Sefa Alperen ÖZTÜRK, Osman ERGÜN, Sabriye ERCAN

Revised Urinary Incontinence Scale’in Türkçe Geçerlilik ve Güvenilirlik Çalışması

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, Revised Urinary Incontinence Scale’in (RUIS) Türkçe geçerliliğini ve güvenilirliğini sağlamaktır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Ölçek, İngilizceden Türkçeye üç akademisyen tarafından çevrildi. Çeviri metinleri, birleştirilerek ölçeğin ilk Türkçe versiyonu oluşturuldu. Bu versiyon, ölçeğin orijinal dili olan İngilizceye tekrar çevrilerek dil uyumu incelendi. Ölçeğin kapsam geçerliliği, Davis yöntemi ile irdelendi. Madde kapsam geçerlilik indeksleri (KGİ) 0,78-1 aralığında, ölçek KGİ ise 0,89 olarak belirlendi. Yaş ortalaması 59,2±14 yıl olan 56 gönüllüye (%83,9 kadın, %16,1 erkek) RUIS, International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Short Form ve Urogenital Distress Inventory’nin Türkçe versiyonları uygulandı. Bulgular: Cronbach alfa katsayısı 0,810 olarak hesaplandı. Ölçekte taban ve tavan etkisi oluşmadı. Ölçeğin Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin değeri 0,762, Bartlett küresellik testi ki-kare değeri 94,583, p değeri 0,0001 ve ‘anti-image’ korelasyon değerleri 0,709-0,884 aralığındaydı. Tek alt boyutlu yapısını koruyan ölçeğin açıklanan varyans oranı %57,943 ve öz değeri 2,897 olarak hesaplandı. Ölçeğin Türkçe versiyonunun, diğer iki ölçüm aracı ile mükemmel düzeyde (r˃0,80; p˂0,05) uyum gösterdiği tespit edildi. Ölçeğin doğrulayıcı faktör analizlerinde de model uyum iyiliği değerlerini karşıladığı görüldü. Sonuç: RUIS’in Türkçeye uyarlandığı, geçerliliğinin, güvenilirliğinin sağlandığı görüldü ve araştırmacıların kullanımına sunuldu.

The Validation and Reliability Study of Turkish Version of Revised Urinary Incontinence Scale

Aim: This study aims to verify the validity and reliability of Turkish Version of Revised Urinary Incontinence Scale (RUIS). Materials and Methods: The scale was translated from English into Turkish by three academicians. The first Turkish version of the scale was created by combining the translated texts. This version was translated back into English, and the authors examined language compatibility. The content validity of the scale was examined through the Davis method. The item content validity indices were in the range of 0.78-1, and the scale content validity indices was determined as 0.89. Fifty-six volunteers (83.9% female, 16.1% male) with a mean age of 59.2±14 years were applied the Turkish versions of RUIS, International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Short Form and Urogenital Distress Inventory. Results: The Cronbach alpha coefficient was calculated as 0.810. There was no floor and ceiling effect on the scale. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value of the scale was 0.762, the Bartlett sphericity test chi-square value was 94.583, the p value was 0.0001, and the ‘anti-image’ correlation values were in the range of 0.709-0.884. The explained variance rate of the scale which preserved its single sub-dimensional structure was calculated as 57.943%, and the eigenvalue was 2.897. We determined that the Scale-Turkish version had an excellent (r˃0.80, p˂0.05) agreement with the other two measurement tools. We determined that the scale met the model goodness of fit values in confirmatory factor analyses. Conclusion: RUIS was adapted to the Turkish language, its validity and reliability were ensured, and it was presented to researchers.

PDF

___

1. Abrams P, Cardozo L, Fall M, Griffiths D, Rosier P, Ulmsten U, et al. The standardisation of terminology in lower urinary tract function: report from the standardisation sub-committee of the International Continence Society. Urology. 2003;61:37-49.
2. Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Berghmans B, Lee J, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Neurourol Urodyn. 2010;29:4-20.
3. D’Ancona C, Haylen B, Oelke M, Abranches-Monteiro L, Arnold E, Goldman H, et al. The International Continence Society (ICS) report on the terminology for adult male lower urinary tract and pelvic floor symptoms and dysfunction. Neurourol Urodyn. 2019;38:433-77.
4. Altman D, Cartwright R, Lapitan MC, Milsom I, Nelson R, Sjöström S. et al. Epidemiology of urinary incontinence (UI) and other lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and anal incontinence (AI). Incontinence 6th Int Consult Incontinence Tokyo 2016. 2017;1-141.
5. Mostafaei H, Sadeghi-Bazargani H, Hajebrahimi S, Salehi-Pourmehr H, Ghojazadeh M, Onur R, et al. Prevalence of female urinary incontinence in the developing world: A systematic review and meta-analysis-A Report from the Developing World Committee of the International Continence Society and Iranian Research Center for Evidence Based Medicine. Neurourol Urodyn. 2020;39:1063-86.
6. Ozerdoğan N, Beji NK, Yalçin O. Urinary incontinence: its prevalence, risk factors and effects on the quality of life of women living in a region of Turkey. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2004;58:145-50.
7. Onur R, Deveci SE, Rahman S, Sevindik F, Acik Y. Prevalence and risk factors of female urinary incontinence in eastern Turkey. Int J Urol. 2009;16:566-9.
8. Tozun M, Ayranci U, Unsal A. Prevalence of urinary incontinence among women and its impact on quality of life in a semirural area of Western Turkey. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2009;67:241-9.
9. Çayan S, Yaman Ö, Orhan İ, Usta M, Başar M, Resim S, et al. Prevalence of sexual dysfunction and urinary incontinence and associated risk factors in Turkish women. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;203:303-8.
10. Sansoni J, Hawthorne G, Fleming G, Owen E, Marosszeky Ni. Technical Manual and Instructions: Revised Incontinence and Patient Satisfaction Tools, Version 3. Australian Health Services Research Institute; University of Wollongong: 2018.
11. Department of Medical Education, School of Medical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, MALAYSIA, Yusoff MSB. ABC of Content Validation and Content Validity Index Calculation. Educ Med J. 2019;11:49-54.
12. Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2006;29:489-97.
13. Alpar R: Spor Sağlık ve Eğitim Bilimlerinden Örneklerle Uygulamalı İstatistik ve Geçerlik Güvenirlik (6th ed). Detay Anatolia Akademik Yayıncılık; 2020.
14. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use (3rd ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003.
15. Özdamar K. Eğitim, Sağlık ve Davranış Bilimlerinde Ölçek ve Test Geliştirme Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi (1st ed). Nisan Kitabevi Ders Kitapları Yayınları; 2016.