Hostname: page-component-669899f699-vbsjw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-28T14:46:04.610Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Psychometric properties of the Turkish version of the developmental care scale for neonates with congenital heart disease

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 October 2024

Seçkin Kolak Sevgi  and
Kahraman Ayşe Open the ORCID record for Kahraman Ayşe [Opens in a new window]
Seçkin Kolak Sevgi
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatric Nursing, Ege University Institute of Health Sciences, Izmir, Bornova, Türkiye Department of Pediatrics, Division of Neonatology, Faculty of Medicine Hospital, Ege University, Izmir, Bornova, Türkiye
Kahraman Ayşe*
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatric Nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Ege University, Izmir, Bornova, Türkiye
*
Corresponding author: Kahraman Ayşe; Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

Developmental care for newborns with congenital heart disease (CHD) improves cardiac and respiratory patterns. According to the American Heart Association, developmental care in newborns with CHD is important for improving neurodevelopmental outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Developmental Care Scale for Neonates with Congenital Heart Disease.

Methods:

This was a methodological, descriptive study conducted with 169 nurses from a tertiary-level NICU. The Demographical Information Form and the Developmental Care Scale for Neonates with Congenital Heart Disease were used to collect the data. The scales’ language and content validity, construct validity, and internal consistency were also assessed.

Results:

The scale consists of 31 items and four subscales. Factor loadings ranged from 0.44 to 0.82 and explained 65% of the total variance. Fit indices indicate that the model is acceptable. Cronbach’s α was 0.95 for the entire instrument, 0.91 for developing the external environment subscale, 0.94 for assessing family well-being, 0.86 for the caregiver activities toward the neonate, and 0.82 for the basic need subscale. Item–total correlations ranged between 0.34 and 0.75, according to the item analysis results.

Conclusions:

The Turkish version of the Developmental Care Scale for Neonates with Congenital Heart Disease is valid and reliable. The use of this scale could improve the performance of neonatal intensive care nurses in providing developmental care to newborns with CHD as well as the quality of care.

