Cronbach alfa katsayısı 0,87 olarak bulundu. Maddelerin toplam korelasyonu ve test-tekrar test korelasyonu 0,924 ile yüksek güvenilirlik gösterdi (p<0,05). Sonuç: Bu çalışmanın sonucunda Vajinal Doğuma İlişkin Öz Yeterlilik Ölçeği'nin Türkçe versiyonu geçerli ve güvenilirdir.

Keywords

• ölçek
• öz-yeterlik
• geçerlik
• vajinal doğum
• güvenirlik

Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of the Self-Efficacy Regarding Vaginal Birth Scale: A Methodological Study

Abstract

Aim: The aim of the study was to test validity and reliability of the Self-efficacy Regarding Vaginal Birth Scale in Turkish. Material and Methods: The methodological study was conducted in a university hospital with 165 pregnant women. The data were collected using "Personal Information Form", "Self-Efficacy Regarding Vaginal Birth Scale and "Childbirth Self-Efficacy Inventory - Short Form". Language validity, content validity, confirmatory factor analyse and criterion-dependence validity and were performed to test the validity of the scale. The scale’s reliability was assessed using the item-total correlation, Cronbach’s alpha, split-half test method and test-retest analysis. Results: The scale content validity index was found above 0.80. In the confirmatory factor analysis, all the goodness of fit indexes had acceptable values. Item-total correlations ranged between 0.167 and 0.809 for each item and were positively correlated with the scale total. In line with the recommendations of experts, no items were removed from the scale. It was determined that the scale was collected under one factor as 9 items. The correlation between the two halves of the scale is 0.76, the Spearman-Brown coefficient is 0.86, and the Gutmann Split-Half coefficient is 0.85. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient calculated for the overall scale was 0.87. The total correlation of the items and the test-retest correlation showed high reliability with 0.924 (p<0.05). Conclusion: As a result of this study, the Turkish language version of the Self-Efficacy Regarding Vaginal Birth Scale is valid and reliable.

Keywords

• Reliability
• scale
• self-efficacy
• validity
• vaginal birth

References

1. De Caroli ME, Sagone E. The experience of pre-and post-partum in relation to support, stress, and parenthood representation. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2014; 116: 697-702.
2. Rathfish G. Philosophy of natural birth: Millions of years adventure that took place, 1th edn. Istanbul: Nobel Medical Bookstore, 2018.
3. Fink G. (ed). Childbirth and Stress. In: Stress: Concepts, Cognition, Emotion, and Behavior: Handbook of Stress Series, vols 1. Australia: Academic Press. 2016; 325-29.
4. Bortie PNA, Ewusie EA. Cultural Dimension of Birth and Stress Outcome. CEMJP. 2023; 31(4): 433-9.
5. Barimani M, Frykedal KF, Rosander M, Berlin A. Childbirth and parenting preparation in antenatal classes. Midwifery. 2018; 57: 1-7.
6. Susanto H, Sawitri DR, Thaufik S. The effect of antenatal class plus coping skill training on the level of stress and childbirth self-efficacy. Adv Sci Lett. 2017; 23(4): 3329-33.
7. Bilgin NÇ, Coşkun H, Potur DC, Aydın Eİ, Uca E. Psychosocial predictors of the fear of childbirth in Turkish pregnant women. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2020; 2: 1-9.
8. Shakarami A, Mirghafourvand M, Abdolalipour S, Jafarabadi MA, Iravani M. Comparison of fear, anxiety and self-efficacy of childbirth among primiparous and multiparous women. BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2021; 21(1): 1-9.

