SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 16 Sayı: 2

Validity and Reliability Study of Nursing Students’ Rights Awareness Scale in Clinical Practice and Its Relationship with Human Rights Sensitivity

Hemşirelik Öğrencilerinin Klinik Uygulamada Hak Farkındalığı Ölçeğinin Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması ve İnsan Hakları Hassasiyeti ile İlişkisi

Tuba Korkmaz Aslan(Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Seydişehir Kamil Akkanat Sağlık Bilimleri Fakültesi)0000-0003-0419-2217
Serap Batı(NECMETTİN ERBAKAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ, SEYDİŞEHİR SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ FAKÜLTESİ, HEMŞİRELİK BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0003-3176-6837
Rukiye Burucu(NECMETTİN ERBAKAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ, SEYDİŞEHİR SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ FAKÜLTESİ, HEMŞİRELİK BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0002-9284-5486
Pages
192–201
Publication Date
2026-08-31
🏛️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)

The Rights Awareness Scale in Clinical Practice in Nursing Students is a valid and reliable measurement tool for the Turkish population and it was concluded that as rights awareness increases, human rights sensitivity also increases.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study was to adapt the validity and reliability of the Rights Awareness in Clinical Practice Scale for the Turkish population and to determine its relationship with human rights sensitivity in nursing students.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This methodological study was conducted with 200 nursing students.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The Rights Awareness Scale in Clinical Practice in Nursing Students is a valid and reliable measurement tool for the Turkish population and it was concluded that as rights awareness increases, human rights sensitivity also increases.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:İnsan hakları · Hak farkındalığı · Hemşirelik öğrencileri

Abstract

The aim of this study was to adapt the validity and reliability of the Rights Awareness in Clinical Practice Scale for the Turkish population and to determine its relationship with human rights sensitivity in nursing students. This methodological study was conducted with 200 nursing students. Data were collected using the “Sociodemographic Information Form”, “Nursing Students’ Rights Awareness Scale in Clinical Practice” and “Human Rights Sensitivity Scale”. In the validity and reliability evaluation of the scale, Davis Technique was used for content validity, KMO, Bartlett test and Principal Component Analysis (Varimax Rotation) were applied in explanatory factor analysis. In confirmatory factor analysis, χ²/SD, GFI, AGFI, CFI, RMSEA, SRMR fit indices and PATH diagram were used. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s α, item-total correlation, parallel form equivalence and halving methods. The total variance explained in the Turkish version of the scale was 89%. Factor loadings were higher than 0.40 in both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. The total Cronbach’s alpha value of the scale was 0.979 and the Cronbach’s alpha value of all subscales was >0.84. The model fit indices of the scale were found to be at an acceptable level. There was a statistically significant, positive and high correlation between the Rights Awareness in Clinical Practice Scale score and the scores obtained from the Human Rights Sensitivity Scale (p<0.05). The Rights Awareness Scale in Clinical Practice in Nursing Students is a valid and reliable measurement tool for the Turkish population and it was concluded that as rights awareness increases, human rights sensitivity also increases. Health can be a useful tool in evaluating the awareness of rights of nursing students in clinical practice.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı Hemşirelik öğrencilerinde Klinik Uygulamada Hak Farkındalığı Ölçeğinin Türk toplumu için geçerlilik ve güvenirliliğinin uyarlanması ve insan hakları hassasiyeti ile ilişkisinin belirlenmesidir. Metodolojik tipteki çalışma 200 hemşirelik öğrencisi ile yürütülmüştür. Veriler, “Sosyodemografik Bilgi Formu”, “Hemşirelik Öğrencilerinin Klinik Uygulamada Hak Farkındalığı Ölçeği” ve “İnsan Hakları Hassasiyet Ölçeği” kullanılarak toplanmıştır. Ölçeğin geçerlilik ve güvenirlik değerlendirmesinde kapsam geçerliliği için Davis Tekniği, açıklayıcı faktör analizinde KMO, Bartlett testi ve Temel Bileşenler Analizi (Varimax Döndürme) uygulanmıştır. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizinde χ²/SD, GFI, AGFI, CFI, RMSEA, SRMR uyum indeksleri ve PATH diyagramı kullanılmıştır. İç tutarlılık için Cronbach α, madde-toplam korelasyonu, paralel form eşdeğerliği ve yarıya bölme yöntemleri ile değerlendirilmiştir. Ölçeğin Türkçe versiyonunda toplam açıklanan varyans %89’dur. Faktör yüklerinin hem açıklayıcı hem de doğrulayıcı faktör analizlerinde 0,40’tan yüksek olduğu bulunmuştur. Ölçeğin toplam Cronbach alfa değeri 0.979’dur ve tüm alt ölçeklerin Cronbach alfa değeri >0,84’tür. Ölçeğin model uyum indekslerinin kabul edilebilir düzeyde olduğu bulunmuştur. Klinik Uygulamada Hak Farkındalığı Ölçek puanı ile İnsan Hakları Hassasiyet Ölçeğinden alınan puanlar arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı, pozitif yönlü ve yüksek düzeyde ilişki bulunmuştur (p<0.05). Hemşirelik Öğrencilerinde Klinik Uygulamada Hak Farkındalığı Ölçeği Türk toplumu için geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçüm aracı olup hak farkındalığı arttıkça insan hakları hassasiyetlerinin de arttığı sonucuna varılmıştır. Klinik uygulamada hemşirelik öğrencilerinin haklarının farkındalığının değerlendirilmesinde sağlık yararlı bir araç olabilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Aslan, T. K., Batı, S., Burucu, R. (2026). Validity and Reliability Study of Nursing Students’ Rights Awareness Scale in Clinical Practice and Its Relationship with Human Rights Sensitivity. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, Cilt: 16 Sayı: 2, 192–201. https://doi.org/10.5961/higheredusci.1661102

