Validity study of the Turkish version of the barriers to insulin treatment questionnaire
The purpose of this study is to test the validity and reliability of the Barriers to Insulin Treatment Questionnaire and adapt the questionnaire for Turkish society. This was a cross-sectional study. The population of this study consisted of adult patients with type 2 diabetes who were using insulin and being monitored in the Endocrine and Outpatient Clinics of Inonu University Turgut Ozal Medical Centre. The sample of the study consisted of 348 patients. The data were collected by using the Barriers to Insulin Treatment Questionnaire (BITQ) and a survey including demographic characteristics. The 14 items of the questionnaire are scored between 1 and 10. BITQ has five factors as fear of injections and self-testing, expectations regarding positive insulin-related outcomes, expected hardship from insulin treatment, stigmatization by insulin injections, and fear of hypoglycemia. In order to test the construct validity of the questionnaire, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were utilized. The reliability of BITQ was evaluated by its Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency coefficient, item total correlation, and test-retest reliability. It was determined that the Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients of the questionnaire factors ranged between 0.70 and 0.82, the scale item factor loadings varied from 0.54 to 0.86, and the item total correlation coefficients were between 0.30 and 0.52. CFA supported the 5-factor scale structure obtained as a result of EFA. Good fit index values were obtained as a result of CFA. According to the obtained results, it may be asserted that BITQ is valid and reliable in terms of its application in Turkish society.
KeywordsBarriers to insulin treatment questionnaire Turkish adaptation Validity Reliability Diabetes mellitus
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the article.
Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.
The population and sample of the study. The study was approved by the Scientific Research and Ethics Board of Inonu University Health Sciences Institute. Verbal information was provided to all participants in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Additionally, the participants were informed about the research and notified that their personal data would be kept confidential.
- 4.Wright A, Burden AC, Paisey RB, Cull CA, Holman RR, U.K. Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Sulfonylurea inadequacy: efficacy of addition of insulin over 6 years in patients with type 2 diabetes in the U.K. prospective diabetes study (UKPDS 57). Diabetes Care. 2002;25:330–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5.Nathan DM, Genuth S, Lachin J, Cleary P, Crofford O, Davis M, et al. The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. The diabetes control and complications trial research group. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:977–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.UK prospective diabetes study (UKPDS) Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet. 1999;14:602.Google Scholar
- 8.Snoek FJ. Breaking the barriers to optimal glycaemic control-what physicians need to know from patients’ perspectives. Int J Clin Pract Suppl. 2002;129:80–4.Google Scholar
- 12.Seçer İ. Psychological test development and adaptation process: SPSS and LISREL applications [in Turkish]. Ankara, Anı, 2015, pp. 32–59.Google Scholar
- 14.Karasar N. Scientific research methods [in Turkish]. Ankara: Nobel; 2012. p. 5–33.Google Scholar
- 15.Pallant J. SPSS survival manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for windows (version 12). 2nd ed. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2005. p. 3–179.Google Scholar
- 16.Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Fourth edt. New York: Guilford Press; 2015.Google Scholar
- 17.Tezbaşaran AA. Likert-type scale preparation manual [in Turkish] e-book. 2008, pp. Available from http://www.academia.edu/1288035/.2008, pp. 9–51.
- 18.Alpar R. Applied multivariate statistical methods [in Turkish]. Ankara: Detay; 2011. p. 10–29.Google Scholar
- 19.Burns N, Grove SK. The practice of nursing research appraisal, synthesis, and generation of evidence. 6th ed. St. Louis: Saunders; 2009. p. 76–593.Google Scholar
- 20.Şencan H. Sosyal ve davranışsal ölçümlerde güvenilirlik ve geçerlilik. Ankara: Seçkin Yayincilik; 2005. p. 150–7.Google Scholar
- 21.Akgül A. A statistical analysis: methods in medical research—SPSS applications [in Turkish]. Ankara: Emek; 2005. p. 6–22.Google Scholar
- 22.Büyüköztürk S. A data analysis handbook for the social sciences [in Turkish]. Ankara: Pegem; 2012. p. 1–15.Google Scholar
- 23.Harrington D. Confirmatory factor analysis. New York: Oxford University Press; 2009. p. 5–77.Google Scholar
- 25.Polit DF, Beck CT. Essentials of nursing research: appraising evidence for nursing practice. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins; 2010. p. 391–591.Google Scholar