Hemşirelere Yönelik Savurgan Davranışlar Tutum Ölçeğinin Geliştirilmesi ve Psikometrik Özelliklerinin İncelenmesi

Yıl 2024,

Seda Tuğba Baykara Mat , Ülkü Baykal

https://doi.org/10.17049/jnursology.1447799

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışma, hemşirelerin savurgan davranışlarına yönelik tutumlarını değerlendirmek amacıyla yeni bir ölçüm aracı olarak Hemşirelere Yönelik Savurgan Davranışlar Tutum Ölçeğinin geliştirilmesini amaçlamaktadır.

Yöntemler: Üç fazdan oluşan bu çalışmanın, son aşamasında, kapsamlı bir literatür taraması yapılarak, ölçek maddelerindeki olası yanlılıkları en aza indirmek ve hemşirelik profesyonelleriyle etkili bir şekilde iletişim kurmak için 52 maddeden oluşan yeni bir madde havuzu oluşturuldu. Kapsam geçerliliği sonuçlarının ardından 50 maddelik ölçek taslağı elde edildi. Şubat-Eylül 2023 tarihleri arasında 500 hemşireden online olarak veri elde edildi.

Bulgular: Ölçeğin kapsam geçerlik indeksi 0,96’dır. Açımlayıcı faktör analizi sonucunda ölçeğin beş alt boyuta dağılmış 30 maddeden oluştuğu ve bunların toplam varyansın %58,17'sini açıkladığı belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca Cronbach alfa katsayısı .93 değerini vermiştir.

Sonuç: Ölçek yüksek iç tutarlılığa, zamanla değişmezliğe ve yüksek uyum indekslerine sahiptir. Bu ölçek, hastanelerde savurgan davranışlarının önlenmesine ve sürdürülebilirliğin sağlanmasına yönelik girişimlerde bulunulmasına yardımcı olabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Tutum Ölçeği, Savurgan Davranışlar, Hemşireler, Psikometrik Özellikler, Ölçek Geliştirme

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışma Helsinki Bildirgesi kılavuz ilkelerine uygun olarak yürütülmüştür. Brezilya 2013'te revize edilmiştir). Son aşama için bir vakıf üniversitesinin etik kurulundan etik onay alınmıştır (Onay Numarası: 152, Tarih: 02/12/2021). Araştırma daha önce "Sağlık Çalışanlarında İsrafa Yönelik Tutum Ölçeğinin Geliştirilmesi ve Geçerlilik Çalışması" başlığı altında bir konferansta sunulmuştur. Ancak örneklemin ağırlıklı olarak hemşirelerden oluştuğu yönündeki öneriler üzerine ölçek, hemşirelerin tutumlarını tam olarak ölçecek şekilde revize edilmiştir. Sonuç olarak, hemşire olmayan 3 sağlık personeli örneklemden çıkarılmıştır. Bu değişiklik etik kurul onayının yenilenmesini gerektirmiştir. Başlık revizyonundan sonra ek onay alınmıştır (Onay Numarası: 520, Tarih: 06/03/2024). Etik izin, çalışmanın tüm aşamalarını kapsamaktadır. Katılımcılara çalışmanın içeriği hakkında detaylı bilgi verilmiş ve bilgilendirilmiş onam formları onaylatılmıştır.

Teşekkür

Araştırmamızı büyük ölçüde zenginleştiren katkıları ve değerli görüşleri için tüm katılımcı hemşirelere en içten şükranlarımızı sunmak istiyoruz. Katkılarınız çalışmamızın başarıyla tamamlanmasında etkili olmuştur.

Development of the Attitude Scale for Wasteful Behaviors Towards Nurses and Examination of Its Psychometric Properties

Öz

Objective: This study aims to develop the "Nurses’ Wasteful Behaviors Attitude Scale" as a new measurement tool to evaluate the attitudes of nurses’ wasteful behaviors.

Methods: In the final phase of this three-phase study, a comprehensive literature review was conducted to create a new item pool of 52 items to minimize potential biases in the scale items and to communicate effectively with nursing professionals. Following the content validity results, a 50-item scale draft was obtained. Data were obtained online from 500 nurses between February and September 2023.

Results: The content validity index of the scale stands at 0.96. Following the exploratory factor analysis, it was determined that the scale comprises 30 items distributed across five sub-dimensions, which collectively account for 58.17% of the total variance. Moreover, the Cronbach's alpha coefficient yielded a value of .93.

