Download PDF
Journal of Pediatric Epilepsy
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1787669
Original Article

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

Semen Solak 
1   Department of Anaesthesia Intensive Care Unit, Isparta City Hospital, Isparta, Türkiye
,
Ayşe Kahraman 
2   Department of Pediatric Nursing, Ege University, Faculty of Nursing, Izmir, Türkiye
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

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

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Aaberg KM, Gunnes N, Bakken IJ. et al. Incidence and prevalence of childhood epilepsy: a nationwide cohort study. Pediatrics 2017; 139 (05) e20163908
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Görgülü Ü, Fesci H. Epilepsi ile yaşam: epilepsinin psikososyal etkileri. Göztepe Tıp Dergisi 2011; 26 (01) 27-32
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Hills MD. The psychological and social impact of epilepsy. Neurol Asia 2007; 12 (01) 10-12
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Hung Anchor TF. Psycho-social impact of epilepsy and issues of stigma. Med Bull (NY) 2009; 14: 15-17
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Ellis N, Upton D, Thompson P. Epilepsy and the family: a review of current literature. Seizure 2000; 9 (01) 22-30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Jacoby A, Austin JK. Social stigma for adults and children with epilepsy. Epilepsia 2007; 48 (Suppl. 09) 6-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Sevim K. Üniversite Öğrencilerinde Benlik Saygısı Ve Damgalama Eğilimi Arasındaki İlişki. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 2019; 35: 143-156
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Tavşancıl E. Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi. Ankara:: Nobel Yayınevi;; 2002
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Semerci Ç. Ilköğretim Türkçe ve Matematik Ders Kitaplarini Genel Değerlendirme Ölçeği. CÜ Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 2004; 28 (01) 49-54
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Williams B, Onsman A, Brown T. Exploratory factor analysis: a five-step guide for novices. Australasian J Paramedicine 2010; 8 (03) 1-3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Kalaycı Ş. ed. SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri. Ankara:: Asil Yayın Dağıtım;; 2010
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using Multivariate Statistics. Boston:: Pearson Education, Inc.; 2007
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Çapık C. Geçerlik Ve Güvenirlik Çalışmalarında Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizinin Kullanımı. Anadolu Hemsire Saglik Bilim Derg 2014; 17 (03) 196-205
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. New York:: The Guilford Press;; 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Jonhson B, Christensen L. Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches. SAGE Publication;; 2014
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Erefe İ. Veri Toplama Araçlarının Niteliği, Hemşirelikte Araştırma İlke Süreç ve Yöntemleri (3. Baskı) içinde (s.169–188). Ankara;: 2004
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Şencan H. Sosyal ve davranışsal ölçümlerde güvenirlilik ve geçerlilik. Seçkin Yayıncılık: 2005
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. Int J Med Educ 2011; 2: 53-55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Kılıç S. Kappa test. Journal of Mood Disorders 2015; 5 (03) 142-144
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Domino G, Domino ML. Psychological Testing: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press;; 2006
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar