MİKROBİYOTA FARKINDALIK ÖLÇEĞİ GEÇERLİLİK VE GÜVENİLİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI

Amaç Bu çalışmada kişilerin mikrobiyota farkındalık düzeylerini belirlemeye yönelik geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı geliştirmek amaçlanmıştır. Gereç ve Yöntem Metadolojik türde yürütülen bu araştırma Eylül 2019-Eylül 2020 tarihleri arasında Isparta ili Eğirdir ilçesi aile sağlığı merkezine başvuran kişilerde yapılmıştır. Çalışmaya 301 kişi katılmış olup çoğunluğu (%61,5) kadındır. Literatür taranarak oluşturulan taslak ölçek formu daha sonra kapsam geçerliliği amacıyla konuyla ilgili uzman görüşüne sunulmuştur. Kapsam geçerliliği sonucunda katılımıcılara uygulanan ölçeğe ait verilere açıklayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi uygulanmıştır. Bulgular Yapılan açıklayıcı faktör analizi sonucu 4 faktörlü 20 maddeli bir yapı elde edilmiştir. Ölçeğe daha sonra doğrulayıcı faktör analizi yapılmış ve ölçeğin iyi uyum değerleri gösterdiği belirlenmiştir. Ölçeğin güvenirlik için hesaplanan Cronbach Alpha katsayısı 0,852 saptanmış olup iyi düzeydedir. Sonuç Çalışma sonucunda mikrobiyota farkındalık ölçeği'nin kapsamı ölçmeyle ilgili geçerli ve uygulanma metadolojisi açısından güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğu saptanmıştır. Ölçeğin faktörlere ayrılmadan toplanarak kullanılması tavsiye edilmektedir.

MICROBIOTA AWARENESS SCALE VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY STUDY

Objective This study aimed to develop a valid and reliable measurement tool to determine the microbiota awareness levels of individuals. Materials and Methods This methodological study was conducted on people who applied to the family health center of Egirdir District of Isparta Province between September 2019 and September 2020. Three hundred one people participated in the research, and the majority (61.5%) were women. The draft scale form, created by scanning the literature, was then presented to the expert opinion on the subject for content validity. As a result of the content validity, explanatory and confirmatory factor analysis was applied to the data of the scale applied to the participants. Results As a result of the explanatory factor analysis, a structure with 4 factors and 20 items was obtained. Afterward, confirmatory factor analysis was performed on the scale, and it was determined that the scale showed good fit values. The Cronbach Alpha coefficient calculated for the scale's reliability was found to be 0.852 and is at a reasonable level. Conclusion As a result of the study, it has been determined that the microbiota awareness scale is a valid measurement tool for measuring the scope and a reliable measurement tool in terms of application methodology. It is recommended to use the scale without separating it into factors.

PDF

___

1. Lombardi VC, De Meirleir KL, Subramanian K, Nourani SM, Dagda RK, Delaney SL. Nutritional modulation of the intestinal microbiota: future opportunities for the prevention and treatment of neuroimmune and neuroinflammatory disease. Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry 2018;61:1–16.
2. Aslan FG, Altindis M. Human microbiome project, future of microbiota and personalized medicine applications. J Biotechnol Strateg Heal Res 2017;1:1–6.
3. Aydogdu S. Microbiota and its importance in terms of health. In: Guler A. Current academic studies in health sciences (1st Edition) Cetinje-Montenegro, Ivpe, 2018; 95–100.
4. Ozdemir A, Buyuktuncer Demirel Z. Relationship between nutrition and microbiota. J Biotechnol Strateg Heal Res 2017;1:25–33.
5. Kim JS, de La Serre CB. Diet, gut microbiota composition and feeding behavior. Physiol Behav 2018;192:177–81.
6. Bohan R, Tianyu X, Tiantian Z, Ruonan F, Hongtao H, Qiong W. Gut microbiota: a potential manipulator for host adipose tissue and energy metabolism. Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry 2019;64:206–17.
7. Kalip K, Atak N. Gut microbiota and health. Turk J Public Health 2018;16(1):58-73.
8. Sahin A, Yalniz M. The relationship between obesity and the gastrointestinal system. Firat Med J 2018;23:22-29.
9. Sarioglu Kemer A, Altuntas S. Adaptation of individual innovativeness scale to nursing: Turkish validity and reliability study. Journal of Education and Research in Nursing 2017;14(1):52-61.
10. Kefi S, Celikoz N. The validity and reliability study of the scale for determining the level of use of basic scientific process skills by preschool teachers. Journal of Education and Training Research 2014;3(2):351.
11. Yesilyurt S, Capraz C. A roadmap for content validity used in scale development studies. Erzincan University Journal of Education Faculty 2018;20(1):251-64.
12. Gehlbach H, Brinkworth ME. Measure twice, cut down error: A process for enhancing the validity of survey scales. Review of General psychology 2011;15(4):380-7.
13. Alpar R. Applied statistics and validity-reliability. 5th Edition. Ankara: Detay Publishing; 2018.
14. Buyukozturk S. Manual of data analysis for social sciences. 22nd Edition. Ankara: Pegem Academy; 2016.
15. Yaslioglu MM. Factor analysis and validity in social sciences: Using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Istanbul University Faculty of Business 2017;46(1303–1732):74–85.
16. Ercan I, Kan I. Reliability and validity in scales. Uludag University Faculty of Medicine Journal 2004;30(3):211-16.
17. Dogan M. The effect of sample size, estimation methods and normality on fit criteria in confirmatory factor analysis. Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Department of Statistics, Master's Thesis. Eskisehir: Osmangazi University. 2013.
18. Tezbasaran A.A. Likert type scale development guide. 1st Edition. Ankara: TPD Publications; 1996.
19. Ozturk H, Babacan E. A scale development study: Occupational safety scale for healthcare personnel working in the hospital. Journal of Education and Research in Nursing 2012;9(1):36-42.
20. Sipahi B, Yurtkoru E.S, Cinko M. Factor analysis and reliability analysis. 3rd Edition. Istanbul: Beta Publications; 2010.
21. Ozer E. Awareness of healthy living: A scale development study. Journal of Traditional and Complementary Medicine 2020;3(1):47–60.
22. Ozabaci N. Turkish version of the relationship quality scale: Validity and reliability study. Journal of Education and Science 2011;36(162):164–5.