Keywords

NeonateCHDdevelopmental carepsychometric properties
Type
Original Article
Information
Cardiology in the Young , Volume 34 , Issue 10 , October 2024 , pp. 2207 - 2212
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Als, H. Newborn Individualized Developmental Care and Assessment Program (NIDCAP): new frontier for neonatal and perinatal medicine. J Neonatal-Perinatal med 2009; 2: 135–147. DOI: 10.3233/NPM-2009-0061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pineda, RG, Tjoeng, TH, Vavasseur, C, Kidokoro, H, Neil, JJ, Inder, T. Patterns of altered neurobehavior in preterm infants within the neonatal intensive care unit. J pediatr 2013; 162: 470–476.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2012.08.011.Google ScholarPubMed
Altimier, L, Phillips, RM. The neonatal integrative developmental care model: seven neuroprotective core measures for family-centered developmental care. Newborn Infant Nurs. Rev 2013; 13: 9–22. DOI: 10.1053/j.nainr.2016.09.030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spilker, A, Hill, C, Rosenblum, R. The effectiveness of a standardised positioning tool and bedside education on the developmental positioning proficiency of NICU nurses. Intensive Crit Care Nurs 2016; 35: 10–15. DOI: 10.1016/j.iccn.2016.01.004.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahraman, A, Gümüş, M, Akar, M, Sipahi, M, Bal Yılmaz, H, Başbakkal, Z. The effects of auditory interventions on pain and comfort in premature newborns in the neonatal intensive care unit; a randomised controlled trial. Intensive Crit Care Nurs 2020; 61: 2904. DOI: 10.1016/j.iccn.2020.102904.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arter, S, Miller, E, Bakas, T, Cooper, DS. Psychometric testing of the developmental care scale for neonates with congenital heart disease. Cardiol young 2019; 29: 749–755. DOI: 10.1017/S1047951119000337.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Byers, JF. Components of developmental care and the evidence for their use in the NICU. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs 2003; 28: 174–182. DOI: 10.1097/00005721-200305000-00007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, TA, Lisanti, AJ, Witte, MK et al. A collaborative learning assessment of developmental care practices for infants in the cardiac intensive care unit. J Pediatr 2020; 220: 93–100. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.01.043.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lisanti, AJ, Uzark, KC, Harrison, TM et al. & American Heart Association Pediatric Cardiovascular Nursing Committee of the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, Council on Lifelong Congenital Heart Disease and Heart Health in the Young and Council on Hypertension Developmental Care for Hospitalized Infants With Complex Congenital Heart Disease: A Science Advisory From the American Heart Association. J Am Heart Assoc 2023; 12: 28489. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.122.028489.Google Scholar
Peterson, JK. Supporting optimal neurodevelopmental outcomes in infants and children with congenital heart disease. Crit Care Nurse 2018; 38: 68–74. DOI: 10.4037/ccn2018514.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peterson, JK, Evangelista, LS. Developmentally supportive care in congenital heart disease: a concept analysis. J Pediatr Nur 2017; 36: 241–247. DOI: 10.1016/j.pedn.2017.05.007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coughlin, ME. Chapter 8. Age appropriate Activities of Daily Living. In Transformative Nursing in the NICU, Trauma-Informed Age Appropriate Care. Springer publishing company, 2014.Google Scholar
Bektas, M, Kudubes, AA. Psychometric characteristics of the Turkish version of the pain flexibility scale for children with cancer. J Pediatr Nur 2022; 62: 84–90. DOI: 10.1016/j.pedn.2021.09.011.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahraman, A, Ceylan, SS. Psychometric properties of the Turkish Version of the Developmental Support Competency Scale for Nurses (DSCS-N). J Pediatr Nur 2020; 54: e47–e52. DOI: 10.1016/j.pedn.2020.04.021.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yusoff, MSB. ABC of content validation and content validity index calculation. Edu Med J 2019; 11: 49–54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21315/eimj2019.11.2.6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zamanzadeh, V, Rassouli, M, Abbaszadeh, A, Alavi-Majd, H, Nikanfar, AR, Ghahramanian, A. Details of content validity and objectifying it in instrument development. Nur Pract To 2014; 1: 163–171.Google Scholar
Jonhson, B, Christensen, L. Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches, 5th ed. SAGE publication, London, 2014.Google Scholar
Boateng, GO, Neilands, TB, Frongillo, EA, Melgar-Quiñonez, HR, Young, SL. Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: a primer. Front Public Health 2018; 6: 149. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ceylan, SS, Keskin, Z, Yavaş, Z, et al. Developing the scale of parental participation in care: neonatal intensive care unit and examining the scale’s psychometric properties. Intensive Crit Care Nurs 2021; 65: 103037. DOI: 10.1016/j.iccn.2021.103037.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turan, T, Erdoğan, Ç, Serap Ceylan, S. The validity and reliability study of Turkish version of the fathers’ support scale: neonatal intensive care unit. Intensive Crit Care Nurs 2019; 50: 125–130. DOI: 10.1016/j.iccn.2018.08.007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Çokluk Ö, Şekercioğlu G, Büyüköztürk Ş. Multivariate Statistics for Social Sciences: SPSS and LISREL Applications. Ankara, Pegem Akademi 2021. (Original work published in Turkish).Google Scholar
Marsh, HW, Guo, J, Dicke, T, Parker, PD, Craven, RG. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM), and set-ESEM: optimal balance between goodness of fit and parsimony. Multivar Behav Res 2020; 55: 102–119. DOI: 10.1080/00273171.2019.1602503.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ainur, AK, Sayang, MD, Jannoo, Z, Yap, BW. Sample size and Non-normality effects on goodness of fit measures in structural equation models. Pertanika J Sci Techno 2017; 25: 575–586.Google Scholar
Shi, D, Maydeu-Olivares, A, Rosseel, Y. Assessing fit in ordinal factor analysis models: SRMR vs. RMSEA. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidis J 2019; 27: 1–15. DOI: 10.1080/10705511.2019.Google Scholar