Kanserle Mücadelede Kadınların Öz-Savunuculuğu Ölçeği’nin Türkçe Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Öz

Amaç: Kanser tanısı alan kadınların kanserle mücadele sürecinde sağlığının ve yaşam kalitesinin iyileştirilmesi için gerekli müdahale ve desteğin sağlanması önemlidir. Bu bakımdan öncelikle kanserle mücadelede öz-savunuculuk düzeyi düşük kadınlar belirlenmelidir. Çalışmada bu amaçla kullanılabilecek Kanserle Mücadelede Kadınların Öz-Savunuculuğu Ölçeği (KÖSÖ)’nin Türkçe geçerlik ve güvenirliğinin değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Yöntem: Metodolojik tipteki bu çalışma 1 Aralık 2023 – 1 Haziran 2024 tarihleri aralığında tıbbi onkoloji ve jinekolojik onkoloji kliniklerinde yürütülmüştür. Çalışmaya invaziv kanser tanısı alan 200 kadın katılmıştır. Veriler bireysel bilgi formu, KÖSÖ, Kanser Güçlendirme Ölçeği (KGÖ) ve Kansere Tepki Tarzı Ölçeği (KTTÖ) kullanılarak toplanmıştır. Ölçek geçerliği dil, kapsam, yapı, kriter ve bilinen grup geçerliği yöntemleriyle; ölçek güvenirliği ise Cronbach alfa ve McDonald omega değerlerinin hesaplanmasıyla değerlendirilmiştir. Tanımlayıcı istatistikler frekans analizi, ölçek geçerlik güvenirliği Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA), Pearson korelasyon analizi, ortalama karşılaştırma testleri kullanılarak incelenmiştir. Bulgular: Ölçeğin Kapsam Geçerlik İndeksi 0,78 olup, kapsam geçerliği sağlanmıştır. DFA sonuçlarına göre ölçek üç faktör (Bilinçli karar verici olma, İlişki kurmanın gücü ve Sağlık çalışanlarıyla iletişim) altında toplanmıştır ve tüm maddelerin anlamlı faktör yüklerine sahip olduğu belirlenmiştir. Ölçeğe ait uyum indekslerine göre model doğrulanmıştır. Ölçeğin Cronbach alfa ve McDonald omega değerleri sırasıyla 0,89 ve 0,92 olup, yüksek güvenirliğe sahip olduğu belirlenmiştir. Ölçek maddelerinin düzeltilmiş madde-toplam korelasyonları yüksek bulunmuştur. KÖSÖ, KGÖ, KTTÖ ve bu ölçeklerin alt boyutları arasında güçlü anlamlı korelasyon olduğunu gösteren katsayılar ölçeğin kriter geçerliğini kanıtlamıştır. Ölçek yüksek-düşük eğitim seviyesine sahip, metastazı olan-olmayan ve kadın cinsiyete özgü kanser türüne sahip olan-olmayanlar arasında öz-savunuculuk becerilerindeki farklılıkları başarılı bir şekilde tespit etmiştir. Sonuç: KÖSÖ’nün Türkçe versiyonu kanser tanısı alan Türk kadınlarının öz-savunuculuğunun değerlendirilmesinde kullanılabilecek geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçüm aracıdır."

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kanser
• kadın
• öz-savunuculuk
• ölçek
• geçerlik
• güvenirlik

The Turkish Validity and Reliability Study of Female Self-Advocacy in Cancer Survivorship Scale

Öz

Aim: It is important to provide the necessary intervention and support to improve the health and quality of life of women with cancer during the fight against cancer. In this regard, first of all, women with low self-advocacy levels in the fight against cancer should be determined. This study aimed to evaluate the Turkish validity and reliability of the Female Self-Advocacy in Cancer Survivorship (FSACS) Scale, which can be used for this purpose. Methods: This methodological study was conducted in medical and gynecologic oncology clinics between December 1, 2023 and June 1, 2024. The study included 200 women diagnosed with invasive cancer. The data were collected using the individual information form, the FSACS Scale, the Cancer Empowerment Scale (CES) and the Mental Adjustment to Cancer (MAC) Scale. Scale validity was assessed by language, content, construct, criterion and known group validity methods; scale reliability was evaluated by calculating Cronbach's alpha and McDonald’s omega values. Descriptive statistics were analyzed using frequency analysis, and scale validity and reliability were analyzed using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), correlation analysis, and mean comparison tests. Results: The scale's Content Validity Index was 0,78 and content validity was confirmed. According to the CFA results, the scale was categorized under three factors (Being an informed decision maker, Connected strength, and Communicating with my health care providers), and all items had significant factor loadings. The model was validated according to the fit indexes. The Cronbach's alpha and McDonald’s omega values were 0,89 and 0,92, respectively. The scale was high reliable. The corrected item-total correlations of the items were high. Coefficients indicating strong and significant correlations between the FSACS Scale, the CES, the MAC and their subscales provided evidence of criterion validity. The scale successfully determined differences in self-advocacy skills between those with high-low levels of education, with-without metastases, and with-without women gender-specific cancer type. Conclusion: The Turkish version of the FSACS Scale is a valid and reliable measurement that can be used to assess the self-advocacy of Turkish women with cancer.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Cancer
• Women
• Self-advocacy
• Scale
• Validity
• Reliability

