The Turkish Adaptation of a Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies: Validity and Reliability Analyses
Yıl: 2018 Cilt: 10 Sayı: 4 Sayfa Aralığı: 292 - 308 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.5336/nurses.2018-61334 İndeks Tarihi: 17-10-2019
The Turkish Adaptation of a Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies: Validity and Reliability Analyses
Öz: Objective: One of the main problems for the validity of meta-analytical studies is qualityassessment of studies to be included in meta-analysis. This study aimed to examine the qualityof quantitative studies and to conduct validity and reliability studies of the Turkish translation ofthe Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies. Material and Methods: For this tool, languageequivalence was examined using translation-back translation method, content validity wasevaluated by consulting expert opinion, and reliability was determined depending on inter-rater reliability.The researchers used a content validity index to evaluate the expert opinion and also usingCohen’s Kappa. Results: The expert evaluation showed a content validity index was 0.99. The opinionsof eight experts were evaluated using Kendall W analysis, which revealed that there was no statisticaldifference (Kendall W=0.13) among their opinions and that their scores were consistentwith each other. The present researchers also observed that the Kappa values were between 0.668and 1 in different studies. Conclusion: This study translated the Quality Assessment Tool for QuantitativeStudies into Turkish, and determined that it is a reliable tool that can be used to assess thequality of quantitative studies.
Anahtar Kelime: Konular:
Nicel Çalışmalar İçin Kalite Değerlendirme Aracı'nın Türkçe Uyarlaması: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Analizleri
Öz: Amaç:Meta analiz çalışmalarının geçerliğindeki temel sorunlardan birisi: Meta analize dahil edilecek çalışmaların kalitesinin değerlendirilmesidir. Bu çalışmada nicel çalışmaların kalitesini değerlendirmek için geliştirilen Nicel Çalışmalar için Kalite Değerlendirme Aracı’nın Türkçe formunun geçerlik ve güvenirlik analizlerinin yapılması amaçlanmıştır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Nicel Çalışmalar için Kalite Değerlendirme Aracı'nın dil eşdeğerliği geri-çeviri yöntemi; kapsam geçerliği uzman görüşüne başvurularak; güvenirliği gözlemciler arası güvenirlik ile incelenmiştir. Uzman görüşlerinin değerlendirilmesi için kapsam geçerlik indeksi (KGİ) kullanılmıştır. Güvenilirlik yönünden gözlemciler arası Kappa analizi ile değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular: Uzman değerlendirmelerine göre KGİ=0,99 bulunmuştur. Sekiz uzmanın görüşleri Kendall W analizi ile de değerlendirilmiş, aralarında istatistiksel olarak farkın olmadığı (Kendall W=0,13) saptanarak, uzman puanlarının uyumlu olduğu görülmüştür. Kappa değerleri farklı çalışma türlerinde 0.668- 1 arasında bulunmuştur. Sonuç: Türkçe'ye uyarlanan “Nicel Çalışmaların Kalitesini Değerlendirme Aracı”nın nicel çalışmaların kalitesini değerlendirmede kullanılabilecek güvenli bir araç olduğu belirlenmiştir.
Anahtar Kelime: Konular:
Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
- 1. Kozak N. [Health sciences journals]. Türkiye Akademik Dergiler Rehberi. 1. Baskı. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık; 2014. p.2-10.
- 2. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins J, Rothstein H. How a meta analysis work? Introduction to Meta-Analysis. 1st ed. Hoboken, NJ, ABD: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2009. p.1-7.
- 3. Üstün U, Eryılmaz A. [A research methodology to conduct effective research syntheses: meta-analysis]. Education and Science 2014;39(174): 1-32.
- 4. Stangl DK, Berry DA. Meta-analysis: past and present challenges. Meta-Analysis in Medicine and Health Policy. 1st ed. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker; 2000. p.1-22.
- 5. Haidich AB. Meta-analysis in medical research. Hippokratia 2010;14(Suppl 1):29-37.
- 6. Chan ME, Arvey RD. Meta-analysis and the development of knowledge. Perspect Psychol Sci 2012;7(1):79-92.
