SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 13 Sayı: 1

Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of the Instrument of the Quality of Nursing Doctoral Education

Hemşirelikte Doktora Eğitiminin Kalitesi Ölçeği’nin Türkçe Formunun Geçerlik, Güvenilirliğinin İncelenmesi

Ayla Bayık Temel0000-0001-8727-3279
Aynur Uysal Toraman(EGE UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF NURSING, NURSING, NURSING PR.)0000-0001-8176-4042
Gülengül Mermer(EGE UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF NURSING, NURSING, NURSING PR.)0000-0002-0566-5656
Ebru Konal(EGE UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF NURSING, NURSING, NURSING PR.)0000-0002-3276-3323
Esin Ateş(EGE UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF NURSING, NURSING, NURSING PR.)0000-0003-0668-3423
Pages
32–39
Publication Date
2023-04-30
🏛️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 results of this study show that the Turkish version of the Quality of Nursing Doctoral Education instrument is a valid and reliable tool.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study is to determine the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Quality of Doctoral Education in Nursing (QNDE) scale.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Data were collected from 55 teaching staff and 225 doctorate students.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results of this study show that the Turkish version of the Quality of Nursing Doctoral Education instrument is a valid and reliable tool.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Geçerlilik · Güvenilirlik · Hemşire

Abstract

The aim of this study is to determine the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Quality of Doctoral Education in Nursing (QNDE) scale. The lack of a measurement tool examining the quality of doctoral education in nursing in a national context is the reason for this study. Data were collected from 55 teaching staff and 225 doctorate students. Explanatory and confirmatory factor analyzes were used for test validity. Cronbach’s α coefficient of reliability, independent-sample t test, and test-retest analysis were calculated to test Reliability. The factor loads ranged between 0.51-0.91.The construct validity was good (χ2/df =3.02; RMSEA = 0.085; CFI = 0.87; NFI = 0.90; GFI = 0.79; TLI = 0.90; IFI =0.91; p < 0.001). The Cronbach alpha value of the scale was 0.94. The results of this study show that the Turkish version of the Quality of Nursing Doctoral Education instrument is a valid and reliable tool.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı Hemşirelikte Doktora Eğitiminin Kalitesi (QNDE) ölçeğinin Türkçe formunun geçerlilik ve güvenilirliğini belirlemektir. Ulusal bağlamda hemşirelikte doktora eğitiminin kalitesini inceleyen bir ölçüm aracının olmaması bu çalışmanın gerekçesidir. Veriler 55 öğretim üyesi ve 225 doktora öğrencisinden toplanmıştır. Geçerlilik analizleri için açıklayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizleri kullanılmıştır. Güvenilirliği test etmek için Cronbach’s α güvenilirlik katsayısı, bağımsız-örnek t testi ve test-tekrar test analizi yapılmıştır. Ölçeğin faktör yükleri 0.51-0.91 arasında değişmektedir. Uyum indeksleri değerleri kapsam geçerliliği için uygun kriterler arasında bulunmuştur (χ2/df =3.02; RMSEA = 0.085; CFI = 0.87; NFI = 0.90; GFI = 0.79; TLI = 0.90; IFI =0.91; p < 0.001). Cronbach alfa katsayısı 0.94’tür. Bu sonuçlar, Hemşirelik Doktora Eğitiminin Kalitesi ölçeğinin Türkçe formunun geçerli ve güvenilir bir araç olduğunu göstermektedir

🔖

Cite This Article

Temel, A. B., Toraman, A. U., Mermer, G., Konal, E., Ateş, E. (2023). Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of the Instrument of the Quality of Nursing Doctoral Education. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 1, 32–39. https://doi.org/10.5961/higheredusci.1078501

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (30)

