Development of a Vaccine Advocacy Scale for Childhood Vaccines and Psychometric Evaluation: A Methodological Study

被引:0
作者
Demir, Deniz S. Yorulmaz [1 ]
机构
[1] Artvin Coruh Univ, Fac Hlth Sci, Nursing Dept, Artvin, Turkiye
关键词
advocacy; child advocacy; reliability; vaccine; validity; VALIDATION; HESITANCY; HEALTH;
D O I
10.1111/jep.70056
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Aim: This study developed the Vaccine Advocacy Scale for childhood vaccines for adults and evaluated its psychometric properties. Method: This methodological study involved 211 adults. A literature review was conducted to create the item pool of the scale, and 12 items were prepared. While evaluating the scale's psychometric properties, the researchers performed content validity, explanatory factor analysis (factor loadings of the items, eigenvalues of the sub-dimensions, and explained variance rates), confirmatory factor analysis (factor loadings and common fit indices), and criterion validity (predictive validity) in the validation phase. In the predictive validity assessment, the distribution of scores on the scale was examined according to some behaviours related to vaccine advocacy. Additionally, we analysed the item-total score correlation, Cronbach's alpha coefficient, and split-half test consistency in the reliability phase. Results: The study's calculated Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value was 0.868, and Bartlett's test of sphericity resulted in significant results (X2 = 1724.166; p < 0.001). The explanatory factor analysis revealed that the items' factor loadings were between 0.451 and 0.949 and explained 58.29% of the total variance of the structure, which consisted of 12 items and two sub-dimensions. The confirmatory factor analysis found the factor loadings of the items between 0.62 and 0.85 and identified 'common fit indices' within acceptable ranges and close to the perfect fit values (X2/df, GFI, CFI, RMSEA, RMR, NFI, TLI and IFI were 1.906, 0.950, 0.952, 0.093, 0.059, 0.906, 940 and 0.953, respectively). The Cronbach's alpha value for the scale was 0.92, and the Spearman-Brown coefficient, Guttman's split-half coefficient, and split-half correlation coefficients were 0.843, 0.842 and 0.713, respectively. The study findings indicated that individuals who had talked to other parents about vaccines, recommended vaccinations, and communicated vaccine-related issues with medical professionals had significantly higher total scale scores (p < 0.005). Conclusion: Considering the study findings and evaluations, the Vaccine Advocacy Scale was a valid and reliable measurement tool to assess adults' vaccine advocacy behaviour for childhood vaccines.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 43 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2023, The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2023: Special Edition. Towards a Rescue Plan for People and Planet, DOI DOI 10.18356/9789210024914
[2]   COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and patient self-advocacy: a statistical analysis of those who can and can't get vaccinated [J].
Ashwell, Douglas ;
Cullinane, Joanna ;
Croucher, Stephen M. .
BMC PUBLIC HEALTH, 2022, 22 (01)
[3]   On the benefits of explaining herd immunity in vaccine advocacy [J].
Betsch, Cornelia ;
Boehm, Robert ;
Korn, Lars ;
Holtmann, Cindy .
NATURE HUMAN BEHAVIOUR, 2017, 1 (03)
[4]   Best Practices for Developing and Validating Scales for Health,Social, and Behavioral Research:A Primer [J].
Boateng, Godfred O. ;
Neilands, Torsten B. ;
Frongillo, Edward A. ;
Melgar-Quinonez, Hugo R. ;
Young, Sera L. .
FRONTIERS IN PUBLIC HEALTH, 2018, 6
[5]   Unofficial Vaccine Advocates: Technical Communication, Localization, and Care by COVID-19 Vaccine Trial Participants [J].
Campeau, Kari .
TECHNICAL COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY, 2023, 32 (02) :149-164
[6]  
Davis A.J., 1992, APPL NURS RES, V5, P104, DOI [DOI 10.1016/S0897-1897(05)80008-4, 10.1016/s0897-1897]
[7]   The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown? [J].
Eisinga, Rob ;
te Grotenhuis, Manfred ;
Pelzer, Ben .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 2013, 58 (04) :637-642
[8]   Early vaccine advocacy: Medals honoring Edward Jenner issued during the 19th century [J].
Esparza, Jose .
VACCINE, 2020, 38 (06) :1450-1456
[9]   Building vaccine acceptance through communication and advocacy [J].
Feemster, Kristen A. .
HUMAN VACCINES & IMMUNOTHERAPEUTICS, 2020, 16 (05) :1004-1006
[10]   ITC Guidelines for Translating and Adapting Tests (Second Edition) [J].
Gregoire, Jacques .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TESTING, 2018, 18 (02) :101-134