- 7. Naylor CD. Meta-analysis and the meta-epidemiology of clinical research. BMJ 1997;315 (7109):617-9.
- 8. Deliktaş A, Kabukcuoğlu K, Kış A. [Metaanalysis application process in nurs-ing: a guide intended for methodology]. Journal of Human Sciences 2016;13(1):1906-25.
- 9. Baker R, Jackson D. A new approach to outliers in meta-analysis. Health Care Manag Sci 2008;11(2):121-31.
- 10. Sanderson S, Tatt ID, Higgins JP. Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and anno-tated bibliography. Int J Epidemiol 2007;36(3) 666-76.
- 11. Mhaskar R, Djulbegovic B, Magazin A, Soares HP, Kumar A. Published meth-odological quality of randomized controlled trials does not reflect the actual quality assessed in protocols. J Clin Epidemiol 2012;65(6):602-9.
- 12. Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JC. Coding the literature. The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis. 2nd ed. NewYork, USA: Russell Sage Foundation; 2009. p.129-35.
- 13. Zeng X, Zhang Y, Kwong JS, Zhang C, Li S, Sun F, et al. The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review. J Evid Based Med 2015;8(1):2-10.
- 14. Khorsan R, Crawford C. How to assess the external validity and model validity of therapeutic trials: a conceptual approach to systematic review methodology. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2014;2014:694804.
- 15. Klesges LM, Dzewaltowski DA, Glasgow RE. Review of external validity re-porting in childhood obesity prevention research. Am J Prev Med 2008;34(3):216-23.
- 16. Herbison P, Hay-Smith J, Gillespie WJ. Adjustment of meta-analyses on the basis of quality scores should be abandoned. J Clin Epidemiol 2006;59(12):1249-56.
- 17. Jüni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clin-ical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA 1999;282(11):1054-60.
- 18. Thomas BH, Ciliska D, Dobbins M, Micucci S. A process for systematically re-viewing the literature: providing the research evidence for public health nursing interventions. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs 2004;1(3):176-84.
- 19. Armijo-Olivo S, Stiles CR, Hagen NA, Biondo PD, Cummings GC. Assessment of study quality for systematic reviews: a comparison of the cochrane collaboration risk of bias tool and the effective public health practice project quality assessment tool: methodological research. J Eval Clin Pract 2012;18(1):12-8.
- 20. Östlund U, Kidd L, Wengström Y, Rowa- Dewar N. Combining qualitative and quantitative research within mixed method research designs: a methodological review. Int J Nurs Stud 2011;48(3):369-83.
- 21. Viswanathan M, Ansari MT, Berkman ND, Chang S, Hartling L, McPheeters LM, et al. Assessing the risk of bias of individual studies in systematic reviews of health care interventions. AHRQ Methods for Effective Health Care. March 2012. AHRQ Publication No. 12- EHC047-EF.
- 22. Uman LS. Systematic reviews and metaanalyses. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2011;20(1):57-9.
- 23. Burn N, Grove SK. The research process. The Practice of Nursing Research: Appraisal, Synthesis and Generation of Evidence. 8th ed. Maryland Heights, Missouri: Saunders Elsevier 2009. p.400-20.
- 24. Gözüm S, Aksayan S. [Guide II: the psychometric properties and cultural com-parison for intercultural scale adaptation]. Nursing Research and Development Magazine 2003;5(1): 3-14.
- 25. Kalaycı Ş. [Reliability analysis]. SPSS Uygulamalı Çok Değişkenli İstatistik Teknikleri. 5. Baskı. Ankara: Asil Yayınları; 2010. p.404-6.
- 26. Burns N, Grove S. Evolution of evidencebased practice in nursing. The Practice of Nursing Research: Appraisal, Synthesis, and Generation of Evidence. 6th ed. St. Louis: W.B. Saunders Company; 2009. p.15-20.
- 27. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Vist GE, Liberati A, et al. Go-ing from evidence to recommendations. BMJ 2008;336 (7652):1049-51.
- 28. Andrews J, Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Alderson P, Dahm P, Falck-Ytter Y, et al. GRADE guidelines. 14. going from evidence to recommendations: the signifi-cance and presentation of recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 2013;66 (7):719-25.
