Development of the Inclination Toward Conscientious Objection Scale for Physicians.

IF 1.8 3区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Şükrü Keleş, Osman Dağ, Murat Aksu, Gizem Gülpinar, Neyyire Yasemin Yalım
{"title":"Development of the Inclination Toward Conscientious Objection Scale for Physicians.","authors":"Şükrü Keleş,&nbsp;Osman Dağ,&nbsp;Murat Aksu,&nbsp;Gizem Gülpinar,&nbsp;Neyyire Yasemin Yalım","doi":"10.1007/s10728-022-00452-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aims to develop a valid and reliable scale to assess whether a physician is inclined to take conscientious objection when asked to perform medical services that clash with his/her personal beliefs. The scale, named the Inclination toward Conscientious Objection Scale, was developed for physicians in Turkey. Face validity, content validity, criterion-related validity, and construct validity of the scale were evaluated in the development process. While measuring criterion-related validity, Student's t-test was used to identify the groups that did and did not show inclination toward conscientious objection. There were 126 items in the initial item pool, which reduced to 42 after content validity evaluation by five experts. After necessary adjustments, the scale was administered to 224 participants. Both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were performed to investigate factor structure. The split-half method was employed to assess scale reliability, and the Spearman-Brown coefficient was calculated. Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient was used to estimate the internal consistency of the scale items. The distinctiveness of the items was evaluated using Student's t-test. The lower and upper 27% groups were compared to assess the distinctiveness of the scale. The items were loaded on four factors that explained 85.46% of the variance: \"Conscientious Objection - Medical Profession Relationship,\" \"Conscientious Objection in Medical Education and Medical Practice,\" \"Conscientious Objection with regard to the Concept of Rights\" and \"Conscientious Objection - Physician's Professional Identity and Role.\" The final scale has 40 items, and was found to be valid and reliable with high internal consistency.</p>","PeriodicalId":46740,"journal":{"name":"Health Care Analysis","volume":"31 2","pages":"81-98"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Care Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-022-00452-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aims to develop a valid and reliable scale to assess whether a physician is inclined to take conscientious objection when asked to perform medical services that clash with his/her personal beliefs. The scale, named the Inclination toward Conscientious Objection Scale, was developed for physicians in Turkey. Face validity, content validity, criterion-related validity, and construct validity of the scale were evaluated in the development process. While measuring criterion-related validity, Student's t-test was used to identify the groups that did and did not show inclination toward conscientious objection. There were 126 items in the initial item pool, which reduced to 42 after content validity evaluation by five experts. After necessary adjustments, the scale was administered to 224 participants. Both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were performed to investigate factor structure. The split-half method was employed to assess scale reliability, and the Spearman-Brown coefficient was calculated. Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient was used to estimate the internal consistency of the scale items. The distinctiveness of the items was evaluated using Student's t-test. The lower and upper 27% groups were compared to assess the distinctiveness of the scale. The items were loaded on four factors that explained 85.46% of the variance: "Conscientious Objection - Medical Profession Relationship," "Conscientious Objection in Medical Education and Medical Practice," "Conscientious Objection with regard to the Concept of Rights" and "Conscientious Objection - Physician's Professional Identity and Role." The final scale has 40 items, and was found to be valid and reliable with high internal consistency.

医师良心拒服兵役倾向量表的编制。
本研究旨在建立一个有效且可靠的量表来评估医师在被要求提供与其个人信仰相冲突的医疗服务时是否倾向于采取良心反对。该量表名为“良心反对倾向量表”,是为土耳其的医生开发的。在编制过程中对量表的面效度、内容效度、标度相关效度和构念效度进行评价。在测量标准相关效度时,使用学生t检验来确定有和没有表现出良心反对倾向的群体。最初的题库有126个题库,经过5位专家的内容效度评估,减少到42个。经过必要的调整后,对224名参与者进行了测试。采用探索性因子分析和验证性因子分析探讨因子结构。采用分半法评估量表信度,计算Spearman-Brown系数。采用Cronbach’s alpha信度系数估计量表条目的内部一致性。项目的显著性采用学生t检验进行评估。将上、下27%组进行比较,评估量表的显著性。这些项目包含四个因素,解释了85.46%的差异:“良心反对-医疗职业关系”,“医学教育和医疗实践中的良心反对”,“关于权利概念的良心反对”和“良心反对-医生的职业身份和角色”。最终编制的量表共有40个条目,具有较高的内部一致性,有效信度高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
3
期刊介绍: Health Care Analysis is a journal that promotes dialogue and debate about conceptual and normative issues related to health and health care, including health systems, healthcare provision, health law, public policy and health, professional health practice, health services organization and decision-making, and health-related education at all levels of clinical medicine, public health and global health. Health Care Analysis seeks to support the conversation between philosophy and policy, in particular illustrating the importance of conceptual and normative analysis to health policy, practice and research. As such, papers accepted for publication are likely to analyse philosophical questions related to health, health care or health policy that focus on one or more of the following: aims or ends, theories, frameworks, concepts, principles, values or ideology. All styles of theoretical analysis are welcome providing that they illuminate conceptual or normative issues and encourage debate between those interested in health, philosophy and policy. Papers must be rigorous, but should strive for accessibility – with care being taken to ensure that their arguments and implications are plain to a broad academic and international audience. In addition to purely theoretical papers, papers grounded in empirical research or case-studies are very welcome so long as they explore the conceptual or normative implications of such work. Authors are encouraged, where possible, to have regard to the social contexts of the issues they are discussing, and all authors should ensure that they indicate the ‘real world’ implications of their work. Health Care Analysis publishes contributions from philosophers, lawyers, social scientists, healthcare educators, healthcare professionals and administrators, and other health-related academics and policy analysts.
×
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