Kaynakça

1. 1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Wagle NS, Jemal A. Cancer statistics. 2023. CA Cancer J Clin. 2023;73(1):17-48. doi: 10.3322/caac.21763.
2. 2. Wang Y, Feng W. Cancer-related psychosocial challenges. Gen Psychiatr. 2022;35(5):e100871. doi: 10.1136/gpsych-2022-100871.
3. 3. National Cancer Institute. Definitions, survivorship terms. 2024. [Cited 2024 July 18]. Available from https://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/ocs/definitions#terms
4. 4. Schmidt EK, Faieta J, Tanner K. Scoping review of self-advocacy education interventions to improve care. OTJR (Thorofare N J). 2020;40(1):50-56. doi: 10.1177/1539449219860583.
5. 5. Hagan TL, Donovan HS. Self-advocacy and cancer: a concept analysis. J Adv Nurs. 2013;69(10):2348-59. doi: 10.1111/jan.12084.
6. 6. Thomas TH, Scott PW, Nilsen ML, Lee J, McCarthy ME, Harris A, Johnson J, Donovan HS. The female self-advocacy in Cancer Survivorship scale is a psychometrically sound measure of self-advocacy in male cancer survivors. Psychooncology. 2024;33(1):e6269. doi: 10.1002/pon.6269.
7. 7. Hagan TL, Cohen SM, Rosenzweig MQ, Zorn K, Stone CA, Donovan HS. The Female Self-Advocacy in Cancer Survivorship Scale: A validation study. J Adv Nurs. 2018;74(4):976-987. doi: 10.1111/jan.13498.
8. 8. Daniels J, Struthers H, Soler J, Ricco E, Blackmon J, Teklehaimanot S, McIntyre J, Coates T. Building self-advocacy in HIV care: the use of role-play to examine healthcare access for HIV-positive MSM in rural South Africa. Glob Health Promot. 2021;28(3):32-40. doi: 10.1177/1757975920974008.

