Validation of Turkish Version of Me and My Feelings Scale on Children and Adolescents

Objective: Me and My Feelings Scale (M&MF) is a brief self-reported measure scale developed for evaluating mental health and well-being of children and adolescents. M&MF self-evaluating scale was recently validated consisting of 16 items; 10 items of emotional difficulties and six items of behavioral difficulties. The aim of the current study was to evaluate validity and reliability of the scores of M&MF scale in Turkish children and adolescents. Methods: Eight hundred and twenty children and adolescents aged between 9 and 17 were enrolled in the study. SPSS-17.0 and AMOS-24.0 programs were used for statistical analysis. Results: The research sample was concluded to be sufficient for structural equation method. Content validity of the scale was revealed to be applicable in Turkish population using Lawshe analysis. The research had a high reliability analysis with a high Cronbach’s alpha and significant Guttman split-half coefficient. Cronbach’s alpha value was 0.925, Guttman Split-Half value was 0.413 and KMO value was 0.934. As a result of the analysis, the mean emotional score was 18.40±4.10, the mean behavioral score was 4.86±4.24 and the total scale score was 23.26±6.40. Behavioral difficulties had a high score from threshold value indicating the sensitivity of Turkish population compared with behavioral feature. Discussion: In conclusion, M&MF is a valid and reliable self-report scale for Turkish children and adolescents in defining behavioral and emotional difficulties and discriminating mental health problems between community and clinic samples. Clinical outcomes of M&MF can be recognized and treated in advance cost-effectively by the professionals.

Çocuk ve Ergenlerde Ben ve Duygularım Ölçeği Türkçe uyarlamasının geçerliliği

Amaç: Ben ve Duygularım Ölçeği çocuk ve ergenlerde mental sağlık ve ‘kendini iyi hissetme’yi değerlendirmek için geliştirilmiş kısa bir öz bildirim ölçeğidir. Bu ölçek, 10 maddesi emosyonel güçlükler, altı maddesi davranışsal sorun-lar olmak üzere toplam 16 maddeden oluşan, geçerliliği onaylanmış bir ölçektir. Çalışmamızın amacı, Türk çocuk ve ergenlerinde Ben ve Duygularım Ölçeğinin geçerlilik ve güvenilirliğini değerlendirmektir. Yöntem: Çalışmaya 9-17 yaşları arasındaki 820 çocuk ve ergen alınmıştır. İstatistiksel analiz için SPSS-17.0 ve AMOS-24.0 programları kullanılmıştır. Bulgular: Araştırma örnekleminin yapısal eşitleme yöntemi için yeterli olduğu değerlendirilmiştir. Ölçek içeriğinin geçerliliği, Lawshe analizi kullanılarak, Türk popülasyonunda uygulanabilir olduğunu göstermekte-dir. Araştırma, yüksek Cronbach alfa ve anlamlı Guttman yarıya bölme katsayısı ile yüksek güvenilirlik elde etmiştir. Cronbach alfa değeri 0.925, Guttman Split-Half değeri 0.413 ve KMO değeri 0.934 çıkmıştır. Analiz sonucunda duygusal puan ortalaması 18.40±4.10, davranışsal puan ortalaması 4.86±4.24 ve toplam ölçek puanı 23.26±6.40 bulunmuştur. Davranışsal özellik açısından karşılaştırıldığında, davranışsal sorunlarda Türk popülasyonunun duyarlılığını gösteren, eşikten daha yüksek puan elde edilmiştir. Tartışma: Sonuç olarak Ben ve Duygularım Ölçeği toplum ve klinik örneklem arasındaki davranışsal ve emosyonel sorunları tanımlama ve mental sağlık sorunlarını ayırt etmede, Türk çocuk ve ergenler için geçerli ve güvenilir bir öz bildirim ölçeğidir. Ben ve Duygularım Ölçeğinin klinik sonuçları, profesyoneller tarafından etkili olarak kabul edilip kullanılabilir.

PDF

___

1. World Health Organization (WHO), 1948. Pream-ble to the Constitution of the World Health Orga-nization as Adopted by the International Health Conference, New York, 1922 June, 1946. Signed on 22 July 1946 by the representatives of 61 States (Official Records of the World Health Organization, No.2, p. 100) and entered into force on 7 April 1948.

