Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study was conducted to adapt the Sinclair Compassion Questionnaire into Turkish and to test its validity and reliability. The sample of the methodological study consisted of 390 patients who were hospitalized in internal and surgical clinics. The data were collected between May 2022 and December 2022 using the Personal Information Form, Newcastle Nursing Care Satisfaction Scale and Sinclair Compassion Questionnaire. The Sinclair Compassion Questionnaire consists of 15 items, containing a single latent compassion factor. Validity analysis included content validity index, concurrent validity, convergent validity, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, reliability analysis included test-retest and reliability analysis using Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient. The content validity index of the scale was found to be between 0.88 and 1.00. Confirmatory factor analysis χ² = 283.754, dF = 71, RMSEA = 0.078, indicating a good/excellent fit for the model. The item means of the scale ranged between 4.43 ± 0.60 and 4.10 ± 0.47, and the factor loadings ranged between 0.672 and 0.824. Convergent validity is at an acceptable level (r = 0.674). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the scale was 0.94. The Sinclair Compassion Questionnaire is a valid and reliable instrument to assess patients’ experiences of compassion in Turkish populations with acute and chronic diseases.

Keywords

care compassionate care healthcare questionnaire reliability and validity compassion

Introduction

Historically the word compassion has been used synonymously with the concepts of mercy, tenderness, affection, love and pity (Doğu & Demirsoy, 2020). Compassion is a cognitive, affective and behavioral attitude towards understanding and supporting individuals in pain and distress in times of need (Tanrıkulu & Denat, 2022). Compassion was recently empircially defined as “a virtuous response that seeks to address the suffering and needs of a person through relational understanding and action” (Sinclair et al., 2016). Florence Nightingale considered compassion a moral virtue and a fundamental characteristic that all good nurses should possess (Bradshaw, 2011; Doğu & Demirsoy, 2020), with the International Council of Nurses (ICN) recently recognizing compassion as one of the professional values that all nurses should demonstrate (International Council of Nursing, 2021).

Compassion is recognized as a key indicator of quality patient care (Boss et al., 2024; Sinclair et al., 2021). Compassionate healthcare professionals have been associated with increased patient comfort, quality of life and patient satisfaction (Malenfant et al., 2022). In addition, it has been reported that in the absence of compassion, symptom control becomes difficult, patients distress increases, and patient complaints, healthcare costs, medical complications and mortality rates increase (Soto-Rubio et al., 2024).

International health authorities emphasize that achieving quality care is possible through patient engagement and patient feedback, including patient’s experiences of compassion (Soto-Rubio et al., 2024). There is insufficient literature however on how patients perceive and expereince compassion (Malenfant et al., 2022). A review by Malenfant et al. (2022) identified four patient-reported compassion assessment tools. These are the Compassionate Care Assessment Tool© (Burnell & Agan, 2013), the Schwartz Center Compassionate Care Scale™ (Lown et al., 2015), the Five-Item Tool to Measure Patient Assessment of Clinician Compassion (TMPACC) (Roberts et al., 2022; Sabapathi et al., 2019) and the Sinclair Compassion Questionnaire (SCQ) (Sinclair et al., 2021).

Sinclair et al. (2016) developed the SCQ from an empirical compassion model that emerged from patient interviews and has been since been validated across different patient populations (Sinclair et al., 2016). A recent systematic review identified the SCQ as the “gold standard” for conducting compassion research and assessing patients’ experiences of compassion (Sinclair et al., 2021, 2022). At present, there are no valid and reliable patient-reported compassion measures in Turkey. Therefore, the main purpose of this study was to develop and validate the Turkish version of the “Sinclair Compassion Questionnaire” (SCQtr) to address this gap. In doing so, the SCQtr, can be used alongside other translated versions of the SCQ to evaluate compassion on a global scale and reveal intercultural characteristics and differences.

Method

Setting and Sample

The study was conducted using a methodological design. The study sample consisted of patients who were inpatients in the internal and surgical clinics of a university hospital in Konya province and who met the inclusion criteria (at least seven days of inpatient treatment, 18 years of age or older, Turkish speaking). According to the literature, the sample size is recommended to be 5–10 times the total number of items or 200–300 participants for scale validity and reliability studies (Ayhan et al., 2015; Boateng et al., 2018; Sümbüloğlu & Sümbüloğlu, 2014) and between 300–500 participants for confirmatory factor analysis (International Test Commission, 2018; Sousa & Rojjanasrirat, 2011). All patients who met the criteria were approached, resulting in a total of 390 patients who agreed to participate in the study.

Instruments

Demographic Data Form

A demographic form was created by the researchers after reviewing the literature (Akin & Erdogan, 2007; Sinclair et al., 2021; Thomas et al., 1996) and consisted of nine questions (age, gender, marital status, educational status, perception of income level, place of residence, hospitalization clinic, length of hospitalization, presence of chronic disease).

Sinclair Compassion Questionnaire (SCQ)

The SCQ was originally developed Sinclair et al. (2021) in English to assess patients expereinces of compassion from their health care providers. The Cronbach’s alpha value of the scale, which consists of a total of 15 items and a single latent factor, is 0.96. The scale, which has also been validated in Spanish (Soto-Rubio et al., 2024); Italian (Bovero et al., 2024); and Mandarin (Chu et al., 2023) consists of five-point Likert-type response scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree). The overall scale score is calculated by taking the average score of all items. The lowest score to be obtained from the scale is 15 and the highest score is 75, with high scores on the scale indicate high levels of compassionate care (Sinclair et al., 2021).

Newcastle Satisfaction With Nursing Care Scale (NSNS)

The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the scale developed by Thomas et al. (1996) to determine patients’ satisfaction levels with nurses’ experience and care is 0.96 (Thomas et al., 1996). The scale was adapted into Turkish by Akin & Erdogan (2007). The scale consists of 19 items in total, with all items scored using a five-point Likert scale (1 = Not satisfied at all, 2 = Slightly satisfied, 3 = Quite satisfied, 4 = Very satisfied and 5 = Completely satisfied). The lowest score that can be obtained from the scale is 19 and the highest score is 95. A high score on the scale indicates satisfaction with nursing care (Akin & Erdogan, 2007).

Implementation of the Study

Data were collected from patients who met the inclusion criteria between May 2022 and December 2022. Before collecting the data, patients were informed about the study and their informed consent was obtained. The researcher (N.E.K.) handed out the questionnaire to patients and gave them approximately 10 minutes to fill it out. To assess test-retest of the scale each patient was re-administered the scale 2 weeks later.

Evaluation of Data

To analyze the Sinclair Compassion Questionnaire, descriptive statistics were given as number of units, percentage, mean, standard deviation, median, minimum and maximum values. The relationships between numerical variables were evaluated using Pearson correlations with a p < .05 level being considered statistically significant. Confirmatory Factor Analysis was used to test the validity of the identified factor structure. The suitability of the data for factor analysis was evaluated with the correlation matrix. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was used to statistically test the correlation between the variables in the data matrix. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) values were obtained by using correlation and partial correlation coefficients to evaluate the suitability of the data for factor analysis and sample size. Varimax method was applied for factor rotation. Inter-rater comparison was done with Wilcoxon test (χ2 / df), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) model fit indices were used to evaluate the fit of the model. In addition, maximum likelihood estimation was used to determine the values for the parameters of the model. With this model, it was analyzed the parameters of an assumed probability distribution, given some observed data. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics Standard Concurrent User V 26 (IBM Corp., Armonk, New York, USA) and Amos (Version 24.0) statistical package programs.

Ethical Dimension of the Research

This study received ethical approval from the Konya Chamber of Commerce Karatay University, Ethics Committee for Non-Pharmaceutical and Non-Medical Device Research (Date = 29.03.2022/No = 30563) and institutional permissions were obtained from each of the institutions where the study was conducted.

Results

Sociodemographic Data

The analyzed sociodemographic data of 390 patient participants revealed that the median age of participants was 60 years, 52.6% of the participants were male, 74.6% were married, 65.1% were primary school graduates, 77.7% perceived their income to be equal to their expenses, and 55.4% lived in the city center. The rate of those receiving treatment in internal medicine clinics was 77.4% and the median length of hospitalization for all participants was 11.5 days. Chronic diseases were present in 50% of the participants (Table 1).