Conclusion: The scale has high internal consistency, time invariance, and high fit indices. This scale can help take initiatives to prevent wasteful behaviors in the hospitals and ensure sustainability.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Attitude Scale, Wasteful Behaviors, Nurses, Psychometric Properties, Scale Development

Etik Beyan

This study was conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki. Revised in Brazil 2013). Ethical approval was obtained from the ethics committee of a foundation university for the final phase (Approval Number: 152, Date: 02/12/2021). The research was previously presented at a conference under the title "Development and Validity Study of the Attitude Scale Towards Waste in Healthcare Workers." However, upon the suggestion that the sample consisted mainly of nurses, the scale was revised to measure nurses' attitudes fully. As a result, 3 health personnel who were not nurses were excluded from the sample. This change required renewal of the ethics committee approval. Additional approval was obtained after the title revision (Approval Number: 520, Date: 06/03/2024). Ethical approval covered all stages of the study. Participants were given detailed information about the content of the study, and informed consent forms were approved.

Teşekkür

We want to express our sincere gratitude to all the participating nurses for their contributions and valuable insights, which greatly enriched our research. Your input was instrumental in the successful completion of our study.

Kaynakça

• 1. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). Health Statistics 2022—Frequently Requested Data. Available from: https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/policy-issues/the-future-of-health-systems.html
• 2. Giray F, Cimen G. Factors determining the change in health expenditures: an analysis of Turkey and OECD countries. Sayıştay Journal. 2018;111:143-171. https://doi.org/10.1234/sayistay.2018.111
• 3. Ministry of Commerce. Türkiye Waste Report. General Directorate of Consumer Protection and Market Surveillance. Available from: https://ticaret.gov.tr/data/5c51a78e13b8762dc06a72c9/T%C3%BCrkiye%20%C4%B0sraf%20Raporu.pdf
• 4. Ministry of Science, I. and T. G. D. of I. National Recycling Strategy Document and Action Plan; 2017. Available from: https://leap.unep.org/en/countries/tr/national-legislation/national-recycling-strategy-and-action-plan-2014-2017
• 5. Behar Villegas E. Wasteful spending cultures: State inefficiency and policy narratives. Rev. Adm. Pública. 2021;55:662–678. https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-761220200647
• 6. Karaca PO, Atılgan E, Zekioglu A. An Innovative Application in the Context of Sustainability in Health Services: Green Hospitals. Ejovoc. 2018;8(2):77–87. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ejovoc/issue/41199/497922
• 7. Kaypak Ş. Extravagance and its reflection on nature. Atlas National Journal of Social Sciences. 2019; 3(4): 1–16. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/atlas/issue/55584/760716
• 8. Chías P, Abad T. Green hospitals, green healthcare. IIETA. 2017;2(2):196–205. https://www.witpress.com/elibrary/EQ-volumes/2/2/1860
• 9. Shrank WH, Rogstad TL, Parekh N. Waste in the US health care system: estimated costs and potential for savings. JAMA. 2019;322(15):1501–1509. https:// 10.1001/jama.2019.13978
• 10. Gurumurthy A, Nair VK, Vinodh S. Application of a hybrid selective inventory control technique in a hospital: a precursor for inventory reduction through lean thinking. The TQM Journal. 2021;33(3):568–595. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-06-2020-0123
• 11. Annex, A. Global Road Map for Health Care Decarbonization. 2021. Available from: https://healthcareclimateaction.org/sites/default/files/2021-06/Health%20Care%20Decarbonization%20Road%20Map%20-%20Annex%20A%20Technical%20report.pdf
• 12. Turkish Statistical Institute. Health Spending Statistics. 2020. Available from: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Kategori/GetKategori?p=saglik-ve-sosyal-koruma-101&dil=2
• 13. Kalogirou MR, Dahlke S, Davidson S, Yamamoto S. Nurses’ perspectives on climate change, health and nursing practice. J Clin Nurs. 2020;29(23–24):4759–4768. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15519
• 14. Aij KH, Teunissen M. Lean leadership attributes: a systematic review of the literature. J Health Organ Manag. 2017;31(7/8):713–729. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHOM-12-2016-0245
• 15. Hu H, Fang W, Yu X. Enhancing individual commitment to energy conservation in organizational settings: Identity manipulation for behavioral changes. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2020;156:104720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104720