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (46)

  1. Al-Qaisi, E., & Shomar, T. (2023). The Philosophical Roots of the Philosophy of Rights. Jordan Journal of Social Sciences, 16(1),54-72. https://doi.org/10.35516/jjss.v16i1.1267
  2. Al Syed, S., Abou Hashish, E. A., Bajamal, E., Abdaljabbar, L., Alam-mari, N., Alotaibi, R.,. & Alrudayni, H. (2023). Knowledge of the Patients’ Bill of Rights and Influencing Factors Among University Nursing Students. Cureus, 15(5). https://doi. org/10.7759/cureus.38433
  3. Alpar R. Spor Sağlık ve Eğitim Bilimlerinden Örneklerle Uygulamalı İstatistik ve Geçerlik Güvenirlik. 5. Baskı. Ankara: Detay;2018.
  4. Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186-3191. https://doi. org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
  5. Berchtold, A. (2016). Test–retest: agreement or reliability?. Met-hodological Innovations, 9, 2059799116672875. https://doi. org/10.1177/2059799116672875
  6. Burns, N., & Grove, S. K. (2009). The concepts of measurement. Burns N, Grove SK.(Eds). The practice of nursing research, 3,319-41.
  7. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2002). Faktör analizi: Temel kavramlar ve ölçek geliştirmede kullanımı. Kuram ve uygulamada eğitim yöneti-mi, 32(32), 470-483. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/ article-file/108451
  8. Davis, L. L. (1992). Instrument review: Getting the most from a pa-nel of experts. Applied Nursing Research, 5, 194-197. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S0897-1897(05)80008-4
  9. Dogan, E. I. K., Terragni, L., & Raustøl, A. (2022). Human rights and nutritional care in nurse education: lessons learned. Nursing ethics, 29(4), 915–926. https://doi. org/10.1177/09697330211057226
  10. Dündar-Coecke, S. (2021). Lisans öğrencilerinin insan hakları du-yarlılığına ilişkin bir araştırma. Marmara Üniversitesi Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 53(53), 363-378. https://doi.org/10.15285/maruaebd.772532
  11. Erdoğan S, Nahcivan N, Esin N. Hemşirelikte Araştırma Süreç, Uy-gulama ve Kritik. İstanbul: Nobel Tıp Kitabevleri, 2017:218-30
  12. Fleury-Steiner, B., & Nielsen, L. B. (Eds.). (2006). The new civil rights research: A constitutive approach. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429060632
  13. Harrington D. Confirmatory Factor Analysis, 1nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009:22-30.
  14. Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T. K., Sarsted, M., Ringle, C. M., Diamantopo-ulos, A., vd., (2014). Common Beliefs and Reality about Partial
  15. Least Squares: Comments on Rönkkö ve Evermann (2013). Or-ganizational Research Methods, 17(2), 182-209. https://doi. org/10.1177/1094428114526928
  16. Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture,2(1).
  17. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008, September). Evalua-ting model fit: a synthesis of the structural equation modelling literature. In 7th European Conference on research methodo-logy for business and management studies (Vol. 2008, No. 2, pp. 195-200).
  18. Hwang, Y. Y., Park, S. (2023). Development of a Measurement Tool for Clinical Practice Rights of Nursing Students. Journal of The Korean Data Analysis Society (JKDAS), 25(4), 1483-1499. https://doi.org/10.37727/jkdas.2023.25.4.1483