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics of Patients’ Personal Characteristics (n = 390)

	Statistics
Age (year)
X ± SD	56.79 ± 18.30
M (min-max)	60 (18–93)
Gender, n (%)
Female	185 (47.4)
Male	205 (52.6)
Marial status, n (%)
Married	291 (74.6)
Single	99 (25.4)
Education level, n (%)
Primary education	254 (65.1)
High school	82 (21)
University	54 (13.8)
Hospital Clinic, n (%)
Internal medicine clinic	302 (77.4)
Surgical medicine clinic	88 (22.6)
Length of stay (day)
X ± SD	17.58 ± 20.82
M (min-max)	11.5 (1–240)
Chronic disease, n (%)
Yes	195 (50)
No	195 (50)

Note. Descriptive statistics are given as mean ± standard deviation and Median (minimum, maximum) for numerical data and Number (Percentage) for categorical data.

Validity and Reliability Stages of the Sinclair Compassion Questionnaire

The findings regarding the validity and reliability stages of the Sinclair Compassion Questionnaire are presented under the headings of translation and psycholinguistic features, validity and reliability below.

Translation and Psycholinguistic Features

Language Validity

During the adaptation of the SCQ into Turkish, a formal forward and back technique was used in accordance with the WHO guidelines (World Health Organization [WHO], 2023). The original scale was first translated into Turkish by two experts (A.O. and M.A.K.) fluent in both languages and native speakers of Turkish. In line with the suggestions of these experts, the Turkish name of the scale was determined as “Sinclair Şefkat Ölçeği.” The Turkish translated scale was then back-translated into English by another academic who is an expert (NP) in the field of nursing with a good command of the English language, with the Turkish version of the questionnaire being sent to the creator (S.S.) of the SCQ via email to confirm the accuracy of the translation.

Validity

Content Validity

Expert opinions were then consulted to assure the content validity of the SCQtr. Content validity indices (CVI) were calculated using the Davis method in obtaining expert opinion. For the content validity of the scale an expert opinion form was sent via email to 10 faculty members experienced in the field of nursing and scale adaptation. Based on these expert opinions, it was confirmed that the CVI results were 1.00, which confirmed the content validity of the SCQtr.

Face Validity

In order to further test the comprehensibility of the finalized questionnaire, cognitive interviews were conducted with a group of 30 patients, whereby they were asked to assess the readability and clarity of the translated measure. Patients who contributed to this phase of the study were excluded from subsequent phases of the study.

Criterion Dependent Validity

The Newcastle Satisfaction with Nursing Care Scale was used for concurrent validity. As expected, a statistically significant positive correlation was found between Newcastle Satisfaction with Nursing Care Scale scores and SCQtr scores (r = 0.674, p < .001) (Table 2), providing support that the SCQtr is related to, but sufficiently distinct from patient satisfaction.

Table 2

Correlation Value of the Sinclair Compassion Questionnaire and the Newcastle Nursing Care Satisfaction Scale

	SCQtr
Newcastle nursing care satisfaction scale	r = 0.674, p < .001*

*r = Pearson Correlation Coefficient. ^**p < .05.

Construct Validity

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were used to test construct validity. In the exploratory factor analysis, factor loadings were found to vary between 0.672 and 0.824. Bartlett’s test result was 4548.653 (p < .05). The explained variance value was found to be 58.13% of the total scale (Table 3).

Table 3

SCQtr Validity Results

Item no	Factor loads	Explained variance %
1	0.730	58.13
2	0.672
3	0.745
4	0.795
5	0.774
6	0.775
7	0.742
8	0.776
9	0.744
10	0.824
11	0.812
12	0.736
13	0.811
14	0.752
15	0.733
KMO = 0.927 dF = 105 χ² = 4548.653 p < .001

Note. KMO = Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test; Df = Degrees of Freedom.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA); χ²/df, RMSEA, SRMR, IFI, TLI, CFI and GFI were used to evaluate the factor validity of the models within the scope of CFA. RMSEA is an index that is least affected by sample size. In this study, RMSEA ≤ 0.05, IFI, TLI, CFI ≥ 0.90 and GFI ≥ 0.85 were determined as acceptable (Table 4).

Table 4

Statistical Values for the Fit of the SCQtr Model

Scale	(χ²/sd)	RMSEA	SRMR	IFI	CFI	GFI	TLI
Model	3.997	0.078	0.047	0.953	0.953	0.915	0.93

The confirmatory factor analysis model of the SCQtr is presented in Figure 1. Initial model estimation revealed strong factor loadings, ranging between 0.57 and 0.86, with each of the path coefficients of the scale score on 15 questions is statistically significant (p < .05).