2. Parker G, Smith IG, Paterson A, Romano M, Hadzi-Pavlovic D, Ricciardi T. How well does a wellbeing measure predict psychiatric ‘caseness’ as well as suicide risk and self-harm in adoles-cents? Psychiatry Res 2018; 268:323-327.

3. Thyloth M, Singh H, Subramanian V. Increasing burden of mental illnesses across the globe: Cur-rent status. Indian J Soc Psychiatry 2016; 32:254-256.

4. Whiteford HA, Degenhardt L, Rehm J, Baxter AJ, Ferrari AJ, Erskine HE, et al. Global burden of disease attributable to mental and substance use disorders: Findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 2013; 382(9904):1575-1586.

5. Xu X, Li XM, Xu D and Wang W. Psychiatric and mental health nursing in China: past, present and future. Arch Psychiatr Nurs 2017; 31(5):470-476.

6. Arabaci LB, Dikec G, Buyukbayram A, Uzunoglu G, Ozan E. Traumatic growth and psychological resilience status of female victims of violence inpatients in a district psychiatric hospital. Arch Psychiatr Nurs 2018; 32(4):568-573.

7. Nishi D, Susukida R, Usada K, Mojtabai R, Yamanouchi Y. Trends in the prevalence of psychological distress and the use of mental health services from 2007 to 2016 in Japan. J Affect Disord 2018; 239:208-213.

8. Zhong S, Yang L, Toloo S, Wang Z, Tong S, Sun X, et al. The long-term physical and psychological health impacts of flooding: a systematic mapping. Sci Total Environ 2018; 626:165-194.

9. Erving CL. Physical-psychiatric comorbidity: Impli-cations for health measurement and the hispanic epidemiological paradox. Soc Sci Res 2017; 64:197-213.

10. Chapman SA, Phoenix BJ, Hahn TE, Strod DC. Utilization and economic contribution of psychiat-ric mental health nurse practitioners in public behavioural health services. Am J Prev Med 2018; 54(6S3):243-249.

11. Brugha TS, Meltzer H. Measurement of psychiat-ric and psychological disorders and outcomes in populations. SR Quah (Ed.), International Encyc-lopedia of Public Health, second ed., Oxford: Elsevier, 2017, pp.594-603.

12. Shaner R, Thompson KS, Braslow J, Ragins M, Parks JJ 3rd, Vaccaro JV. How health reform is recasting public psychiatry. Psychiatr Clin North Am 2015; 38(3):543-557.

13. Levitt JM, Saka N, Romanelli LH, Hoagwood K. Early identification of mental health problems in schools: the status of instrumentation. J Sch Psychol 2007; 45(2):163-191.

14. Karalunas S. Psychiatric diagnosis revisited: from DSM to clinical case formulation. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2018; 57(3):212-213.

15. O’Connor C, Kadianaki I, Maunder K, McNicholas F. How does psychiatric diagnosis affect young people's self-concept and social identity? A syste-matic review and synthesis of the qualitative litera-ture. Soc Sci Med 2018; 212:94-119.

16. Coid JW, Yang M, Ullrich S, Hickey N, Kahtan N, Freestone M. Psychiatric diagnosis and differen-tial risks of offending following discharge. Int J Law Psychiatry 2015; 38:68-74.

17. Regier DA, Kuhl EA, Narrow WE, Kupfer DJ. Research planning for the future of psychiatric diagnosis. Eur Psychiatry 2012; 27(7):553-556.

18. Hulme MJ, Cornish AM. Behavioural improve-ments and emotional gains for students attending an Australian school for specific purposes. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry 2014; 20(4):677-688.

19. Hudson A, Youha SA, Samargandi OA, Paletz J. Pre-existing psychiatric disorder in the burn patient is associated with worse outcomes. Burns 2017; 43(5):973-982.

20. Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2007; 60:34-42.

21. Chorpita BF, Reise S, Weisz JR, Grubbs K, Becker KD, Krull JL. Evaluation of the brief prob-lem checklist: child and caregiver interviews to measure clinical progress. J Consult Clin Psychol 2010; 78(4):526-536.