  19. International Council of Nurses. ICN Code of Ethics for Nurses, Revised. ICN. 2021. http://www.icn.ch/system/files/2021-10/ ICN_Code-of-Ethics_EN_Web_0.pdf. Accessed Feb 05, 2024.
  20. İlhan, M., & Çetin, B. (2014). LISREL ve AMOS programları kullanı-larak gerçekleştirilen yapısal eşitlik modeli (yem) analizlerine ilişkin sonuçların karşılaştırılması. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 5(2), 26-42. https:// doi.org/10.21031/epod.31126
  21. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. psychometri-ka, 39(1), 31-36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575
  22. Kang, J.; Jeong, Y.J.; Kong, K.R. Threats to identity: A grounded the-ory approach on student nurses’ experience of incivility during clinical placement. J. Korean Acad. Nurs. 2018, 48, 85–95.
  23. Kupcewicz, E., Grochans, E., Kadučáková, H., Mikla, M., Bentkows-ka, A., Kupcewicz, A.,. & Jóźwik, M. (2021). Personalized he-althcare: the importance of patients’ rights in clinical practice from the perspective of nursing students in Poland, Spain and Slovakia—A cross-sectional study. Journal of Personalized Me-dicine, 11(3), 191. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm11030191
  24. Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35(6), 382-385.
  25. Mamaghani, E.A.; Rahmani, A.; Hassankhani, H.; Zamanzadeh, V.; Campbell, S.; Fast, O.; Irajpour, A. Experiences of Iranian nursing students regarding their clinical learning environment. Asian Nurs. Res. 2018, 12, 216–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. anr.2018.08.005
  26. McKenzie, K.C., Mishori, R. & Ferdowsian, U. (2020) Twelve tips for incorporating the study of human rights into medical edu-cation, Medical Teacher, 42:8, 871-879, https://doi.org/10.10 80/0142159X.2019.1623384
  27. Mohamed, A. K., Mohamed, F. R., & Saleh, N. M. (2019). Nur-ses’ Awareness about their Rights and Responsibilities. As-siut Scientific Nursing Journal, 7(18), 87-94. https://doi. org/10.21608/asnj.2019.58139
  28. Munro, B. H. (2005). Statistical methods for health care research(Vol. 1). lippincott williams & wilkins.
  29. Noor, B., Monestime, O., Hines, J. & Peterson del Mar, D. (2023) “A Student Bill of Rights,” Amplify: A Journal of Writing-asActivism: Vol. 2: Iss. 1, Article 5. https://doi.org/10.15760/ amplify.2023.2.1.5Özsaban, A., & Bayram, A. (2020). Türkiye’de hemşirelik öğrenci-lerinin klinik uygulama deneyimlerini etkileyen faktörler: siste-matik derleme. Ankara Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, 9(2), 124-145.
  30. Park, S. H., & Choi, M. Y. (2021). Development and validation of the nursing students’ rights Awareness Scale in Clinical Practi-ce: a Scale Development Study. In Healthcare (Vol. 9, No. 10, p. 1323). MDPI. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9101323
  31. Polit, D. F., Beck, C. T., & Owen, S. V. (2007). Is the CVI an accep-table indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommen-dations. Research in Nursing & Health, 30(4), 459-467. https:// doi.org/10.1002/nur.20199
  32. Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2010). Essentials of nursing research: Appraising evidence for nursing practice. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
