SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Çocuk Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 23 Sayı: 4

Kidney Health Awareness Scale in Adolescents: Theoretical Form Development Study

Mehtap Metin Karaaslan(RECEP TAYYIP ERDOGAN UNIVERSITY, HEALTH ACADEMY, DEPARTMENT OF NURSING)0000-0002-1575-3799
Yalçın Kanbay(ARTVIN CORUH UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, DEPARTMENT OF NURSING, DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHIATRIC NURSING)0000-0002-8025-9877
Sevil Çınar Özbay(ARTVIN CORUH UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF HEALTH SCIENCES)0000-0002-9281-1614
Pages
364–368
Publication Date
2024-02-20
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Results showed that the construct validity of the trial form was statistically significant, as the CVI value (0.89) was higher than the CVC value (0.64).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: This study was conducted to develop a theoretical form based on the Lawshe technique to evaluate the kidney health awareness levels of secondary school students in light of scientific and objective criteria.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and Methods: A question pool with 26 statements was created by reviewing the literature, and expert opinion (n:6) was taken to create a draft form.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Results showed that the construct validity of the trial form was statistically significant, as the CVI value (0.89) was higher than the CVC value (0.64).
🔬Design:Lab & Field Experiment
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Kidney Health · Adolescents · Awareness

Abstract

Objective: This study was conducted to develop a theoretical form based on the Lawshe technique to evaluate the kidney health awareness levels of secondary school students in light of scientific and objective criteria. Material and Methods: A question pool with 26 statements was created by reviewing the literature, and expert opinion (n:6) was taken to create a draft form. As a result of the expert evaluation, it was determined that six statements did not serve the purpose of the form and were removed from the study. The draft trial form with 20 statements was again submitted to expert evaluation (n:11). For construct validity and reliability, content validity criterion (CVC), content validity ratios (CVR), content validity index (CVI), Fleiss Cohen Kappa coefficient and Kendall's W goodness of fit values were calculated. Results: The content validity ratio was calculated for each statement in the trial form, and it was determined that all items in the form except item 14 were above the lower limit of 0.64. The content validity index was calculated for 19 items by taking the arithmetic mean of the content validity ratios, and it was determined that it was 0.89. Results showed that the construct validity of the trial form was statistically significant, as the CVI value (0.89) was higher than the CVC value (0.64). For the reliability of the form, the inter-expert agreement was examined, the Fleiss Kappa coefficient was calculated, and a value of 0.652 was obtained. Conclusions: As a result, this scale, whose validity and reliability are statistically accepted, can be used safely on secondary school students.

🔖

Cite This Article

Karaaslan, M. M., Kanbay, Y., Özbay, S. Ç. (2024). Kidney Health Awareness Scale in Adolescents: Theoretical Form Development Study. Çocuk Dergisi, Cilt: 23 Sayı: 4, 364–368. https://doi.org/10.26650/jchild.2023.1357535

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (27)

