Turkish Validity and Reliability Study of Breast Cancer Self-Efficacy Survivor Scale

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 12 Sayı: 3, 986 - 994, 26.09.2023

Yasemin Uslu , Seda Er , Derya Subaşı Sezgin , Cihan Uras

https://doi.org/10.37989/gumussagbil.1320681

Öz

The purpose of this research was to define the Turkish validity and reliability of the Breast Cancer Self-Efficacy Survivor Scale. The study was methodological design and was carried out in the breast clinic of a university hospital between January-May 2023 in Istanbul. The study included 217 women who were survivor after breast cancer. The scale contains one dimension, eleven items, and is scored on a five-point Likert scale. Translation-back-translation method was used for language equivalence, expert opinion received, and Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis were performed for construct validity. Cronbach's α was applied for internal consistency analysis, while Pearson correlation was used for item-total score correlation. The retest was conducted with 55 participants 3 weeks after the initial data collection. Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) was estimated for test-retest reliability. General Self-Efficacy Scale was used for the convergent validity of the scale. Content Validity Index and Cronbach α reliability coefficient of the scale adapted to Turkish as a result of expert opinions came out to be 0.969, and 0.852 respectively. The correlation coefficients of the scale items were calculated between 0.50 to 0.61. Factor analysis revealed that 11 items with eigenvalues greater than 1 were grouped under 2 factors. Confirmatory factor analysis validated this structure. The study concluded that the Breast Cancer Survivorship Self-Efficacy Scale is a valid and reliable measurement instrument in Turkish society.

Anahtar Kelimeler

breast cancer, survivor, self-efficacy, validity, reliability

Destekleyen Kurum

Bulunmamaktadır

Proje Numarası

-

Teşekkür

-

Meme Kanseri Sağ Kalım Öz Yeterlik Ölçeği’nin Türkçe Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı Meme Kanseri Sağ Kalım Öz Yeterlik Ölçeği’nin Türkçe geçerlik ve güvenirliğinin yapılmasıdır. Metodolojik tasarımda planlanan araştırma, İstanbul’da bir üniversite hastanesinin meme kliniğinde Ocak-Mayıs 2023 tarihleri arasında gerçekleştirildi. Araştırmaya meme kanseri tedavisi sonrası sağ kalım sürecinde olan 217 kadın dahil edildi. Ölçek 11 madde ve tek boyuttan oluşmakta olup beşli likert şeklinde değerlendirilmektedir. Ölçek dil eşdeğerliği için çeviri geri-çeviri yöntemi uygulandı. Kapsam geçerliği için, uzman görüşü alındı. Yapı geçerliği için Açıklayıcı ve Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi kullanıldı. İç tutarlılık için Cronbach’s α ve madde toplam puan korelasyonu için Pearson korelasyon analizi yapıldı. Tekrar test için, ilk veri toplanmasından 3 hafta sonra 55 katılımcıya ölçek tekrar uygulandı. Test-tekrar test güvenilirliği için Sınıf İçi Korelasyon Katsayısı (ICC) hesaplandı. Ölçeğin yakınsama geçerliliği için Genel Öz Yeterlilik Ölçeği kullanıldı. Türkçe’ye uyarlanan ölçeğin uzman görüşleri sonucu Kapsam Geçerlilik İndeksi 0.969, Cronbach’s α güvenirlik katsayısı 0,852 olarak belirlendi. Ölçek maddelerinin korelasyon katsayıları 0.50-0.61 arasında olduğu hesaplandı. Faktör analizinde öz değeri 1’den büyük 11 maddenin 2 faktör altında toplandığı saptandı. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ile bu yapı doğrulandı. Araştırma sonucunda meme kanseri sonrası sağ kalım sürecindeki bireylerde Meme Kanseri Sağ Kalım Öz Yeterlik Ölçeği’nin geçerli ve güvenilir bir araç olarak saptandı.