  1. Alpar, R. (2018). Applied Statistics with Examples from Sport, Health and Educational Sciences and Validity - Reliability. Detay Publishing.
  2. Arimoto, A., Gregg, M. F., Nagata, S., Miki, Y., & Murashima, S. (2012). Evaluation of doctoral nursing programs in Japan by faculty members and their educational and research activities. Nurse Education Today, 32(5), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2011.06.007
  3. Bahar, Z., Aydogdu N. G. (2019). Doctorate Programs in Nursing and Providing its Standardization. Journal of Public Health Nursing; 1(1), 54-63.
  4. Bao, Y., Kehm, B. M., & Ma, Y. (2018). From product to process. The reform of doctoral education in Europe and China. Studies in Higher Education, 43(3), 524-541. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1182481
  5. Beeber, A. S., Palmer, C., Waldrop, J., Lynn, M. R., & Jones, C. B. (2019). The role of doctor of nursing practice-prepared nurses in practice settings. Nursing outlook, 67(4), 354-364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2019.02.006
  6. Brown, T. A. (2006). Confırmatory Factor Analysıs for Applied Research. The Guildford Press.
  7. Bullin, C. (2018). To what extent has doctoral (PhD) education supported academic nurse educators in their teaching roles: an integrative review. BMC nursing, 17(1), 6.
  8. Buyukozturk, S. (2017). Manual of Data Analysis for Social Sciences. Pegem Academy.
  9. Cote, J. R., Netemeyer, R. & Bentler, P. (2001). Structural equation modelling—improving model fit by correlating errors. J. Consum. Psychol, 10(1, 2), 87–88.
  10. Council of Higher Education. (2020). Higher Education Institution Statistical Information 2020 https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/
  11. Golino, H. F., & Epskamp, S. (2017). Exploratory graph analysis: A new approach for estimating the number of dimensions in psychological research. PloS one, 12(6), e0174035. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174035
  12. Güngör, D. (2016). Guide to the Development and Adaptation of Measurement Tools in Psychology. Turkish Psychology Articles, 19 (38), 104-112. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J. & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60.
  13. Kapucu, S., & Bulut, H. (2018). Turkish Public University Students' Views on the Quality of PhD Education in Nursing. Journal of Higher Education (Turkey), 9(1), 84-90. https://doi.org/10.2399/yod.18.022
  14. Karadağ, N., Özdemir, S. (2017). The Views of Faculty Members and Phd Students on the Processes of Doctoral Education in Turkey. Journal of Higher Education and Science, 7(2), 267-281. https://doi.org/10.5961/jhes.2017.206
  15. Karaman, S., & Bakırcı, F. (2010). Postgraduate Study in Turkey: Problems And Proposed Solutıons. The Journal of Social Sciences Research, 2, 94-114.
  16. Kim, M. J., Lee, H., Kim, H. K., Ahn, Y. H., Kim, E., Yun, S. N., & Lee, K. J. (2010). Quality of faculty, students, curriculum and resources for nursing doctoral education in Korea: a focus group study. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47(3), 295-306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.07.005
  17. Kim, M. J., McKenna, H. P., & Ketefian, S. (2006). Global quality criteria, standards, and indicators for doctoral programs in nursing; literature review and guideline development. International journal of nursing studies, 43(4), 477-489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2005.07.003
  18. Kim, M. J., Park, C. G., McKenna, H., Ketefian, S., Park, S. H., Klopper, H., Lee, H., Kunaviktikul, W., Gregg, M. F., Coetzee, S., Juntasopeepun, P., Murashima, S., Keeney, S., Khan, S. (2015). Quality of nursing doctoral education in seven countries: survey of faculty and students/graduates. Journal of advanced nursing, 71(5), 1098-1109. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12606
  19. Kline, R. B. (2013). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Y. Petscher & C. Schatsschneider (Ed.), Applied Quantitative Analysis in the Social Sciences. Routledge.
  20. Lim, D. (2018). Quality assurance in higher education: A study of developing countries. Routledge.
  21. Mair, P. (2018). Factor analysis. In Modern Psychometrics with R. Springer, Cham. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-93177-7_2
  22. Miki, Y., Gregg, M. F., Arimoto, A., Nagata, S., & Murashima, S. (2012). Evaluation of doctoral nursing programs by doctoral students in Japan: Cross-sectional questionnaire survey. Japan Journal of Nursing Science, 9(2), 160–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-7924.2011.00196.x
  23. Miller, M. K. (2009). Nonparametric Statistics for Social and Behavioral Sciences. CRC Press.
  24. Mukaka, M. M. (2012). A Guide to Appropriate Use of Correlation Coefficient in Medical Research. Malawi Medical Journal, 24(3), 69-71.
  25. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2020). Education at a Glance 2019. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/f8d7880d-en.pdfexpires=1586460720&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=54FEA8A0275E928E8DC271EBEB64D431
  26. O'Rourke, N., Psych, R., Hatcher, L. (2013). A Step-By-Step Approach to Using SAS for Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling. Sas Institute.
  27. Ozdamar, K. (2018). Statistical Data Analysis With Package Programs. Seckin Publishing.
  28. Sibandze, B. T., & Scafide, K. N. (2018). Among nurses, how does education level impact professional values? A systematic review. International Nursing Review, 65(1), 65-77. https://doi.org/10.1111/inr.12390
  29. Tavsancıl, E. (2019). Measurement of Attitudes and Data Analysis with SPSS. Nobel Publishing.
  30. Turkish Higher Education Quality Council. (2020) Higher Education Quality https://yokak.gov.tr/