Kullanım İzni
Dizinde yer alan e-posta adresi TOAD ekibi tarafından açık kaynaklardan eklenmiştir. Dizinde sorumlu yazar e-postası yer almıyorsa veya dizinde yer alan e-postadan geri dönüş alamıyorsanız başka kaynaklardan diğer e-postalarına ulaşarak izin almanızı öneririz.

---

Ölçek Çeşidi
Uyarlama

---

Kaynak Türü
Makale

---

Kaynak/Referans

Gözüm, S., Tuzcu, A., & Kirca, N. (2016). Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Nurse Cultural Competence Scale. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 27(5), 487-495. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043659615582089

---

Geliştiren/Uyarlayan
Ayla TUZCU, Nurcan Kırca, Sebahat Gözüm

---

Yıl
2016

---

Kaynak Adı
Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of the Nurse Cultural Competence Scale

---

Dergi
Journal of Transcultural Nursing

---

Cilt
27

---

Sayı
5

---

Sayfa Aralığı
487–495

---

Link:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1043659615582089

---

Dosyalar

Makale
PDF

---

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/1043659615582089

---

Sorumlu Yazar
Sebahat Gözüm

---

İletişim
sgozum@akdeniz.edu.tr

---

Ölçülen Özellikler
Cultural competence

---

Alt Boyutlar
cultural knowledge, cultural sensitivity, cultural skills

---

Örnek Maddeler ve Madde Sayıları

20 items

---

Kimlere Uygulanabilir
nurses

---

Derecelendirme
-

Ölçek Puanlaması

Twelve statements related to cultural skills, six statements related to cultural knowledge, and two statements related to cultural sensitivity are assessed with agreement levels of strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), not sure (3), agree (4), and strongly agree (5); scores vary between 20 and 100.

---

Ölçek Değerlendirmesi

5’li Likert

---

Geçerlik

Content Validity Index. The extent of agreement between the
expert team members was assessed by using a content validity index in the study. The members evaluated the feasibility
and relevance of each item in the scale by rating them from 1
(not relevant) to 4 (very relevant) as follows: 1 = not relevant; 2 = unable to assess relevance without item revision or
item is in need of such revision that it would no longer be relevant; 3 = relevant but needs minor alteration; 4 = very
relevant. The CVI of the scale was calculated by dividing the number of items rated 3 or 4 by the total number of items,
and the value greater than 80% was regarded as a standard for testing expert validity The CVI was 0.98 for the NCCS-T, which meant that the scales were feasible for further use

---

Güvenirlik

Internal Consistency and Item Analysis. The scales’ item means,
standard deviations, item–total correlations, and Cronbach
coefficients were determined. Cronbach’s correlation coefficient of the 20-item NCCS-T was found to be .96, and the
corrected item–total correlations of each item varied between
.66 and .81 (p < .05)
Stability. The stability of the NCCS-T was verified by fulfilling test–retest with a 2-week interval. The coefficient of the
NCCS-T was .90

---

Kullanılan Araştırmalar
scholar.google.com.tr