Reliability and validity of psychological general well-being index in turkish population

GÖK, HAYDAR; AY, SAİME; Gokmen, Derya; SONEL TUR, BİRKAN; KOLDAŞ DOĞAN, Şebnem; Evcik, Fatma Deniz

Reliability and validity of psychological general well-being index in turkish population

Saime AY, (Ufuk Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Fiziksel Tıp ve Rehabilitasyon Anabilim Dalı, Ankara, Türkiye)

Şebnem Koldaş DOĞAN, (Ufuk Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Fiziksel Tıp ve Rehabilitasyon Anabilim Dalı, Ankara, Türkiye)

Deniz EVCİK, (Ufuk Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Fiziksel Tıp ve Rehabilitasyon Anabilim Dalı, Ankara, Türkiye)

Haydar GÖK, (Ankara Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Fiziksel Tıp ve Rehabilitasyon Anabilim Dalı, Ankara, Türkiye)

BİRKAN SONEL TUR, (Ankara Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Fiziksel Tıp ve Rehabilitasyon Anabilim Dalı, Ankara, Türkiye)

Derya GÖKMEN (Ankara Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Bioistatistik Anabilim Dalı, Ankara, Türkiye)

Türkiye Fiziksel Tıp ve Rehabilitasyon Dergisi

11 5

Yıl: 2010 Cilt: 56 Sayı: 4 Sayfa Aralığı: 161 - 169 Metin Dili: Türkçe İndeks Tarihi: 29-07-2022

Reliability and validity of psychological general well-being index in turkish population

Öz:

Amaç: Bu çalışmada amaç, sağlıklı ve hasta popülasyonda Psikolojik Genel İyilik Hali Anketinin (PGİHA) Türkçe versiyonunun geçerlilik ve güvenilirliğini değerlendirmekti.Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışmaya 50 sağlıklı gönüllü (Grup 1) ve 194 hasta (Grup 2) dahil edildi. Grup 2, bel ve boyun ağrısı (n=50, Grup 2a), osteoartrit (n=50, Grup 2b), fibromiyalji sendromu (n=50, Grup 2c) ve inme (n=44, Grup 2d) hastalarından oluşuyordu. Standart adaptasyon prosedürüne göre PGİHA Türkçe versiyonuna çevrildi. Bu anket toplam 22 sorudan ve 6 alt gruptan (anksiyete, depresif duygudurum, pozitif iyilik hali, self kontrol, genel sağlık ve vitalite) oluşuyordu. Geçerliliğin değerlendirilmesi için anket haftada iki defa uygulandı. Güvenilirliği için Nottingham Sağlık Profili (NSP) ile korelasyonuna bakıldı.Bulgular: Hasta ve sağlıklı kişilerde anketin içsel tutarlılığı ve ardarda test etme güvenilirliği iyiydi (Cronbach’s alfa değeri 0,93-0,92 aralığında, sınıf içi korelasyon katsayısı 0,88-0,99 aralığındaydı). Sağlıklı bireylerde total PGİHA skoru, NSP’nin ağrı altgrubu (r:-0,16, p>0,05) hariç diğer alt grupları ile istatiksel anlamlı korelasyon göstermekteydi (r:-0,8-0,70, p<0,05). Hasta grubunda total PGİHA skoru, NSP’nin tüm alt grupları ile anlamlı korelasyon göstermekteydi (r:-0,29-0,64, p<0,05).Sonuç: Sağlıklı ve hasta popülasyonda PGİHA Türkçe versiyonu yaşam kalitesinin değerlendirilmesi için geçerli ve güvenilir bir ankettir.

Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Rehabilitasyon

Türk toplumunda Psikolojik genel iyilik hali anketinin Türkçe versiyonunun geçerlilik ve güvenilirliği

Öz:

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Psychological General Well-Being Index (PGWBI) in healthy and patient population.Materials and Methods: Fifty healthy individuals (Group 1) and 194 patients (Group 2) were included in the study. Group 2 comprised patients with low back pain and neck pain (n=50, Group 2a), osteoarthritis (n=50, Group 2b), fibromyalgia syndrome (n=50, Group 2c) and stroke (n=44, group 2d). The PGWBI was translated into Turkish according to standard adaptation procedure. This index consisted of 6 subscales (anxiety, depressed mood, positive well-being, self-control, general health and vitality) and 22 items. The PGWBI was administered to subjects twice a week for testing reliability. Validity was based on correlating the PGWBI scores with that of the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP). Results: The internal consistency and test-retest reliability were found to be good in healthy individuals and patient groups separately (Cronbach’s alpha range: 0.93-0.92; intraclass correlation coefficient range: 0.88-0.99). The total scores of the PGWBI in healthy individuals showed significant correlations with all subareas of the NHP (r range:-0.38-0.70, p<0.05), except for pain (r:-0.16, p>0.05). The total PGWBI scores had significant correlations with all subscores of the NHP in patient groups (range from r:-0.29-0.64, p<0.05).Conclusion: The Turkish version of the PGWBI is a reliable and valid instrument for evaluating quality of life in healthy and patient population.

Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Rehabilitasyon

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık

1. Guillemin F. Functional disability and quality of life assessment in clinical practice. Rheumatol 2000;39:17-23.
2. Kücükdeveci AA. Rehabilitasyonda yaşam kalitesi. Türk Fiz Tıp Rehab Derg 2005;51:23-9.
3. Fuhrer MJ. Subjective well-being: Implications for medical rehabilitation outcomes and models of disablement. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1994;73:358-64.
4. Wiklund I, Karlberg J. Evaluation of quality of life in clinical trials. Selecting quality of life measures. Control Clin Trials 1991;12:204-16.
5. Wiebe S, Guyatt G, Weaver B, Matijevic S, Sidwell C. Comparative responsiveness of generic and specific quality of life instruments. J Clin Epidemiol 2003;56:52-60.
6. Guyatt GH. A taxonomy of health status instruments. J Rheumatol 1995;22:1188-90.
7. Fletcher A, Gore S, Jones D, Fitzpatrick R, Spiegelhalter D, Cox D. Quality of life measures in health care. II:Design, analysis and interpretation. BMJ 1992;305:1145-8.
8. Keith RA. Functional status and health status. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1994;75:478-83.
9. Dupuy HJ. The Psychological General Well-Being (PGWB) Index. In Wenger NK, Mattson ME, Furburg CD, Elinson J, editors. Assessment of quality of life in clinical trials of cardiovascular therapies. New York: Le Jacq Publishing; 1984. p. 170-83.
10. Wool C, Cerutti R, Marquis P, Cialdella P, Hervie C. Psychometric validation of two Italian quality of life questionnaires in menopausal women. Maturitas 2000;35:129-42.
11. Badia X, Gutierrez F, Wiklund I, Alonso J. Validity and reliability of the Spanish version of the Psychological General Well-Being Index. Qual Life Res 1996;5:101-8.
12. Grossi E, Groth N, Mosconi P, Cerutti R, Pace F, Compare A, et al. Development and validation of the short version of the Psychological General Well-Being Index (PGWB-S). Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006;4:1-8.
13. Beateon DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross cultural adaptation of self report measures. Spine 2000;25:3186-91.
14. Küçükdeveci A, McKenna SP, Kutlay S, Gürsel Y, Whalley D, Arasıl T. The development and psychometric assessment of the Turkish version of the Nottingham Health Profile. Int J Rehab Res 2000;23:31-8.
15. Hunt SM, McKenna SP, McEwen J, Williams J, Papp E. The Nottingham Health Profile: Subjective health status and medical consultations. Soc Sci Med 1981; 15:221-9.
16. Norholm V, Bech P. The WHO Quality of Life (WHOQOL) Ouestionnaire: Danish validation study. Nord J Psychiatry 2001;55:229-35.
17. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951;16:297-34.
18. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical method for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. The Lancet 1986;307-10.
19. Fabian ES. Using quality of life indicators in rehabilitation program evaluation. Rehabil Couns Bull 1991;34:344-56.
20. Matza LS, Boye KS, Yurgin N. Validation of two generic patient-reported outcome measures in patients with type 2 diabetes. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2007;5:47.
21. Groth N, Cerutti R, Rivolta G, Grossi E. Impact of transdermal estrogens treatment on postmenopausal symptoms and health-related quality of life: an Italian multicenter trial. J Hyg Prev Med 2001;42:15-22.
22. Revicki DA, Leidy NK, Howland L. Evaluating the psychometric characteristics of the Psychological General Well-Being Index with a new response scale. Qual Life Res 1996;5:419-25.

