The Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Form of the Epilepsy Disclosure Scale—Youth and Parent Versions

Abstract

Although explaining epilepsy is a separate source of stress for children with epilepsy and their parents, studies evaluating the disclosure of epilepsy by patients and their parents are insufficient. The aim of this study was to test the validity and reliability of the Turkish form of the “Epilepsy Disclosure Scale (EDS)—Youth and Parent Versions,” which measures the concealment/disclosure of epilepsy by youth patients with epilepsy and their parents. The population of the study consisted of 126 children who were diagnosed with epilepsy and who were between the ages of 8 to 18 and their parents (63 children and 63 parents) who applied to two hospitals pediatric neurology. Both scales consist of six items. When the scale was adapted, language, content, structural, and reliability analyses were conducted. The factor loads varied between 0.78 and 0.88 and contributed 71.99% to the total variance in the Youth Version. In the Parent Version, they varied between 0.79 and 0.88 and contributed 67.09% to the total variance. The Cronbach's α coefficients of the youth and parent versions of the scale were calculated as 0.92 in the youth version and 0.90 in the parent version. The Composite Reliability Index of the youth version was 0.94, and that of the parent version was 0.92. It was concluded that all statistical studies in the study were compatible with the original scale and that it could be applied to children with epilepsy between the ages of 8 to 18 and their parents in Turkish society.

Keywords

disclosure of epilepsy - children with epilepsy - parents - validity - reliability

Ethical Considerations

The study was approved by the Ege University Medical Study Ethics Committee (Institutional Review Board number: 21-9.1T/8, Written Ethics Committee (approval date: September 23, 2021), and permission was obtained to conduct the study. Written informed consent was obtained from the authors of the original study. After participants were informed about the study and written consent was obtained, they were allowed to participate in the survey and answer the scale questions.