Figure 1

Sinclair Compassion Questionnaire (SCQtr) Confirmatory Factor Analysis Model

Reliability

Time invariance and internal consistency methods were used to test reliability in the study.

Invariance With Respect to Time

In this study, test-retest was applied to 50 patients by readministering the SCQtr 2 weeks after initial completion. The SCQtr total score agreement was found to be 90.1%. According to the results obtained, the total correlation values were between 0.625 and 0.791 (Table 5), indicating very good test-retest reliability.

Table 5

SCQtr Test Retest Analysis Results

Item no	Pre-test	Post-test	Test (p)	Total correlation	ICC (%95 GA)
1	4.37 ± 0.76	3.88 ± 0.59	Z* = −1.000 p = .317	0.687	0.750 (0.559–0.858)
2	4.46 ± 0.69	4.06 ± 0.65	Z* = −0.191 p = .849	0.625	0.568 (0.239–0.755)
3	4.44 ± 0.76	4.14 ± 0.50	Z* = −0.655 p = .513	0.701	0.588 (0.275–0.766)
4	4.44 ± 0.79	4.12 ± 0.66	Z* = −0.218 p = .827	0.753	0.699 (0.469–0.829)
5	4.46 ± 0.71	4.06 ± 0.65	Z* = −0.799 p = .425	0.734	0.633 (0.353–0.792)
6	4.38 ± 0.83	4.00 ± 0.76	Z* = −0.718 p = .473	0.735	0.621 (0.333–0.785)
7	4.45 ± 0.77	4.14 ± 0.53	Z* = −0.688 p = .491	0.695	0.646 (0.377-0.799)
8	4.53 ± 0.72	4.14 ± 0.70	Z* = −1.237 p = .216	0.737	0.584 (0.267–0.764)
9	4.45 ± 0.80	4.20 ± 0.67	Z* = −1.844 p = .065	0.703	0.588 (0.274–0.766)
10	4.42 ± 0.82	4.16 ± 0.65	Z* = −0.363 p = .717	0.791	0.627 (0.342–0.788)
11	4.32 ± 0.86	4.06 ± 0.79	Z* = −1.334 p = .182	0.779	0.747 (0.555–0.857)
12	4.49 ± 0.73	4.18 ± 0.75	Z* = −1.936 p = .055	0.695	0.751 (0.561–0.859)
13	4.25 ± 0.92	3.80 ± 0.88	Z* = −1.387 p = .166	0.776	0.916 (0.852–0.952)
14	4.49 ± 0.79	4.26 ± 0.63	Z* = −0.626 p = .532	0.716	0.579 (0.258–0.761)
15	4.45 ± 0.87	4.36 ± 0.69	Z* = −0.471 p = .637	0.692	0.747 (0.554–0.857)
General	4.43 ± 0.60	4.10 ± 0.47	Z* = −0.217 p = .828	-	0.901 (0.825−0.944)

Note. Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC); Wilcoxon Test (Z*).

Internal Consistency

The Cronbach Alpha reliability result for internal consistency was 0.948. The mean of the questionnaire was 4.43 ± 4.60 points, with the lowest score being 1 and the highest score being 5. The mean responses to the 15 SCQtr questions was 4.6 (Table 6).

Table 6

SCQtr Internal Consistency Results

	Statistics	Number of items	Cronbach alpha
SCQtr
X ± SD	4.43 ± 4.60	15	.948
M (min-max)	4.6 (1–5)

Discussion

Previous reviews have revealed that much of the compassion in healthcare literatüre has focussed predominatly on the topics of self-compassion or compassion fatigue, as evaluated from the perspective of healthcare professionals (Ağaç et al., 2024; Ertümer & Kaya, 2022; Malenfant et al., 2022; Sarıçam & Erdemir, 2019; Şeremet & Ekinci, 2021; Sinclair et al., 2017a, 2017b). It was for this reason, that we conducted this study to adapt and validate the SCQ, a patient reported compassion measure assessing compassion recieved from healthcare providers, within the Turkish context.