- 29. Campbell DT. Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. Psychol Bull 1957;54(4):297-312.
- 30. Higgins J, Altman DG. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins J, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Inter-ventions Version 5.0. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.
- 31. Gold C, Erkkilä J, Crawford MJ. Shifting effects in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions: a new kind of performance bias? Acta Psychiatr Scand 2012;126(5):307- 14.
- 32. Viera AJ, Garrett JM. Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statis-tic. Fam Med 2005;37(5):360-3.
- 33. McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2012;22(3): 276-82.
- 34. Hallgren KA. Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: an over-view and tutorial. Tutor Quant Methods Psychol 2012;8(1): 23-34.
| APA | Ergin E, Akın B (2018). The Turkish Adaptation of a Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies: Validity and Reliability Analyses. , 292 - 308. 10.5336/nurses.2018-61334 |
| Chicago | Ergin Emine,Akın Belgin The Turkish Adaptation of a Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies: Validity and Reliability Analyses. (2018): 292 - 308. 10.5336/nurses.2018-61334 |
| MLA | Ergin Emine,Akın Belgin The Turkish Adaptation of a Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies: Validity and Reliability Analyses. , 2018, ss.292 - 308. 10.5336/nurses.2018-61334 |
| AMA | Ergin E,Akın B The Turkish Adaptation of a Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies: Validity and Reliability Analyses. . 2018; 292 - 308. 10.5336/nurses.2018-61334 |
| Vancouver | Ergin E,Akın B The Turkish Adaptation of a Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies: Validity and Reliability Analyses. . 2018; 292 - 308. 10.5336/nurses.2018-61334 |
| IEEE | Ergin E,Akın B "The Turkish Adaptation of a Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies: Validity and Reliability Analyses." , ss.292 - 308, 2018. 10.5336/nurses.2018-61334 |
| ISNAD | Ergin, Emine - Akın, Belgin. "The Turkish Adaptation of a Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies: Validity and Reliability Analyses". (2018), 292-308. https://doi.org/10.5336/nurses.2018-61334 |
| APA | Ergin E, Akın B (2018). The Turkish Adaptation of a Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies: Validity and Reliability Analyses. Türkiye Klinikleri Hemşirelik Bilimleri Dergisi, 10(4), 292 - 308. 10.5336/nurses.2018-61334 |
| Chicago | Ergin Emine,Akın Belgin The Turkish Adaptation of a Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies: Validity and Reliability Analyses. Türkiye Klinikleri Hemşirelik Bilimleri Dergisi 10, no.4 (2018): 292 - 308. 10.5336/nurses.2018-61334 |
| MLA | Ergin Emine,Akın Belgin The Turkish Adaptation of a Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies: Validity and Reliability Analyses. Türkiye Klinikleri Hemşirelik Bilimleri Dergisi, vol.10, no.4, 2018, ss.292 - 308. 10.5336/nurses.2018-61334 |
| AMA | Ergin E,Akın B The Turkish Adaptation of a Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies: Validity and Reliability Analyses. Türkiye Klinikleri Hemşirelik Bilimleri Dergisi. 2018; 10(4): 292 - 308. 10.5336/nurses.2018-61334 |
| Vancouver | Ergin E,Akın B The Turkish Adaptation of a Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies: Validity and Reliability Analyses. Türkiye Klinikleri Hemşirelik Bilimleri Dergisi. 2018; 10(4): 292 - 308. 10.5336/nurses.2018-61334 |
| IEEE | Ergin E,Akın B "The Turkish Adaptation of a Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies: Validity and Reliability Analyses." Türkiye Klinikleri Hemşirelik Bilimleri Dergisi, 10, ss.292 - 308, 2018. 10.5336/nurses.2018-61334 |
| ISNAD | Ergin, Emine - Akın, Belgin. "The Turkish Adaptation of a Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies: Validity and Reliability Analyses". Türkiye Klinikleri Hemşirelik Bilimleri Dergisi 10/4 (2018), 292-308. https://doi.org/10.5336/nurses.2018-61334 |