Publication History

Received: 20 March 2024

Accepted: 06 May 2024

Article published online:
28 June 2024

• References

• 1 Yıldız H, Elmas R. Türkiye'de Epilepsili Çocuklara Yönelik Gerçekleştirilen Tezlerin İçerik Analizi Yöntemiyle Değerlendirilmesi. Aydın Sağlık Dergisi 2021; 7 (01) 15-40
• 2 Aaberg KM, Gunnes N, Bakken IJ. et al. Incidence and prevalence of childhood epilepsy: a nationwide cohort study. Pediatrics 2017; 139 (05) e20163908
• 3 Görgülü Ü, Fesci H. Epilepsi ile yaşam: epilepsinin psikososyal etkileri. Göztepe Tıp Dergisi 2011; 26 (01) 27-32
• 4 Aydemir N, Kaya B, Yıldız G. Development of the perceived stigma scale and the concealment of epilepsy scale for the Turkish population. Epilepsy Behav 2018; 80: 1-4
• 5 Hills MD. The psychological and social impact of epilepsy. Neurol Asia 2007; 12 (01) 10-12
• 6 Hung Anchor TF. Psycho-social impact of epilepsy and issues of stigma. Med Bull (NY) 2009; 14: 15-17
• 7 Ellis N, Upton D, Thompson P. Epilepsy and the family: a review of current literature. Seizure 2000; 9 (01) 22-30
• 8 Benson A, Lambert V, Gallagher P, Shahwan A, Austin JK. Parent perspectives of the challenging aspects of disclosing a child's epilepsy diagnosis to others: why don't they tell?. Chronic Illn 2017; 13 (01) 28-48
• 9 Jacoby A, Austin JK. Social stigma for adults and children with epilepsy. Epilepsia 2007; 48 (Suppl. 09) 6-9
• 10 Sevim K. Üniversite Öğrencilerinde Benlik Saygısı Ve Damgalama Eğilimi Arasındaki İlişki. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 2019; 35: 143-156
• 11 Ryu HU, Lee SA, Eom S, Kim HD. Korean QoL in Epilepsy Study Group. Perceived stigma in Korean adolescents with epilepsy: effects of knowledge about epilepsy and maternal perception of stigma. Seizure 2015; 24: 38-43
• 12 Tavşancıl E. Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi. Ankara:: Nobel Yayınevi;; 2002
• 13 Ersun A, Bolışık B. Çocuğun Kendi Hastalığına Yönelik Tutumu Ölçeği Türkçe Formu Geçerlik ve Güvenirliği. Ege Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Fakültesi Dergisi 2012; 28 (01) 37-45
• 14 Benson A, Lambert V, Gallagher P, O'Toole S, Shahwan A, Austin JK. Development and psychometric evaluation of the youth and parent versions of the Epilepsy Disclosure Scale (EDS). Epilepsy Behav 2018; 82: 111-118
• 15 Esin MN. Veri toplama yöntem ve araçlarıve veri toplama araçlarının güvenirlik ve geçerliği. In: Erdoğan S, Nahcivan N, Esin MN. eds. Hemşirelikte araştırma süreç, uygulama ve kritik. İstanbul:: Nobel; 2014: 193-232
• 16 Gözüm S, Aksayan S. Öz-etkililik-yeterlik ölçeği'nin Türkçe formunun güvenilirlik ve geçerliliği. Anadolu Hemsire Saglik Bilim Derg 1999; 2 (01) 21-34
• 17 Ceylan SS, Bolışık B. Yenidoğan bebeklerde ALPS-Neo ağrı ve stres değerlendirme ölçeğinin geçerlik ve güvenirliği. Pamukkale Tıp Dergisi. 2017; 10 (01) 45-52
• 18 Semerci Ç. Ilköğretim Türkçe ve Matematik Ders Kitaplarini Genel Değerlendirme Ölçeği. CÜ Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 2004; 28 (01) 49-54
• 19 Williams B, Onsman A, Brown T. Exploratory factor analysis: a five-step guide for novices. Australasian J Paramedicine 2010; 8 (03) 1-3
• 20 Kalaycı Ş. ed. SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri. Ankara:: Asil Yayın Dağıtım;; 2010
• 21 Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using Multivariate Statistics. Boston:: Pearson Education, Inc.; 2007
• 22 Pett MA, Lackey NR, Sullivan JJ. Making Sense of Factor Analysis: The Use of Factor Analysis for Instrument Development in Health Care Research. California;: 2003
• 23 Çapık C. Geçerlik Ve Güvenirlik Çalışmalarında Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizinin Kullanımı. Anadolu Hemsire Saglik Bilim Derg 2014; 17 (03) 196-205
• 24 Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. New York:: The Guilford Press;; 2011
• 25 Kartal SK, Mor E. Geçerlik Kavraminin Tarihsel Gelişimi Ve Güvenirlikte En Çok Tercih Edilen Yöntem: Cronbach Alfa Katsayısı. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 2016; 16 (04) 1865-1879
• 26 Marsh HW, Hau KT, Artelt C, Baumert J, Peschar JL. OECD's Brief Self-Report measure of educational psychology's most useful affective constructs: cross-cultural, psychometric comparisons across 25 countries. Int J Test 2006; 6 (04) 311-360
• 27 Jonhson B, Christensen L. Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches. SAGE Publication;; 2014
• 28 Byrne BM, Campbell TL. Cross-cultural comparisons and the presumption of equivalent measurement and theoretical structure: a look beneath the surface. J Cross Cult Psychol 1999; 30 (05) 555-574
• 29 Erefe İ. Veri Toplama Araçlarının Niteliği, Hemşirelikte Araştırma İlke Süreç ve Yöntemleri (3. Baskı) içinde (s.169–188). Ankara;: 2004
• 30 Şencan H. Sosyal ve davranışsal ölçümlerde güvenirlilik ve geçerlilik. Seçkin Yayıncılık: 2005
• 31 Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. Int J Med Educ 2011; 2: 53-55
• 32 Kılıç S. Kappa test. Journal of Mood Disorders 2015; 5 (03) 142-144
• 33 Domino G, Domino ML. Psychological Testing: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press;; 2006
• 34 Çelik H, Otrar M. Saldırganlık Envanterinin Türkçeye Uyarlanması: Geçerlik Ve Güvenirlik Çalışmaları. Marmara Üniversitesi Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi 2013; 29 (29) 101-120
• 35 Bozdoğan AE, Öztürk Ç. Coğrafya ile ilişkili fen konularının öğretimine yönelik öz-yeterlilik inanç ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi 2008; 2 (02) 66-81
• 36 Krasuski T, Jędrzejczak J, Rysz A, Owczarek K. Sexual satisfaction of patients after the resection of an epileptic focus. Interdiscip Neurosurg 2018; 13: 104-108