The Sinclair Compassion Questionnaire is a 15-item measure developed to assess patients experiences of compassion (Sinclair et al., 2021). To translate and validate the SCQ into Turkish patient populations, the questionnaire items were first forward and back translated into Turkish, with one of the translators being selected from within the healthcare field and the other from outside the healthcare field in order to avoid the use of field-specific terms, (International Test Commission, 2018; Karaçam, 2019; Kishore et al., 2021). Then, the validity of the translated scale was further assessed through content validity, criterion dependent validity and construct validity methods. In the psycholinguistic features analysis phase, the scale was first translated into Turkish and then back into English. According to the test and measurement literature, items with a CVI greater than 0.80 is considered sufficient in terms of content validity and those with a CVI less than 0.80 are eliminated (Taşkın & Akat, 2010). The SCQtr items produced CVI scores ranging between 0.88 and 1.00, demonstrating excellent content validity, resulting in the retention of all of the 15 original SCQ items.

Cognitive interviews were conducted to assess the face validity of the translated scale. Cognitive interviews ensure that the items are understandable and meaningful to the target population and minimizes measurement error before the final version of the scale is administered to the main sample (Boateng et al., 2018). In the literature, it is stated that the pretest should be applied to groups of 30–100 (Rubio et al., 2003) and 30–40 (Karaçam, 2019) people. In our study, a pre-test was applied to a group of 50 patients. No changes were made as the pretest participants found the scale items comprehensible.

In concurrent validity, which is evaluated as the degree of agreement between the newly adapted scale and another scale previously developed for the same purpose, the correlation between the two measures is expected to be high (Esin, 2014). For this reason, the Newcastle Nursing Care Satisfaction Scale, which measures nurses’ satisfaction with care, was used in our study to assess convergent validity. According to measurement development guidelines, a correlation value between the scales between 0.2 and 0.4 is interpreted as a weak correlation, between 0.4 and 0.6 as a moderate correlation, between 0.6 and 0.8 as a high correlation, and 0.8 > as a very high correlation (Selvanathan et al., 2020). In our study, the correlation value between the scales was at an acceptable level (r = 0.674) indicating that compassion is related to, but sufficiently different than patiest satisfaction. Together these results indicate that the SCQtr has strong concurrent validity.

Before the construct validity analysis of the SCQ, KMO and Bartlett’s sphericity tests were conducted to understand the adequacy of the sample and its suitability for factor analysis. In our study, KMO value = 0.927 and the Barlett’s test result was 4548.653 (p < .05), indicating that the sample size was adequate (Cerny & Kaiser, 1977; Esin, 2014). Items with factor loadings of 0.32–0.44 are interpreted as poor, 0.45–0.49 as fair, 0.50–0.62 as good, 0.63 and 0.70 as very good and ≥0.71 as excellent (Gökdemir & Yilmaz, 2023). The fact that the factor loads of the SCQtr ranged between 0.672 and 0.824 demonstrated that the sample was sufficient and suitable for factor analysis and the amount of variance obtained (43.40%) was also sufficient (Cerny & Kaiser, 1977). According to these results, the SCQtr is a valid measurement tool of compassion in Turkish speaking patient populations.

While Confirmatory Factor Analysis is used to verify the scale's factor structure, fi indicies such as χ²/SD, RMSEA, CFI, IFI, and GFI are used within the maximum likelihood method to assess model fit (Eryüksel & Özbaş, 2023). In our study, χ²/SD, RMSEA, CFI, GFI values were used to test the goodness of fit of the scale, with a sample size of more than 200 people and a p value of p > .05, being considered significant. In this case, the χ²/df value is examined. If χ²/df ≤ 2, the model fit is excellent and if 3 < χ²/df ≤ 5, the model fit is considered acceptable (Gökdemir & Yilmaz, 2023). However, RMSEA fit index criteria are inconsistent within the literature, with a cut-off value close of 0.06 or 0.08 being generally considered acceptable in this area. IFI, TLI, CFI and GFI fit indices exceeding 0.90 are considered as evidence of adequate model fit. When the results related to the fit frequencies of the SCQtr are examined in the light of this information, the fit indices for the model obtained for the SCQtr (χ2 = 283.754, dF = 71) show that the model is acceptable.

Reliability testing is used to ensure invariance, adequacy, consistency, accuracy and stability of the scale (Esin, 2014) and is assessed by measuring reliability coefficients (Çapık, 2014; Karakoç & Dönmez, 2014). One of the practices that demonstrates invariance is test-retest assessment which measures the power of a scale to give consistent results from application to application and to show invariance over time. Test-retest assessment can be applied as an intermittent or continuous method, with the latter being readminsitered without a break and the former being administered again at a seperate time point (such as 2 weeks or 2 months later). A limitation of the continous method is that participants may be able to recall their previous answers creating bias that does not reflect reality, which is mitigated with the intermment method. The correlation coefficient is the reliability coefficient of the test (Esin, 2014). In our study, we utilized the intermittent method of test-retest assessment at an interval of 2-weeks on a sub-sample of 50 patients. The test-retest agreement between the scale questions and total scores was found to be statistically significant (p < .05). An item-total correlation coefficient value of 0.20 and above indicates that the item is compatible with the overall scale (Crocker & Algina, 2008). According to these results, the SCQtr is a stable measurement tool for use in Turkish speaking patient populations.

