Glamorgan Pediatrik Basınç Ülseri Risk Tanılama Ölçeği Türkçe Formunun Psikometrik Özellikleri

Yıl 2013, Cilt: 17 Sayı: 2, 45 - 51, 01.12.2013

Çiğdem Saçar Candan Öztürk Murat Bektaş

Öz

Amaç: Glamorgan Pediatrik Basınç Ülseri Risk Tanılama Ölçeği’ni Türkçeye uyarlamak
ve ölçeğin geçerlik ve güvenirliğini incelemektir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bu çalışma metodolojik bir
çalışmadır. Çalışmanın örneklemini Çocuk Yoğun Bakım Ünitelerinde yatan 120 çocuk oluşturmuştur.
Veriler, Çocuk Tanıtım Formu ve Glamorgan Pediatrik Basınç Ülseri Risk Tanılama Öl-
çeği kullanılarak toplanmıştır. Verilerin analizinde ROC analizi, bilinen grup karşılaştırması (t
testi), fisher ki kare testi, kappa uyum testi kullanılmıştır. Bulgular: Türkçe ölçeğin, dil geçerliği
çeviri ve geri çeviri, içerik geçerliği uzman görüşleri tekniği ile sağlanmıştır. Ölçeğin ROC analizi
ile belirlenen kesme noktası 19.5 olup, bu noktada ölçeğin duyarlılığı 0,976 ve özgüllüğü
0,350 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Ölçek eğri altı alanı 0,617-0,800 arasında bulunmuş olup, ölçeğin
kabul edilebilir düzeyde ayrıma sahip olduğu belirlenmiştir. Basınç ülseri gelişen hastalarla gelişmeyen
hastaların, Glamorgan Pediatrik Basınç Ülseri Risk Tanılama Ölçeği puan ortalamaları
arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark saptanmış olup, ölçeğin riskli olan ve olmayan hastaları
anlamlı şekilde ayırabildiği sonucuna varılmıştır (p

Anahtar Kelimeler

Basınç ülseri, ölçek, geçerlik ve güvenirlik

The Psychometric Properties of the Turkish Form of the Glamorgan Pediatric Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Scale

Öz

Objective: The aim of this study is to adapt the Glamorgan Pediatric Ulcer Risk Assessment
Scale into Turkish and examine validity and reliability of the Scale. Material and Methods:
The sample of the study consist of 120 children who are admitted to pediatric intensive care
unit. Data for the study were collected by using Children Introduction Form and Glamorgan Pediatric
Risk Assessment Scale. ROC analysis, known group comparison (t test), fisher chi-square test,
kappa compliance test were used in the data analysis. Results: Breakpoint of the scale was determined
by using ROC analysis and was found to be 19.5. At that point, sensitivity of the scale was
calculated as 0.976 and specificity of the scale was calculated as 0.350. The area below the scale
curve was found between 0.617 and 0.800. It was determined that the scale has an acceptable margin
level. A statistically significant variation between mean Glamorgan Pediatric Pressure Ulcer
Risk Assessment scale scores of patients who did and didn’t develop pressure ulcers and it was concluded
that the scale was able to divide patients with and without risk in a statistically significant
way. It was found that Glamorgan Pediatric Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Scale was able to identify
100% of patient who develop pressure ulcers as high risk patients in a statistically significant
way. The compliance between the observers was determined as 100%. Conclusion: The Glamorgan
Pediatric Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment Scale is a valid and reliable tool which can be used in
studies with Turkish samples.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Pressure ulcer, scale, validity and reliability

