Validity and Reliability of Turkish Version of Deprivation in Primary Care Questionnaire (DiPCare–Q)

Abstract

The aim of this study is to test the validity and reliability of Turkish version of Deprivation in Primary Care Questionnaire (DiPCare-Q). Method: In the study, a survey, consisting of socio-demographic information, living standard indicators and DiPCare-Q Turkish form, was applied with face to face interviews to 160 people who are literate, older than 18 years age and applied to Family Health Center in Akyurt district of Ankara. The validity of the scale was assessed by content validity, construct validity and discriminant validity. To test the reliability of the scale, internal consistency and item total correlation coefficients were calculated. Results: 61.3% of the participants were women, 74.4% were married and 62.5% were under high school. In the content validity, Kendall's Coefficient of Condordance W was calculated as 0,441 and p <0,05. In construct validity, the results of Principal component analysis showed that the model explained 68.49% of the total variance with 3 factors. For dicriminant validity, DiPCare-Q total and subscale scores of participants were compared according to objective indicators of poverty. And it was determined that there were statistically significant differences in scores of social deprivation dimension, material deprivation dimension and total DiPCare-Q according to objective indicators of poverty DiPCare-Q. In the evaluation of reliability of scale, the Kuder-Richardson 20 coefficient was calculated as 0,80 which is the result that the scale is reliable. In addition, correlations of the items with the total score were determined above the standard value of 0.40. Conclusion: The results of the study showed that Turkish version of DiPCare-Q is valid and reliable, so its usage was recommended in primary care services.

The study approaches as the predictors of academic self-efficacy and teacher efficacy: A study in pedagogical formation students

“…The fit indices of the Academic Self-Efficacy scale showed a good fit (Iacobucci, 2010;Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson & Tatham, 2010;Hu & Bentler, 1999;Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1986;Bentler, 1995;Steiger & Lind, 1980;Kline, 2016). The Study Approaches: The study approaches of students were found out by using The Study Process Questionnaire, developed by Biggs, Kember, and Leung (2001), translated into Turkish by Yılmaz and Orhan (2011). The scale has two subscales including surface and deep approaches.…”

A Path Analysis Model Pertinent to Undergraduates’ Academic Success: Examining Academic Confidence, Psychological Capital and Academic Coping Factors

“…The criterion validity of the scale was examined through the Turkish version of the Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire made by Yilmaz and Orhan (2011 a) The Academic Self-Efficacy Scale (the ASE Scale): The ASE Scale is a scale developed by Jerusalem and Scharzer (1981), whose aim is to estimate the degrees of academic self-efficacy in university students (cited in Yilmaz, Gurcay, & Ekici, 2007). The scale reveals the level of one's self-assurance about his skills necessary for meeting an academic requirement successfully.…”

Mutual investigation about study process approach of Physical Education and Sports Faculty and students of Faculty of Education

“…In the study as a data collection tool, a personal information form was prepared for determining participants' personal information distribution and study approach scale which validity and reliability were tested by Yılmaz and Orhan (2011) and developed by Biggs et al (2001) was used.…”

“…The researchers stated that one of the factors affecting the learning of individuals is a proper and effective way of studying (Yılmaz and Orhan, 2011), and they argue that students' approaches to learning and studying are indicators of how they approach academic tasks (Topkaya et al, 2011). It is thought that students thinking of themselves as more successful have more positive studying attitudes and use more effective study strategies.…”

“…Researchers have argued that in order to promote more conceptual deeper forms of learning, educators need to understand how students approach learning (Ballantine et al, 2008). Students' learning approaches are not fixed and they can exhibit different learning approaches in different situations (Önder and Beşoluk, 2010;Yılmaz & Orhan, 2011). In this context, it was aimed to investigate the study process approach of Physical Education and Sports faculty students and Faculty of Education students with different variables.…”