22. Deighton J, Barmby P, Tymms P, Croudace T, Wolpert M. A review of impact and implementation issues in relation to Kidscreen and relevant other measures, 2010. [cited 2019 June 10]. Available from: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/evidence-based-practice-unit/sites/evidence-based-practice-unit/files/pub_and_resources_project_reports_me_and_my_school.pdf

23. Wolpert M, Fonagy P, Frederickson N. Me and My School: Preliminary Findings from the first year of the National Evaluation of Targeted Mental Health in Schools (2008-2009), 2010. [cited 2019 June 10]. Available from: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/evidence-based-practice-unit/sites/evidence-based-practice-unit/files/pub_and_resources_project_reports_me_and_my_school.pdf

24. Patalay P, Deighton J, Fonagy P, Wolpert M. Equ-ivalence of paper and computer formats of a child self-report mental health measure. Eur J Psychol Assess 2014; 31(1):54-61.

25. Deighton J, Tymms P, Vostanis P, Belsky J, Fona-gy P, Brown A, et al. The development of a school-based measure of child mental health. J Psycho-educ Assess 2013; 31:247-257.

26. Lereya ST, Humphrey N, Patalay P, Wolpert M, Böhnke JR, Macdougall A, et al. The student resilience survey: psychometric validation and associations with mental health. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health 2016; 10(44):1-15.

27. Patalay P, Deighton J, Fonagy P, Vostanis P, Wolpert M. Clinical validity of the Me and My School questionnaire: a self-report mental health measure for children and adolescents. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health 2014; 8(17):1-7.

28. Law D, Wolpert M. Guide to using outcomes and feedback tools with children, young people and families, Formally known as COOP Document. Press Camhs, CORC Ltd., 2014. [cited 2019 May 21]. Avaliable from: https://www.corc.uk.net/ media/1182/201404guide_to_using_outcomes_measures_and_feedback_tools.pdf

29. Mohajan H. Two criteria for good measurements in research: Validity and reliability. Annals of Spiru Haret University 2017; 17(4):56-82.

30. Drost EA. Validity and reliability in social science research. ERP 2011; 38(1):105-124.

31. Reddock CM, Biderman MD and Nguyen NT. The relationship of reliability and validity of personality tests to frame-of-reference instructions and within-person inconsistency. Int J Select Assess 2011; 19(2):119-131.

32. Karasar N. Scientific Research Methods. Ankara: Nobel Medical Publishing House, fifteenth ed., 2015.

33. Arbuckle JL. Amos 18.0 User’s Guide. USA: Amos Development Corpororation, 2010.

34. Lawson-Body A, Willoughby L, Logossah K. Dev-eloping an Instrument for Measuring E-Commerce Dimensions, J Comput Inform Syst 2010; 51(2):2-13.

35. Lin CY, Hwang JS, Wang WC, Lai WW, Su WC, Wu TY, et al. Psychometric evaluation of the WHOQOL-BREF, Taiwan version, across five kinds of Taiwanese cancer survivors: Rasch ana-lysis and confirmatory factor analysis. J Formos Med Assoc 2019; 118(1-Pt2):215-222.

36. Gilbert GE, Prion S. Making sense of methods and measurement: Lawshe's content validity index. Clin Simul Nurs 2016; 12(12):530-531.

37. Almanasreh E, Moles R, Chen TF. Evaluation of methods used for estimating content validity. Res Social Adm Pharm 2019; 15(2):214-221.

38. Alumran A, Hou XY, Hurst C. Validity and reliability of instruments designed to measure factors influ-encing the overuse of antibiotics. J Infect Public Health 2012; 5(3):221-232.

39. Lawshe C. “A quantative approach to content vali-dity”. Personnel Psychology 1975; 28(4):563-575.

40. Cronbach IJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951; 16:297-334.

41. Riley AW. Evidence that school-age children can self-report on their health. Ambulatory Pediatrics 2004; 4(4 Suppl.):371-376.

42. Evers AT, Verboon P, Klaeijsen A. The develop-ment and validation of a scale measuring teacher autonomous behaviour. BERJ 2017; 43(4):805-821.

43. Veiga FH. Assessing student engagement in school: development and validation of a four-dimensional scale. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 2016; 217:813-819.

44. Sharp C, Goodyer IM, Croudace TJ. The short mood and feelings questionnaire (SMFQ): a unidi-mensional item response theory and categorical data factor analysis of self-report ratings from a community sample of 7-through 11-year-old chil-dren. J Abnorm Child Psychol 2006; 34(3):379-391.