Kaynakça

• pressure ulcer risk assessment scales: a sys
• tematic review. Int J Nurs Stud 2011:1-12. 5. Baldwin M. Incidence and prevalence of pres
• sure ulcers in children. Adv Skin Wound Care
• ;15:121-24. 6. Groeneveld A, Anderson M, Allen S, Bress
• mer S, Golberg M, Magee B. et al. The preva
• lence of pressure ulcers in a tertiary care
• pediatric and adult hospital. J Wound Ostomy
• Continence Nurs 2004;31(3):108-20. 7. McLane KM, Bookout K, McCord S, McCain
• J, Jefferson LS. The 2003 national pediatric
• pressure ulcer and skin breakdown preva
• lence survey: a multisite study. J Wound Os
• tomy Continence Nurs 2004;31(4):168- 78. 8. Noonan C, Quigley S, Curley MA. Skin in
• tegrity hospitalized infants and children: a
• prevalence survey. J Pediatr Nurs 2006;21(6): 45-53. 9. Schlüer AB, Cignacco E, Müller M, Halfens
• RJ. The prevalence of pressure ulcers in four
• paediatric institutions. J Clin Nurs 2009;
• (23):3244-52. 10. Suddaby CE, Barnett S, Facteau L. Skin
• breakdown in acut care pediatrics. Pediatr
• Nurs 2005;31(2):132-38. 11. Curley MA, Quigley SM, Lin M. Pressure ul
• cers in pediatric intensive care: incidence and
• associated factors. Pediatr Crit Care Med
• ;4(3):284-90. 12. Fujii K, Sugama J, Okuwa M, Sanada H, Mi
• zokami Y. Incidence and risk factors of pres
• sure ulcers in seven neonatal intensive care
• units in Japan: a multisite prospective cohort
• study. Int Wound J 2010;7(5):323-28. 13. Schindler CA, Mikhailov TA, Fischer K,
• Lukasiewicz G, Kuhn EM, Duncan L. Skin in
• tegrity in critically ill and injured children. Am J
• Crit Care 2007;16(6):568-74. 14. Pediatric Affinity Group. How to guide: prevent pressure ulcers - pediatric supplement. http://www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/Tools/How toGuidePreventPressureUlcersPediatricSup- plement.aspx Erişim tarihi: 03.07.2015 15. Willock J, Baharestani MM, Anthony D. The development of the Glamorgan paediatric pressure ulcer risk assessment scale. J
• Wound Care 2009;18(1):17-21. 16. Kottner J, Hauss A, Schlüer AB, Dassen T.
• Validation and clinical impact of paediatric
• pressure ulcer risk assessment scales: a sys
• tematic review. Int J Nurs Stud 2013; 50(6): 807-18. 17. Willock J, Baharestani M, Anthony D. A risk
• assessment scale for pressure ulcers in chil
• dren. Nursing Times 2007;103(14):32-3.
• http://www.nursingtimes.net/a-risk
• assessment-scale-for-pressure-ulcers-in
• children/201783.article Erişim tarihi: 03.07. 2015 18. Willock J, Baharestani MM, Anthony D. The development of the Glamorgan paediatric pressure ulcer risk assessment scale. Journal of Children’s and Young People’s Nursing
• ; 1(5): 211-218. 19. Anthony D, Willock J, Baharestani M. A com
• parison of Braden Q, Garvin and Glamorgan
• risk assessment scales in paediatrics. Journal
• of Tissue Viability 2010:98-105. 20. National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel
• and European Pressure Ulcer Advisory
• Panel, 2009. Prevention and Treatment of
• Pressure Ulcers: Clinical Practice Guide
• line. National Pressure Ulcer Advisory
• Panel,Washington, DC. http://guideline.
• gov/content.aspx?id= 25139 Erişim tarihi: 03.07.2015 21. Dirican A. Tanı testi performanslarının değer
• lendirilmesi ve kıyaslanması. Cerrahpaşa J
• Med 2001;32(1):25-30. 22. Gözüm S, Aksayan S. Kültürlerarası ölçek uyarlaması için rehber II: Psikometrik özellik- ler ve kültürlerarası karşılaştırma. HEMAR-G
• ;5(1):3-14. 23. Şencan H. Sosyal ve davranışsal ölçümlerde
• güvenirlik ve geçerlilik. Ankara: Seçkin
• Yayıncılık; 2005. 24. Karasar N. Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi:
• Kavramlar, İlkeler ve Teknikler. 21. bs.
• Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık; 2010. 25. Kottner J, Kenzler M, Wilborn D. Interrater
• agreement, reliability and validity of the Glam
• organ Paediatric Pressure Ulcer Risk Assess
• ment Scale. J Clin Nurs 2014;23(7-8):1165-9. 26. Kottner J, Schröer F, Tannen A. Evaluation of
• the Glamorgan Scale in a paediatric intensive
• care unit: agreement and reliability. Pflege
• ;25(6):459-67. 27. Willock J. Interrater reliability of the Glamor
• gan scale: overt and covert data. Br J Nurs 2013;22(20):8-9.