Analysis of the Psychometric Properties of the Siblings’ Experience Quality Scale for Individuals with Siblings with Special Needs: 12-18-Year-Old Adolescents Form

Abstract

Objective: This study was conducted to perform the Turkish validity and reliability study of the siblings’ experience quality scale (SEQS) for healthy siblings who were aged between 12 and 18 and had a sibling with special needs. Materials and Methods: Our study was carried out with healthy siblings of students enrolled in two special education and application schools in a province in the west of Türkiye. Validity and reliability stages were carried out, and experts were consulted. Shapiro-Wilk normality test, content validity index, Pearson correlation analysis, Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient, confirmatory factor analysis, McDonald’s omega test, and t-test were employed in the analysis. Results: Of the participants, 59% were female, 58% had high school education, and 63% had siblings with intellectual disabilities. The mean age of the participants was 14.87±2.06. The scale explained 58.8% of the total variance. It was found that the omega reliability coefficient for the overall scale was 0.85 and that the fit indices obtained as a result of CFA were X2=262.28, df=128, X2/df=2.04, RMSEA=0.073, GFI=0.88, IFI=0.89, NFI=0.80, TLI=0.86, CFI=0.88, RFI=0.76, and AGFI=0.843. The Turkish version of the SEQS was proven to be reliable and valid for the 12-18 age group. Conclusion: The Turkish version of the SEQS was proven to be reliable and valid for the 12-18 age group.

Keywords

• Children with special needs
• Sibling relationships
• Adolescent
• Validity and reliability
• Adjustment

References

1. Marquis S, McGrail K, Hayes M V. Using administrative data to examine variables affecting the mental health of siblings of children who have a developmental disability. Res Dev Disabil. 2020;96(October 2019):103516. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2019.103516
2. WHO. Disability and Health. Published 2018. Accessed May 28, 2020. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/disability-and-health
3. T.R. Ministry of Family and Social Services. Disabled and Elderly Statistics Bulletin.; 2023. https://www.aile.gov.tr/sss/engelli-ve-yasli-hizmetleri-genel-mudurlugu/egitim/
4. Graff C, Mandleco B, Dyches TT, Coverston CR, Roper SO, Freeborn D. Perspectives of adolescent siblings of children with Down syndrome who have multiple health problems. J Fam Nurs. 2012;18(2):175-199. doi:10.1177/1074840712439797
5. Karadağ G. Challenges and solution of parents have child with special needs. TAF Prev Med Bull. 2014;13(6):491-494. doi:10.5455/pmb.1-1389682796
6. O’Neill LP, Murray LE. Anxiety and depression symptomatology in adult siblings of individuals with different developmental disability diagnoses. Res Dev Disabil. 2016;51-52:116-125. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2015.12.017
7. Sommantico M, Parrello S, De Rosa B. Adult siblings of people with and without intellectual and developmental disabilities: Sibling relationship attitudes and psychosocial outcomes. Res Dev Disabil. 2020;99(September 2019):103594. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2020.103594
8. Fullerton JM, Totsika V, Hain R, Hastings RP. Siblings of children with life-limiting conditions: psychological adjustment and sibling relationships. Child Care Health Dev. 2017;43(3):393-400. doi:10.1111/cch.12421

9. Official Gazette. Regulation on changes in nursing regulations. 2011. https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2011/04/20110419-5.htm
10. Yersel BÖ, Durualp E, Baran G. A Qualitative study evaluating the relationship of typically developing children with their hearing-impaired siblings. J Ankara Heal Sci. Published online 2019:107-118. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ausbid/issue/50617/581377
11. Kaya S, Özel A, Yiğit R. The Impact of the situation of a child with special needs on siblings. Kirsehir Ahi Evran Univ J Heal Sci Inst. 2020;1(2):81-90. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ahievransaglik/issue/65266/1004322
12. Küçüker S. Engelli olmayan kardeşlerin zihinsel engellilik hakkındaki bilgi düzeyleri ve zihinsel engelli kardeşlerine yönelik tutumları üzerinde bilgilendirici danışmanlık programının etkileri. Doktora tezi. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi; 1997.
13. Güngör D. A Guide to scale development and adaptation in psychology. Turkish Psychol Artic. 2016;19(38):104-112. https://www.psikolog.org.tr/tr/yayinlar/dergiler/1031828/tpy1301996120160000m000041.pdf
14. Sommantico M, Parrello S, De Rosa B. Sibling relationships, disability, chronic, and mental illness: Development of the Siblings’ Experience Quality Scale (SEQS). J Dev Phys Disabil. Published online January 28, 2020. doi:10.1007/s10882-020-09730-4
15. Alpar R. Applied Statistics and Validity-Reliability. 4th ed. Detay Publishing; 2020.
16. Şencan H. Validity and Reliability in Social and Behavioral Measurements. 1st editio. Seçkin Publishing; 2005.
17. Şimşek ÖF. Introduction to Structural Equation Modeling, LISREL Fundamental Principles and Practices. Ekinoks; 2007.
18. Taherdoost H. Validity and reliability of the research instrument; how to test the validation of a questionnaire/survey in a research. Int J Acad Res Manag. 2016;5(3):28-36. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3205040
19. Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989;13(3):319-340.
20. DeVellis R. Scale Development : Theory and Applications. 3rd ed. SAGE Publisher; 2012.
21. Johnson B, Christensen L. Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches. 3rd ed. Sage Publication; 2007.
22. Hayran M, Hayran M. Basic Btatistics for Health Surveys. 1st. ed. Art Ofset Publication; 2011.
23. Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34-42. doi:10.1016/J.JCLINEPI.2006.03.012
24. Tabachnick BG, Fidell L s. Using Multivariative Statistics. 2nd editio. Pearson; 2013.
25. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model A Multidiscip J. 1999;6(1):1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
26. Johanson GA, Brooks GP. Initial scale development: Sample size for pilot studies. Educ Psychol Meas. 2010;70(3):394-400. doi:10.1177/0013164409355692
27. Shi D, Lee T, Maydeu-Olivares A. Understanding the model size effect on SEM fit indices. Educ Psychol Meas. 2019;79(2):310-334. doi:10.1177/0013164418783530
28. Hayran O. Sağlık Bilimlerinde Araştırma ve İstatistik Yöntemler. 1st ed. Nobel Tıp Kitabevi; 2012.
29. Hayes AF, Coutts JJ. Use omega rather than Cronbach’s alpha for estimating reliability. But…. Commun Methods Meas. 2020;14(1):1-24. doi:10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629
30. Rattray J, Jones MC. Essential elements of questionnaire design and development. J Clin Nurs. 2007;16(2):234-243. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01573.x
31. Sommantico M, Parrello S, De Rosa B. Sibling relationships, disability, chronic, and mental illness: Development of the Siblings’ Experience Quality Scale (SEQS). J Dev Phys Disabil. Published online January 2020. doi:10.1007/s10882-020-09730-4