  1. Li P, Garcia-Garcia G, Lui S-F, Andreoli S, Fung W, Hradsky A, et al. (2020) Kidney health for everyone everywhere-from prevention to detection and equitable access to care. Brazilian J Med Biol Res. 53. https://doi.org/10.1177/2054358120910569 google scholar
  2. Jha V, Garcia-Garcia G, Iseki K, Li Z, Naicker S, Plattner B, et al. Chronic kidney disease: global dimension and perspectives. Lancet. 2013;382(9888):260-272. google scholar
  3. Süleymanlar G, Utaş C, Arinsoy T, Ateş K, Altun B, Altiparmak MR, et al. (2011) A population-based survey of Chronic REnal Disease In Turkey—the CREDIT study. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 26(6):1862-1871. https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfq656. google scholar
  4. Kovesdy CP, Furth S, Zoccali C, Committee WKDS. (2017) Obesity and kidney disease: hidden consequences of the epidemic. Physiol Int. 104(1):1-14. https://doi.Org/10.1556/2060.104.2017.1.9. google scholar
  5. Harada R, Hamasaki Y, Okuda Y, Hamada R, Ishikura K. (2022) Epidemiology of pediatric chronic kidney disease/kidney failure: learning from registries and cohort studies. Pediatr Nephrol. 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00467-021-05145-1. google scholar
  6. Paglia L, Friuli S, Colombo S, Paglia M. (2019) The effect of added sugars on children’s health outcomes: Obesity, Obstructive Sleep Apnea Syndrome (OSAS), Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and chronic diseases. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 20(2):127-32. https://doi.org/10.23804/ejpd.2019.20.02.09. google scholar
  7. Korkmaz SA, Topbaş E. (2023) Böbrek Sağlığının Korunması ve Böbrek Hastalıklarının Önlenmesinde Ulusal ve Uluslararası Eylem Planları/National and International Action Plans in Protecting Kidney Health and Preventing Kidney Diseases. Nefroloji Hemşireliği Derg. 18(1):45-61. google scholar
  8. TC Sağlık Bakanlığı Halk Sağlığı Genel Müdürlüğü, “Türkiye Böbrek Hastalıkları Önleme ve Kontrol Programı” T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı Yayın No: 1117, Ankara,2018. google scholar
  9. Loo LC, Ong KW, Ahmad Nidzwal AK, Razali MH, Ahmad N, Naim A, et al. (2022) Knowledge of chronic kidney disease among undergraduate and postgraduate students in a public university in Klang Valley, Malaysia: A cross sectional study. PLoS One. 17(9):e0274038 google scholar
  10. Ammirati AL. Chronic kidney disease. Rev Assoc Med Bras. 2020;66:s03-9. google scholar
  11. Vassilikopoulos T, Kalokairinou A, Kourlaba G, Grapsa E. (2021) Evaluation of pupils’ knowledge about kidney health. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 18(23):12811. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijerph182312811 google scholar
  12. Chow WL, Joshi VD, Tin AS, Van der Erf S, Lim JFY, Swah TS, et al. (2012) Limited knowledge of chronic kidney disease among primary care patients-a cross-sectional survey. BMC Nephrol. 13:1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2369-13-54 google scholar
  13. Ng CY, Lee ZS, Goh KS. Cross-sectional study on knowledge of chronic kidney disease among medical outpatient clinic patients. Med J Malaysia. 2016;71(3):99-104. google scholar
  14. Özpancar N, Malkoç F, Özkan G. (2019) Prediyaliz Hastalarında Risk Faktörlerinin ve Farkındalık Düzeylerinin Belirlenmesi. Sağlık Bilim ve Meslekleri Derg. 6(2):350-6. https://doi.org/10.17681/ hsp.473863 google scholar
  15. Yurdugul H. Using content validity indexes for content validity in scale development studies. In: XIV National Congress of Educational Sciences Denizli. 2005. p. 1-6. google scholar
  16. Ayre C, Scally AJ. (2014) Critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio: revisiting the original methods of calculation. Meas Eval Couns Dev. 47(1):79-86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175613513808. google scholar
  17. Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2006;29(5):489-497. google scholar
  18. Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Pers Psychol. 1975;28(4):563-75. google scholar
  19. Batdı V. İşbirlikli öğrenmenin yabancı dil öğretimindeki önemine ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri. Eğitim ve Öğretim Araştırmaları Derg. 2013;2(1):158-165. google scholar
  20. McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem medica. 2012;22(3):276-282. google scholar
  21. Colin A, Andrew JS. Critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio. Meas Eval Couns Dev. 2013;47(1):79-86. google scholar
  22. Statistiek SP. SPSS-Kendall’s concordance coefficient W. Amsterdam: Sigma Plus Statistiek. https://www. spss-tutorials. com/spss.; 2019. google scholar
  23. Esin MN. Veri toplama yöntem ve araçları & veri toplama araçlarının güvenirlik ve geçerliği. Erdoğan S, Nahçivan N, Esin MN Hemşirelikte Araştırma Süreç, Uygul ve Krit İstanbul Nobel Tıp Kitapevi. 2014;217-230. google scholar
  24. Gwet KL. Large-sample variance of Fleiss generalized kappa. Educ Psychol Meas. 2021;81(4):781-790. google scholar
  25. Süleymanlar G, Utaş C, Arinsoy T, Ateş K, Altun B, Altiparmak MR, et al. (2011) A population-based survey of Chronic REnal Disease In Turkey—the CREDIT study. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 26(6):1862-1871. https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfq656. google scholar
  26. TC Sağlık Bakanlığı Halk Sağlığı Genel Müdürlüğü, “Türkiye Böbrek Hastalıkları Önleme ve Kontrol Programı” T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı Yayın No: 1117, Ankara,2018. google scholar
  27. Statistiek SP. SPSS-Kendall’s concordance coefficient W. Amsterdam: Sigma Plus Statistiek. https://www. spss-tutorials. com/spss.; 2019. google scholar