Turkish validity and reliability study of obstetric quality of recovery score (OBSQOR-11) Obstetric quality of recovery score
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objective: The present study was conducted to adapt the Obstetric Quality-of-Recovery Score (ObsQoR-11) into Turkish and to test its validity and reliability.
Study Design: This study was designed as a methodological study, and the research population consisted of women who gave birth in the gynecology and obstetrics wards of two hospitals in Rize between January and March 2021 and who were hospitalized in the inpatient service 24 hours after delivery. We did not select a sample for the study and instead applied face-to-face questionnaires to women (vaginal delivery: 117 patients, cesarean delivery: 112 patients). Data collection tools included a questionnaire form developed by the researcher and the ObsQoR-11-TR scale.
Results: While testing the ObsQoR-11-TR scale for validity and reliability, we first used a language validity method and then exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis methods. Accordingly, the ObsQoR-11-TR scale had a KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy) value of 0.833 and a Bartlett's Test of Sphericity chi-squared value of 1818.396 (p<0.05). The two-factor model created here explained 69.39% of the variance. According to the exploratory factor analysis results, the factor loads of the items ranged from 0.490 to 0.920, and all items except one displayed factor load greater than 0.774. Again, according to the exploratory factor analysis, the scale was found to consist of two factors. This is consistent with the scale's original form. We used Cronbach's alpha test to calculate the reliability of the scale. Cronbach's alpha value was found to be high (0.781) for the whole scale and excellent for factor 1 (0.850) and factor 2 (0.920).
Conclusions: Our validity and reliability tests conclude that the ObsQoR-11-TR consists of 11 items and 2 subscales and is a valid and reliable scale for Turkish society.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Accepted 2023-02-05
Published 2023-02-15
References
Myles PS, Weitkamp B, Jones K, Melick J, Hensen S. Validity and reliability of a post-operative quality of recovery score: the QoR-40. Br J Anaesth. 2000; 84:11-5. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.bja.a013366
Stark PA, Myles PS, Burke JA. Development and psychometric evaluation of a post-operative quality of recovery score: the QoR-15. Anesthesiology. 2013; 118:1332-40. DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e318289b84b
Chazapis M, Walker EM, Rooms MA, Kamming D, Moonesinghe SR. Measuring quality of recovery-15 after day case surgery. BJA: British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2016; 116(2):241-248. DOI: 10.1093/bja/aev413
Ciechanowicz S, Setty T, Robson E, Sathasivam C, Chazapis M, Dick J, et al. Development and evaluation of an obstetric quality-of-recovery score (ObsQoR-11) after elective Caesarean delivery. British journal of anaesthesia. 2019; 122(1):69-78. DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2018.06.011
Boateng GO, Neilands TB, Frongillo EA, Melgar-Quiñonez HR, Young SL. Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: a primer. Frontiers in public health. 2018; 6:149. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
Pronk T, Molenaar D, Wiers RW, Murre J. Methods to split cognitive task data for estimating split-half reliability: A comprehensive review and systematic assessment. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 2021; 1-11. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-021-01948-3
Gatignon H. Confirmatory factor analysis. In: Statistical analysis of management data. Springer, Boston, MA. 2014; 77-154. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-8594-0_4
Shek DT, Lu Y. Confirmatory factor analysis using AMOS: a demonstration. International Journal on Disability and Human Development. 2014; 13(2): 191-204. DOI: 10.1515/ijdhd-2014-0305
Long DA, Perkins DD. Confirmatory factor analysis of the sense of community index and development of a brief SCI. Journal of community psychology. 2003; 31(3): 279-296. DOI: 10.1002/jcop.10046
Bowman ND, Alan KG. Evolving considerations and empirical approaches to construct validity in communication science. Annals of the International Communication Association. 2020; 44(3):219-234. DOI: 10.1080/23808985.2020.1792791
Chapman SJ. Review of discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics. 2018; 145-7. DOI: 10.1080/15512169.2017.1366328
Bro R, Smilde AK. Principal component analysis. Analytical methods. 2014; 6(9):2812-2831. DOI: 10.1039/C3AY41907J
Golub GH, Van der Vorst HA. Eigenvalue computation in the 20th century. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics. 2000; 123(1-2):35-65. DOI: 10.1016/S0377-0427(00)00413-1
Izquierdo AI, Olea DJ, Abad Garcia FJ. Exploratory factor analysis in validation studies: Uses and recommendations. Psicothema. 2014; 26(3):395-400. DOI: 10.7334/psicothema2013.349
Pallant J. SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS. Routledge, 2020. DOI:10.4324/9781003117452
Orcan F. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Which one to use first?. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology. 2018; 9(4):414-421. DOI: 10.21031/epod.394323
Zhang Hao. Structural equation modeling. Models and Methods for Management Science. Springer, Singapore, 2022; 363-381. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-19-1614-4_10