Anahtar Kelimeler

meme kanseri, sağ kalım, öz yeterlik, geçerlik, güvenirlik

Proje Numarası

-

Kaynakça

• 1. American Cancer Society (ACS). (2022). “Glossary: Definitions & Phonetic Pronunciations: Survior Definitions”. Available from:https://www.cancer.org/cancer/glossary.html?term=survivor (Access date: 06.05.2023).
• 2. National Cancer Institute (NCI). (2022). “Dictionary of Cancer Terms: Survivor Definitions”. Available from: https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/survivor (Access date: 06.05.2023).
• 3. Serçekuş, P, Vardar, O, and Başkale, H. (2020). “A validity and reliability study of the Turkish version of the Assessment of Survivor Concerns Scale”. Journal of Psychiatric Nursing, 11 (3), 220-227. https://doi.org/10.14744/phd.2020.63308
• 4. Siegel, R.L, Miller, K.D, Wagle, N.S, and Jemal, A. (2023). “Cancer statistics, 2023”. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 73 (1), 17-48. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21763
• 5. Taylan, S, Özkan, İ, Eroğlu, N, and Kolaç, N. (2020). “Turkish Validity and Reliability of Adult Life Quality Scale in Cancer Survivors”. KSU Medical Journal, 17 (1), 84-93. https://doi.org/10.17517/ksutfd.839913
• 6. Reilly, C.M, Bruner, D.W, Mitchell, S.A, Minasian, L.M, Basch, E, Dueck, A.C, Cella, D, and Reeve, B.B. (2013). “A Literature Synthesis of Symptom Prevalence and Severity in Persons Receiving Active Cancer Treatment”. Supportive Care in Cancer, 21 (6), 1525-50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-012-1688-0
• 7. Uchida, M, Akechi, T, Okuyama, T, Sagawa, R, Nakaguchi, T, Endo, C, Yamashita, H, Toyama, T, and Furukawa, T.A. (2011). “Patients' Supportive Care Needs and Psychological Distress in Advanced Breast Cancer Patients in Japan”. Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology, 41 (4), 530–536. https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hyq230
• 8. Champion, V.L, Ziner, K.W, Monahan, P.O, Stump, T.E, Cella, D, Smith, L.G, Bell, C.J, Von Ah, D, and Sledge, G.W. (2013). “Development and Psychometric Testing of a Breast Cancer Survivor Self-efficacy Scale”. Oncology Nursing Forum, 40 (6), 403–410. https://doi.org/10.1188/13.ONF.E403-E410
• 9. Foster, C, Breckons, M, Cotterell, P, Barbosa, D, Calman, L, Corner, J, Fenlon, D, Foster, R, Grimmett, C, Richardson, A, and Smith, P.W. (2015). “Cancer Survivors’ Self-Efficacy to Self-Manage in the Year Following Primary Treatment”. Journal of Cancer Survivorship, 9 (1), 11-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-014- 0384-0
• 10. Cimprich, B, Janz, N.K, Northouse, L, Wren, P.A, Given, B, and Given, C.W. (2005). “Taking CHARGE: A Self-management Program for Women Following Breast Cancer Treatment”. Psycho-oncology, 14 (9), 704–717. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.891
• 11. Bandura, A. (1977). “Self-efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change”. Psychological Review, 84 (2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295x.84.2.191
• 12. Champion, V, Skinner, C.S, and Menon, U. (2005). “Development of a Self-efficacy Scale for Mammography”. Research in Nursing & Health, 28 (4), 329–336. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20088
• 13. Ziner, K.W, Sledge, G.W, Bell, C.J, Johns, S, Miller, K.D, and Champion, V.L. (2012). “Predicting Fear of Breast Cancer Recurrence and Self-Efficacy in Survivors by Age at Diagnosis”. Oncology Nursing Forum, 39 (3), 287–295. https://doi.org/10.1188/12.ONF.287-295
• 14. Gökdemir, F, and Yılmaz, T. (2023). “Processes of Using, Modifying, Adapting and Developing Likert Type Scales”. Journal of Nursology, 26 (2), 148-160. https://doi.org/10.5152/JANHS.2023.22260
• 15. Schwarzer, R, and Jerusalem, M. (1995). “Generalized Self-efficacy Scale”. In: J, WEINMAN, S, WRIGHT, and M, JOHNSTON. (Eds.). Measures in Health Psychology: A User’s Portfolio. Causal and Control Beliefs (35-37). Windsor, UK: NFER-Nelson.
• 16. Aypay, A. (2010). “The Adaptation Study of General Self Efficacy (GSE) Scale to Turkish”. Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 11 (2), 113-132.
• 17. Davis, L.L. (1992). “Instrument Review: Getting The Most from A Panel of Experts”. Personnel Psychology, 28 (4), 563-575. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0897-1897(05)80008-4
• 18. Karakoç, F.Y, and Dönmez, L. (2014). “Basic Principles of Scale Development”. The World of Medical Education, 13 (40), 39-49. https://doi.org/10.25282/ted.228738
• 19. Yuan, X, Wu, F, Howell, D, and Yuan, C. (2019). “Translation, Validity, and Reliability of the Chinese Version of the Breast Cancer Survivor Self-efficacy Scale in China”. Cancer Nursing, 42 (5), E31–E40. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCC.0000000000000637
• 20. Nunnally, J, and Bernstein, I. (1994). “Psychometric Theory”. MacGraw-Hill: New York.
• 21. Polit, D.F, and Beck, C.T. (2006). “The Content Validity Index: Are You Sure You Know What's Being Reported? Critique and Recommendations.” Research in Nursing & Health, 29 (5), 489-497. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20147
• 22. Boateng, G.O, Neilands, T.B, Frongillo, E.A, Melgar-Quiñonez, H.R, and Young, S.L. (2018). “Best Practices for Developing and Validating Scales for Health, Social, and Behavioral Research: A Primer.” Frontiers in Public Health, 6, 149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
• 23. Yaşlıoğlu, M.M. (2017). “Factor Analysis and Validity in Social Sciences: Application of Exploratory and Confirmatory Favtor Analyses”. Istanbul University Journal of the School of Business, 46, 74-85.
• 24. Pett, M.A, Lackey, N.R, and Sullivan, J.J. (2003). “Making Sense of Factor Analysis: The Use of Factor Analysis for Instrument Development in Health Care Research”. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
• 25. Kelloway, E.K. (1998). “Using LISREL for Structural Equation Modeling: A Researcher's Guide”. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
• 26. Çapık, C. (2014). “Use of Confirmatory Factor Analysis in Validity and Reliability Studies”. Journal of Anatolia Nursing and Health Sciences, 17 (3), 196-204.
• 27. Erkorkmaz, Ü, Etikan, İ, Demir, O, Özdamar, K, and Sanisoğlu, S.Y. (2013). “Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Fit Indices: Review”. Turkiye Klinikleri Journal of Medical Sciences, 33 (1), 210-223. https://doi.org/10.5336/medsci.2011-26747
• 28. Orçan, F. (2018). “Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Which One to Use First?”. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 9 (4), 413-421. https://doi.org/10.21031/epod.394323
• 29. Şencan, H. (2005). “Reliability and Validty in Social and Behavioural Measurements”. Ankara: Seçkin Publishing.
• 30. Cicchetti, D.V. (1994). “Guidelines, Criteria, and Rules of Thumb for Evaluating Normed and Standardized Assessment Instruments in Psychology”. Psychological Assessment, 6 (4), 284-290. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284