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

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Deniz S. Yorulmaz Demir
{"title":"Development of a Vaccine Advocacy Scale for Childhood Vaccines and Psychometric Evaluation: A Methodological Study","authors":"Deniz S. Yorulmaz Demir","doi":"10.1111/jep.70056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>This study developed the Vaccine Advocacy Scale for childhood vaccines for adults and evaluated its psychometric properties.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method</h3>\n \n <p>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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The study's calculated Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value was 0.868, and Bartlett's test of sphericity resulted in significant results (<i>X</i><sup>2</sup> = 1724.166; <i>p</i> &lt; 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 (<i>X</i><sup>2</sup>/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 (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.005).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>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.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jep.70056","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.70056","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
143
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信