APA	AY S, KOLDAŞ DOĞAN Ş, Evcik F, GÖK H, SONEL TUR B, Gokmen D (2010). Reliability and validity of psychological general well-being index in turkish population. , 161 - 169.
Chicago	AY SAİME,KOLDAŞ DOĞAN Şebnem,Evcik Fatma Deniz,GÖK HAYDAR,SONEL TUR BİRKAN,Gokmen Derya Reliability and validity of psychological general well-being index in turkish population. (2010): 161 - 169.
MLA	AY SAİME,KOLDAŞ DOĞAN Şebnem,Evcik Fatma Deniz,GÖK HAYDAR,SONEL TUR BİRKAN,Gokmen Derya Reliability and validity of psychological general well-being index in turkish population. , 2010, ss.161 - 169.
AMA	AY S,KOLDAŞ DOĞAN Ş,Evcik F,GÖK H,SONEL TUR B,Gokmen D Reliability and validity of psychological general well-being index in turkish population. . 2010; 161 - 169.
Vancouver	AY S,KOLDAŞ DOĞAN Ş,Evcik F,GÖK H,SONEL TUR B,Gokmen D Reliability and validity of psychological general well-being index in turkish population. . 2010; 161 - 169.
IEEE	AY S,KOLDAŞ DOĞAN Ş,Evcik F,GÖK H,SONEL TUR B,Gokmen D "Reliability and validity of psychological general well-being index in turkish population." , ss.161 - 169, 2010.
ISNAD	AY, SAİME vd. "Reliability and validity of psychological general well-being index in turkish population". (2010), 161-169.

APA	AY S, KOLDAŞ DOĞAN Ş, Evcik F, GÖK H, SONEL TUR B, Gokmen D (2010). Reliability and validity of psychological general well-being index in turkish population. Türkiye Fiziksel Tıp ve Rehabilitasyon Dergisi, 56(4), 161 - 169.
Chicago	AY SAİME,KOLDAŞ DOĞAN Şebnem,Evcik Fatma Deniz,GÖK HAYDAR,SONEL TUR BİRKAN,Gokmen Derya Reliability and validity of psychological general well-being index in turkish population. Türkiye Fiziksel Tıp ve Rehabilitasyon Dergisi 56, no.4 (2010): 161 - 169.
MLA	AY SAİME,KOLDAŞ DOĞAN Şebnem,Evcik Fatma Deniz,GÖK HAYDAR,SONEL TUR BİRKAN,Gokmen Derya Reliability and validity of psychological general well-being index in turkish population. Türkiye Fiziksel Tıp ve Rehabilitasyon Dergisi, vol.56, no.4, 2010, ss.161 - 169.
AMA	AY S,KOLDAŞ DOĞAN Ş,Evcik F,GÖK H,SONEL TUR B,Gokmen D Reliability and validity of psychological general well-being index in turkish population. Türkiye Fiziksel Tıp ve Rehabilitasyon Dergisi. 2010; 56(4): 161 - 169.
Vancouver	AY S,KOLDAŞ DOĞAN Ş,Evcik F,GÖK H,SONEL TUR B,Gokmen D Reliability and validity of psychological general well-being index in turkish population. Türkiye Fiziksel Tıp ve Rehabilitasyon Dergisi. 2010; 56(4): 161 - 169.
IEEE	AY S,KOLDAŞ DOĞAN Ş,Evcik F,GÖK H,SONEL TUR B,Gokmen D "Reliability and validity of psychological general well-being index in turkish population." Türkiye Fiziksel Tıp ve Rehabilitasyon Dergisi, 56, ss.161 - 169, 2010.
ISNAD	AY, SAİME vd. "Reliability and validity of psychological general well-being index in turkish population". Türkiye Fiziksel Tıp ve Rehabilitasyon Dergisi 56/4 (2010), 161-169.