9. Dwiarini M, Chou H, Gau ML, Liu CY. Relationship between fear of childbirth, self-efficacy, and length of labor among nulliparous women in Indonesia. Midwifery. 2022; 105: 103203.
10. Sanchez-Cunqueiro MJ, Comeche MI, Docampo D. On the relation of self-efficacy and coping with the experience of childbirth. J Nurs Educ Pract. 2018; 8(6): 48-55.
11. Matinnia N, Haghighi M, Jahangard L, Ibrahim FB, Rahman HA, Ghaleiha A, et al. Further evidence of psychological factors underlying choice of elective cesarean delivery (ECD) by primigravidae. Braz J Psychiatry. 2018: 40(1): 83-8.
12. Carlsson M, Ziegert K, Nissen E. The relationship between childbirth self-efficacy and aspects of well-being, birth interventions and birth outcomes. Midwifery. 2015; 31(10): 1000-7.
13. Duncan LG, Cohn MA, Chao MT, Cook JG, Riccobono J, Bardacke N. Benefits of preparing for childbirth with mindfulness training: a randomized controlled trial with active comparison. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017; 17(1): 1-11.
14. Bell AF, Andersson E. The birth experience and women's postnatal depression: A systematic review. Midwifery. 2016; 39: 112-23.
15. de Graaff LF, Honig A, van Pampus MG, Stramrood CA. Preventing post‐traumatic stress disorder following childbirth and traumatic birth experiences: a systematic review. Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica. 2018; 97(6): 648-56.
16. Storksen HT, Garthus-Niegel S, Adams SS, Vangen S, Eberhard-Gran M. Fear of childbirth and elective caesarean section: a population-based study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015; 15(1): 1-10.
17. Cattani L, De Maeyer L, Verbakel JY, Bosteels J, Deprest J. Predictors for sexual dysfunction in the first year postpartum: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 2022; 129(7): 1017-28.
18. Piadeh Zavardehi Z, Faramarzi M, Mirzaeian B. Quality of Mother–Infant Attachment after Physiological Birth. Int J Pediatr. 2018; 6(7): 7929-36.
19. Beck CT. The Impact of Traumatic Childbirth on Women’s Breastfeeding Experiences. Clinical Lactation. 2022; 13(1): 54-9.
20. Melendez CT, March AL, Cunningham C. Improving perioperative knowledge, self-efficacy, and performance in labor and delivery nurses: A quality improvement project. J Nurses Prof Dev. 2019; 35(4): 9-14.
21. Esin MN. Data collection methods and tools & reliability and validity of data collection tools. In: Erdoğan S, Nahcivan N, Esin MN, editors. Research in nursing, process, application and critical, Istanbul: Nobel Medical Bookstores; 2017.p.193-233.
22. Ersoy Y. The childbirth of self-efficacy scale validity and reliability study (dissertation). Antalya: Akdeniz Univ. 2011.
23. Chu KH, Chen AC, Tai CJ, Chen SF, Chien LY. Development and validation of the self-efficacy regarding vaginal birth scale. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2017; 46(1): 13-21.
24. Lowe NK. Maternal confidence for labor: Development of the childbirth self‐efficacy inventory. Res Nurs Health. 1993; 16(2): 141-9.
25. Ip WY, Chung TK, Tang CS. The Chinese childbirth self‐efficacy inventory: The development of a short form. J Clin Nurs. 2008; 17(3): 333-40.
26. Brislin RW. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. J Cross-Cultural Psychology. 1970; 1(3): 185-216.
27. Yusoff MSB. ABC of content validation and content validity index calculation. Resource. 2019; 11(2): 49-54.
28. Almanasreh E, Moles R, Chen TF. Evaluation of methods used for estimating content validity. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2019; 15(2): 214-21.
29. Kılıç S. Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient. Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences. 2016; 6(1): 47-8.
30. IBM Corp. Released 2016. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 24.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
31. Alpar R. Applied Statistics and Validity-Reliability with Examples from Sports. Health and Educational Sciences, 6th edn. Ankara: Detay Publishing, 2018.
32. Atılgan H, Kan A, Aydin B. Measurement and evaluation in education, 11th edn. Ankara: Anı Publishing, 2017.
33. Karakoç FY, Dönmez L. Basic principles of scale development. Medical Education World. 2014; 13(40): 39-49.
34. Yaşlıoğlu MM. Factor analysis and validity in social sciences: Application of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Istanbul University Journal of the School of Business, Special Issue. 2017; 46: 74-85.
35. Watkins MW. Exploratory factor analysis: A guide to best practice. J Black Psychol. 2018; 44(3): 219-46.
36. Çokluk Ö, Şekercioğlu G, Büyüköztürk Ş. Multivariate statistics for the social sciences: SPSS and LISREL applications, 5th edn. Ankara: Pegem Publishing, 2018.
37. Bardhoshi G, Erford BT. Processes and procedures for estimating score reliability and precision. Meas Eval Couns Dev. 2017; 50(4): 256-63.
38. Uzunsakal E, Yıldız D. A comparison of reliability tests in field researches and an application on agricultural data. J Appl Soc Sci. 2018; 2(1): 14-28.
39. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2017; 15(2): 155-63.