Internal consistency is the reliability method that determines whether the scale has the ability to measure. Cronbach’s alpha, which is one of the internal consistency methods, assesses whether each item of the scale measures the same construct within itself (Esin, 2014). The Cronbach’s alpha value of the SCQtr was 0.94, representing excellent internal consistentcy (Alpar, 2018; Çapık, 2014; Hair et al., 1998).

As a result of these reliability and validity tests, we conclude that the SCQtr, is a valid and reliable measure for assessing Turkish patients expereinces of compassion within the healthcare system.

Turkish versions of the SCQ, along with English, French, Italian, Mandarin and Spanish versions, instruction manuals, data management resources, and instructional videos on administering, scoring, and interpreting the SCQ are available at https://www.compassionmeasure.com.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The results of this study establish the SCQtr as a valid and reliable instrument for assessing compassion among Turkish patients with acute and chronic diseases. The SCQtr replicates the impressive results of other SCQ translation and validation studies in other cultures (i.e., French, Spanish, Italian, and Mandarin) and care settings (i.e., outpatient, inpatient, hospice, emergency departments), with other studies being currently conducted (i.e., Portuguese, Dutch, Hindi, etc…). As a result of the robust international validation of the SCQ, researchers are now poised to conduct multi-site international studies to determine how compassion varies across cultures and contexts and the role that compassion plays on quality care ratings on a global scale.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Serpil Su

Ethical Approval

Prior to the study, ethics committee approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Health Sciences of a university (Decision no: 30563–Dated: 29.03.2022).

Consent to Participate

Before starting the study, participants were informed about the purpose of the study and verbal consent was obtained from the participants.

Consent for Publication

Before starting the study, participants were informed that their sociodemographic information, excluding their personal information, would be published and their verbal consent was obtained.

Author Contributions

Idea/Concept: NEK, SS, SS: Design: NEK, SS, SS: Supervision: NEK Data Collection and/or Processing: NEK: Analysis and/or Interpretation: NEK, SS, SS: Literature Review: NEK: Writing: NEK, SS: Critical Review: NEK, SS.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Ağaç

Düzgün

Demir

(2024). The effect of intermodel expressive art therapy on compassion fatigue and self-compassion levels in intensive care nurses: A pilot study. Gümüşhane University Journal of Health Sciences, 13(2), 743–750. https://doi.org/10.37989/GUMUSSAGBIL.1366946

Akin

Erdogan

(2007). The Turkish version of the Newcastle Satisfaction with Nursing Care Scale used on medical and surgical patients. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 16(4), 646–653. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01583.x

Alpar

(2018). Spor, sağlık ve eğitim bilimlerinden örneklerle uygulamalı istatistik ve geçerlik-güvenirlik (Applied statistics and validity and reliability with examples from sports, health and education sciences). In Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik (Validity and Reliability). Chapter 13 (pp. 588–601). Detay Press.

Ayhan

Kocaman

Bektaş

(2015). The validity and reliability of attitude towards evidencebased nursing questionnaire for Turkish. Journal of Research and Development in Nursing, 17(2–3), 21–35. DOI:10.69487/hemarge.695897

Boateng

G. O.

Neilands

T. B.

Frongillo

E. A.

Melgar-Quiñonez

H. R.

Young

S. L.

(2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, Article 149. https://doi.org/10.3389/FPUBH.2018.00149

Boss

MacInnis

Simon

Jackson

Lahtinen

Sinclair

(2024). What role does compassion have on quality care ratings? A regression analysis and validation of the SCQ in emergency department patients. BMC Emergency Medicine, 24(1), Article 124. https://doi.org/10.1186/S12873-024-01040-8

Bovero

Fraoni

Urru

Berchialla

Cotardo

Di Girolamo

Ostacoli

Sinclair

Careltto

(2024). Measuring compassion in end-of-life cancer patients: The Italian Validation of the Sinclair Compassion Questionnaire (SCTit). Palliative & Supportive Care, 22(5), 1370–1377.