9. 9. Lee SH, Kang HN, Kim S. The experiences of students with intellectual and developmental disabilities, parents, and teachers regarding health self-advocacy program with school-home connection: a qualitative study. Front Psychiatry. 2023;14:1273324. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1273324.
10. 10. Samulowitz A, Gremyr I, Eriksson E, Hensing G. "Brave men" and "Emotional women": a theory-guided literature review on gender bias in health care and gendered norms towards patients with chronic pain. Pain Res Manag. 2018;2018:6358624. doi: 10.1155/2018/6358624.
11. 11. Bevilacqua LA, Dulak D, Schofield E, Starr TD, Nelson CJ, Roth AJ, Holland JC, Alici Y. Prevalence and predictors of depression, pain, and fatigue in older- versus younger-adult cancer survivors. Psychooncology. 2018;27(3):900-907. doi: 10.1002/pon.4605.
12. 12. Keogh E. Gender differences in the nonverbal communication of pain: a new direction for sex, gender, and pain research? Pain. 2014;155(10):1927-1931. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2014.06.024.
13. 13. Cheung WY, Le LW, Gagliese L, Zimmermann C. Age and gender differences in symptom intensity and symptom clusters among patients with metastatic cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2011;19(3):417-23. doi: 10.1007/s00520-010-0865-2.
14. 14. Wessels H, de Graeff A, Wynia K, de Heus M, Kruitwagen CL, Woltjer GT, Teunissen SC, Voest EE. Gender-related needs and preferences in cancer care indicate the need for an individualized approach to cancer patients. Oncologist. 2010;15(6):648-55. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2009-0337.
15. 15. Bertakis KD, Azari R. Patient-centered care: the influence of patient and resident physician gender and gender concordance in primary care. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2012;21(3):326-33. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2011.2903.
16. 16. Surbone A, Kagawa-Singer M. Culture matters as well. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(22):2832-3. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.49.5838.
17. 17. Pozzar RA, Berry DL. Gender differences in bladder cancer treatment decision making. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2017;44(2):204-209. doi: 10.1188/17.ONF.204-209.
18. 18. Josfeld L, Keinki C, Pammer C, Zomorodbakhsch B, Hübner J. Cancer patients' perspective on shared decision-making and decision aids in oncology. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2021;147(6):1725-1732. doi: 10.1007/s00432-021-03579-6.
19. 19. Gagnier JJ, Lai J, Mokkink LB, Terwee CB. COSMIN reporting guideline for studies on measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2021;30(8):2197-2218. doi:10.1007/s11136-021-02822-4
20. 20. De Vellis, Rober F, Carolyn T. Thorpe. Scale development: theory and applications. 5th Edition. USA: Sage Publications; 2022.
21. 21. Hagan TL, Gilbertson-White S, Cohen SM, Temel JS, Greer JA, Donovan HS. Symptom burden and self-advocacy: exploring the relationship among female cancer survivors. Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2018;22(1):E23-E30. doi: 10.1188/18.CJON.E23-E30.
22. 22. Yılmaz Karabulutlu E, Bahçecioğlu Turan G, Karaman S. Turkish validity and reliability study of Cancer Empowerment Scale. Psychiatr Danub. 2021;33(Suppl 13):314-320.
23. 23. Deng M, Lu Z, Wang A, Zhang X, Qiu J, Zhang Y, Chen Y, Wang J. Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of Female Self-Advocacy in Cancer Survivorship Scale. Asia Pac J Oncol Nurs. 2022;9(9):100080. doi: 10.1016/j.apjon.2022.100080.
24. 24. Van den Berg SW, van Amstel FK, Ottevanger PB, Gielissen MF, Prins JB. The cancer empowerment questionnaire: psychological empowerment in breast cancer survivors. J Psychosoc Oncol. 2013;31(5):565-83. doi: 10.1080/07347332.2013.825361.
25. 25. Watson M, Greer S, Young J, Inayat Q, Burgess C, Robertson B. Development of a questionnaire measure of adjustment to cancer: the MAC scale. Psychol Med. 1988;18:203–209.
26. 26. Natan İ. Kanser tanısı almış hastalarda kansere tepki tarzı ölçeğinin (mental adjusment to cancer scale) güvenirlik ve geçerlik yönünden incelenmesi Yayınlanmamış Bilim Uzmanlığı Tezi. İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü; 2000.
27. 27. Eremenco SL, Cella D, Arnold BJ. A comprehensive method for the translation and cross-cultural validation of health status questionnaires. Eval Health Prof. 2005;28(2):212-32. doi: 10.1177/0163278705275342.
28. 28. Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology. 1975;28(4):563–75. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
29. 29. IBM Corp. Released 2020. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 27.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
30. 30. R Core Team 2022. R: A Language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. https://www.R-project.org
31. 31. Schumacker RE, Lomax RG. A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling. 3rd edition. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2010.
32. 32. Browne MW. Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. InTesting Structural Equation Models; Bollen KA, Long JS, Eds.; Sage: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 1993.
33. 33. Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. Int J Med Educ. 2011;2:53-55. doi: 10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd.
34. 34. Soysal S. Çok boyutlu test yapılarında alfa, tabakalı alfa ve omega güvenirlik katsayılarının karşılaştırılması. Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 2023;5(1):213-236.
35. 35. De Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL. Measurement in medicine: a practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011.
36. 36. Schober P, Boer C, Schwarte LA. Correlation coefficients: appropriate use and interpretation. Anesth Analg. 2018;126(5):1763-1768. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000002864.
37. 37. Kassambara A. ggcorplot: Visualization of a correlation matrix using ggplot2. R package version 0.1.0. 2019.
38. 38. Rodrigues IB, Adachi JD, Beattie KA, Lau A, MacDermid JC. Determining known-group validity and test-retest reliability in the PEQ (personalized exercise questionnaire). BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019;20(1):373. doi: 10.1186/s12891-019-2761-3.
39. 39. Kim HY. Statistical notes for clinical researchers: assessing normal distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis. Restor Dent Endod. 2013;38(1):52-4. doi: 10.5395/rde.2013.38.1.52. Epub 2013 Feb 26.
40. 40. Dunn TJ, Baguley T, Brunsden V. From alpha to omega: a practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. Br J Psychol. 2014;105(3):399-412. doi: 10.1111/bjop.12046.
41. 41. Hayes AF, Coutts JJ. Use omega rather than Cronbach’s alpha for estimating reliability. But…. Communication Methods and Measures. 2020;14(1):1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629
42. 42. Adler RF, Baez K, Morales P, Sotelo J, Victorson D, Magasi S. Evaluating the usability of an mhealth app for empowering cancer survivors with disabilities: heuristic evaluation and usability testing. JMIR Human Factors, 2024;11:e51522.
43. 43. Connors SK, Leal IM, Nitturi V, Iwundu CN, Maza V, Reyes S, Acquati C, Reitzel LR. Empowered choices: african-american women's breast reconstruction decisions. Am J Health Behav. 2021;45(2):352-370. doi: 10.5993/AJHB.45.2.14.
44. 44. Au DH, Udris EM, Engelberg RA, Diehr PH, Bryson CL, Reinke LF, Curtis JR. A randomized trial to improve communication about end-of-life care among patients with COPD. Chest. 2012;141(3):726-735. doi: 10.1378/chest.11-0362.
45. 45. Meropol NJ, Egleston BL, Buzaglo JS, Balshem A, Benson AB 3rd, Cegala DJ, Cohen RB, Collins M, Diefenbach MA, Miller SM, Fleisher L, Millard JL, Ross EA, Schulman KA, Silver A, Slater E, Solarino N, Sulmasy DP, Trinastic J, Weinfurt KP. A web-based communication aid for patients with cancer: the CONNECT study. Cancer. 2013;119(7):1437-45. doi: 10.1002/cncr.27874.