Adaptation of the Scale for Health Promoting Schools to Turkish Society: A Validity and Reliability Study

Öncel, Selma; Sümen, Adem

doi:10.5336/medsci.2017-58132

Cited by 1 publication

(8 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Two instruments have been translated to other languages (Öncel & Sümen, 2018;Ghotra et al, 2016) and therefore should have calculated cross-cultural validity; but only one of them has assessed this property (Ghotra et al, 2016). Assessment of cross-cultural validity is important because the instrument may vary across different samples (e.g., healthy and patients), different gender (male and female), different languages (e.g., English and Persian), different cultures etc.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three of them have met these criteria and received ''very good'' (Lee et al, 2014;Andrews & Conte, 2005;Pinto et al, 2016). One of the studies used the Delphi method and pilot study for evaluating content validity (Pinto et al, 2016); another has used focus group and a pilot study as the method of validation (Andrews & Conte, 2005); one study has examined only the comprehensibility of the items from students' points of view and did not evaluate content validity by asking professionals, so it was scored as ''inadequate'' (Weintraub & Erez, 2009), and the last study used only experts and did not perform a pilot study and therefore was scored ''inadequate'' (Öncel & Sümen, 2018).…”

Section: Content Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All of the seven articles have investigated the structural validity of the instrument at hand. Three articles have performed confirmatory factor analysis with a sufficient sample size (seven times the number of items) and were scored as ''very good'' (Öncel & Sümen, 2018;Weintraub & Erez, 2009;Lee et al, 2014), three studies have performed exploratory factor analysis (Ghotra et al, 2016;Pinto et al, 2016;Andrews & Conte, 2005) and were assessed as ''adequate''; the last one was assessed as ''inadequate'' because it has not performed confirmatory or exploratory factor analysis (Brener, Kann & Smith, 2003).…”

Section: Structural Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist any study that measures internal consistency for each of the subscales independently is considered to have a ''very good'' quality and any study presenting only the total internal consistency or not calculating the internal consistency at all, receives the score ''inadequate''. Five studies have calculated Cronbach's alpha for each subscale or unidimensional scale and were therefore evaluated as ''very good'' (Öncel & Sümen, 2018;Weintraub & Erez, 2009;Lee et al, 2014;Pinto et al, 2016;Ghotra et al, 2016), one of the studies was scored as ''doubtful'' because internal consistency was unclear and was not fully reported (Andrews & Conte, 2005), the last study was scored as ''inadequate'' because the internal consistency has not been calculated (Brener, Kann & Smith, 2003).…”

Section: Internal Consistencymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Only two of the studies could be investigated for cross-cultural validity. One study was scored as ''adequate'', because it did not report comparison between different groups clearly (Ghotra et al, 2016), and the other study has not reported cross-cultural validity at all (Öncel & Sümen, 2018).…”

Section: Cross-cultural Validity/measurement Invariancementioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

School health assessment tools: a systematic review of measurement in primary schools

Kazemitabar

Moghadamzadeh

Habibi

et al. 2020

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background This systematic review aimed to investigate the psychometric properties of the school health’s assessment tools in primary schools through COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist. We examined the studies that have addressed the measurement properties of school-health instruments to give a clear overview of the quality of all available tools measuring school health in primary schools. This systematic review was registered in PROPERO with the Registration ID: CRD42020158158. Method Databases of EBSCOhost, PubMed, ProQuest, Wily, PROSPERO, and OpenGrey were systematically searched without any time limitation to find all full-text English journal articles studied at least one of the COSMIN checklist measurement properties of a school-health assessment tool in primary schools. The instruments should be constructed based on a school health model. The eligible studies were assessed by COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist to report their quality of methodology for each measurement property and for the whole study by rating high, moderate or low quality. Results At the final screening just seven studies remained for review. Four studies were tool development, three of them were rated as “adequate” and the other study as “very good”; five studies examined the content validity, three of them were appraised as “very good”, and the two remaining as “inadequate”. All seven studies measured structural validity, three of them were evaluated as “very good”, three other were scored as “adequate”, and the last study as “inadequate”. All the seven studies investigated the internal consistency, five of them were assessed as “very good”, one was rated as “doubtful”, and the last one as “inadequate”. Just one study examined the cross-cultural validity and was rated as “adequate”. Finally, all seven studies measured reliability, two of them were rated as “very good” and the rest five studies were appraised as “doubtful”. All rating was based on COSMIN checklist criteria for quality of measurement properties assessment. Conclusion The number of studies addressing school health assessment tools was very low and therefore not sufficient. Hence, there is a serious need to investigate the psychometric properties of the available instruments measuring school health at primary schools. Moreover, the studies included in the present systematic review did not fulfill all the criteria of the COSMIN checklist for assessing measurement properties. We suggest that future studies consider these criteria for measuring psychometric properties and developing school health assessment tools.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%