  33. Shiman, D. A. (1999). Economic and Social Justice: A Human Rights Perspective. Human Rights Education Series, Topic Book 1. Human Rights USA Resource Center, 229 19th Ave-nue South, Suite 439, Minneapolis, MN 55455. https://eric. ed.gov/?id=ED438214
  34. Shcherbay, I. 2023. The Concept and Essence of Human Rights No 1 (2023): Analytical and Comparative Law 12 (1). https://doi. org/10.24144/2788-6018.2023.01.111
  35. Smirnova E. (2023). Human rights, imperative norms and ba-sic principles of International Law: notes of an international lawyer. Gosudarstvo i pravo. no. 8, pp.207-212. https://doi. org/10.31857/S102694520027236-0
  36. Smith, E., Gullick, J., Perez, D., & Einboden, R. (2023). A peek be-hind the curtain: An integrative review of sexual harassment of nursing students on clinical placement. Journal of clinical nur-sing, 32(5-6), 666–687. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.16600
  37. Soerensen, J., Holen, M., Jakobsen, I. S., Larsen, P., & Nielsen, D. S. (2024). “Safety Means Everything”: An ethnographic met-hodology to explore the formation of professional identity in nursing students. Nurse education in practice, 76, 103914. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. nepr.2024.103914
  38. Streiner, D. L., Norman, G. R., & Cairney, J. (2015). Health measu-rement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford University Press.
  39. Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J.,. & de Vet, H. C. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questi-onnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1), 34-42.
  40. United Nations General Assembly. Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. United Nations. Seventieth session, Agenda items 15 and 116. 2015. http:// www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/ generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf.
  41. World Health Organization. (2020). Process of translation and adaptation of instruments. https://www.who.int/substance_ abuse/research_tools/translation/en/
  42. Yılmaz, M. (2024). İnsan Hakları Bilincini Geliştirmeye Yönelik Bir “Street Law” Dersi Deneyimi. Aurum Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi,9(1), 5-16. https://doi.org/10.62393/aurum.1420317
  43. Yurdabakan, İ., Çüm, S. Davranış Bilimlerinde Ölçek Geliştirme (Açıklayıcı Faktör Analizine Dayalı), Turkish Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, 2017
  44. Al Syed, S., Abou Hashish, E. A., Bajamal, E., Abdaljabbar, L., Alam-mari, N., Alotaibi, R.,. & Alrudayni, H. (2023). Knowledge of the Patients’ Bill of Rights and Influencing Factors Among University Nursing Students. Cureus, 15(5). https://doi. org/10.7759/cureus.38433
  45. Kupcewicz, E., Grochans, E., Kadučáková, H., Mikla, M., Bentkows-ka, A., Kupcewicz, A.,. & Jóźwik, M. (2021). Personalized he-althcare: the importance of patients’ rights in clinical practice from the perspective of nursing students in Poland, Spain and Slovakia—A cross-sectional study. Journal of Personalized Me-dicine, 11(3), 191. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm11030191
  46. Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J.,. & de Vet, H. C. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questi-onnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1), 34-42.