• 16. Patey AM, Grimshaw JM, Francis JJ. Changing behaviour, ‘more or less’: do implementation and de-implementation interventions include different behaviour change techniques? Implementation Sci. 2021;16:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-021-01089-0
• 17. Tabachnick BG, Fidell L. Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Pearson, Education, Inc; 2007. Available from: https://hisp.htmi.ch/pluginfile.php/77114/mod_resource/content/0/Using%20Multivariate%20Statistics%20%28Tabachnick%20and%20Fidell%29.pdf
• 18. DeVellis RF. Scale development: Theory and applications (Vol. 26). Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA; 2016.
• 19. Baykara Mat ST. Qualitative Examination of Healthcare Professionals' Opinions on Waste and Development of an Attitude Scale on Waste; 2019. Available from: https://yohed.org.tr/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/3.-ULUSAL-HEMSIRELIKTE-YONETIM-KONGRE-KITABI.pdf
• 20. Davis LL. Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts. Appl Nurs Res. 1992;5(4):194–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0897-1897(05)80008-4
• 21. Yaşlıoğlu MM. Factor analysis and validity in social sciences: Application of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. IBR. 2017;46(Special issue):74–85. https://iupress.istanbul.edu.tr/en/journal/ibr/article/sosyal-bilimlerde-faktor-analizi-ve-gecerlilik-kesfedici-ve-dogrulayici-faktor-analizlerinin-kullanilmasi
• 22. Kieffer KM. Orthogonal versus Oblique Factor Rotation: A Review of the Literature regarding the Pros and Cons; 1998
• 23. Alavi M, Visentin DC, Thapa DK, Hunt GE, Watson R, Cleary ML. Chi-square for model fit in confirmatory factor analysis; 2020. https://hdl.handle.net/10779/cqu.16572050.v1
• 24. Schermelleh-Engel K, Moosbrugger H, Müller H. Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online. 2003;8(2):23–74. https://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~snijders/mpr_Schermelleh.pdf
• 25. Lewis RL, Vasishth S. An activation‐based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cogn Sci. 2005;29(3):375–419. https://www.ling.uni-potsdam.de/~vasishth/pdfs/Lewis-VasishthCogSci2005.pdf
• 26. George D, Mallery P. SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 17th ed. Pearson; 2010. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.5555/557542
• 27. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res. 1981;18(1):39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
• 28. Polit DF, Beck CT. Nursing research: Principles and methods. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2004. Available from: https://books.google.com.tr/books?hl=en&lr=&id=5g6VttYWnjUC&oi=fnd&pg=PA3&dq=28.%09Polit+DF,+Beck+CT.+Nursing+research:+Principles+and+methods.+Lippincott+Williams+%26+Wilkins%3B+2004.+&ots=_1iUwKqpwB&sig=Z3NOT3z-NJ-ABiOi2mL88hzO2r0&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=28.%09Polit%20DF%2C%20Beck%20CT.%20Nursing%20research%3A%20Principles%20and%20methods.%20Lippincott%20Williams%20%26%20Wilkins%3B%202004.&f=false
• 29. Yeşilyurt S, Çapraz C. A road map for the content validity used in scale development studies. EUJEF. 2018;20(1):251-264. https://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.297741
• 30. DeVellis RF. Scale development: Theory and applications. 4th ed. Sage Publications; 2017. Available from: https://books.google.com.tr/books?hl=en&lr=&id=QddDEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP13&dq=30.%09DeVellis+RF.+Scale+development:+Theory+and+applications.+4th+ed.+Sage+Publications%3B+2017&ots=OFfHFLLGbh&sig=g2HIw_ugizbm8PvPIaYA-C2Z3aA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
• 31. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use. 5th ed. Oxford University Press; 2015.
• 32. Costello AB, Osborne JW. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. PARE. 2005;10(7):1-9. https://legacyfileshare.elsevier.com/promis_misc/Best%20practices%20in%20exploratory%20factor%20analysis%20four%20recommendation.pdf
• 33. Johnson RA, Wichern DW. Applied multivariate statistical analysis. 6th ed. Pearson; 2018. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jouini-Abdelhafid/post Can_any_one_explain_me_the_Akaike_Information_Criterion_sensing-based_in_cognitive_radio2/attachment/59d623ec79197b80779823b4/AS%3A309790092267520%401450871121033/download/194866033.pdf
• 34. Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen KA, Long JS, editors. Testing structural equation models. Sage Publications; 1993. p.136-162. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005
• 35. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric Theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill;1994. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/014662169501900308