Bradshaw

(2011). Compassion: What history teaches us. Nursing Times, 107(19–20), 12–14.

Burnell

Agan

(2013). Compassionate care: Can it be defined and measured? The development of the compassionate care assessment tool. International Journal of Caring Sciences, 5(2), 180–187.

10.

Çapık

(2014). Use of confirmatory factor analysis in validity and reliability studies. Journal of Anatolia Nursing and Health Sciences, 17(3), 196–205. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ataunihem/issue/2666/34715.

11.

Cerny

B. A.

Kaiser

H. F.

(1977). A study of a measure of sampling adequacy for factor-analytic correlation matrices. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 12(1), 43–47. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327906MBR1201_3

12.

Chu

X. R.

Jaggi

St Louis

Sinclair

(2023). Initial validation of a patient-reported compassion measure in a Mandarin-speaking long-term care patient population. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 32(2), 300–311. https://doi.org/10.1891/jnm-2022-0097

13.

Crocker

Algina

(2008). Introduction to classical and modern test theory: Procedures for estimating reliability. CBS College Publishing Company.

14.

Doğu

Demirsoy

(2020). Compassion and compassion fatigue in nursing: Concept analysis. Türkiye Klinikleri Journal of Medical Ethics-Law and History, 28(3), 463–473. https://doi.org/10.5336/MDETHIC.2020-74203

15.

Ertümer

A. G.

Kaya

(2022). The effect of compassion fatigue level of health professionals on patient safety. Hacettepe Journal of Health Administration, 25(1), 139–154. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/hacettepesid/issue/69083/972610.

16.

Eryüksel

Özbaş

A. A.

(2023). Turkish validity and reliability study of professional bereavement scale. Journal of Turkish Nurses Association, 4(1), 39–54.

17.

Esin

N. M.

(2014). Veri toplama yöntem ve araçları ve veri toplama araçlarının güvenirlik ve geçerliği (Data collection methods and tools & reliability and validity of data collection tools). In Erdoğan

Esin

M. N.

Nahcivan

(Eds.), Hemşirelikte Araştırma: Süreç, Ugulama ve Kritik (Research in Nursing: Process, Practice, and Critique). (pp. 193–233). Nobel Tıp Kitabevleri.

18.

Gökdemir

Yilmaz

(2023). Processes of using, modifying, adapting and developing likert type scales. Journal of Nursology, 26(2), 148–160. https://doi.org/10.5152/JANHS.2023.22260

19.

Hair

J. F.

Andersen

R. E.

Tatham

R. L.

Black

W. C.

(1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Prentice Hall.

20.

International Council of Nursing . (2021, 20 October). The ICN code of ethics for nurses revised 2021. https://www.icn.ch/resources/publications-and-reports/icn-code-ethics-nurses

21.

International Test Commission . (2018). International Test Commission guidelines for translating and adapting tests. https://www.intestcom.org/page/14

22.

Karaçam

(2019). Adaptation of scales to Turkish. Journal of Midwifery and Health Sciences, 1(2), 28–37. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/esbder/issue/47180/570514.

23.

Karakoç

F. Y.

Dönmez

(2014). Basic principles of scale development. World of Medical Education, 13(40), 39–49. DOI:10.25282/ted.228738

24.

Kishore

Jaswal

Kulkarni

(2021). Practical guidelines to develop and evaluate a questionnaire. Indian Dermatology Online Journal, 12(2), 266–275. https://doi.org/10.4103/IDOJ.IDOJ_674_20

25.

Lown

B. A.

Muncer

S. J.

Chadwick

(2015). Can compassionate healthcare be measured? The schwartz center compassionate care scale^TM. Patient Education and Counseling, 98(8), 1005–1010. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PEC.2015.03.019

26.

Malenfant

Jaggi

Hayden

K. A.

Sinclair

(2022). Compassion in healthcare: An updated scoping review of the literature. BMC Palliative Care, 21(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1186/S12904-022-00942-3/FIGURES/2

27.

Roberts

B. W.

Roberts

M. B.

Mazzarelli

Trzeciak

(2022). Validation of a 5-Item tool to measure patient assessment of clinician compassion in hospitals. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 37(7), 1697–1703. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11606-021-06733-5

28.

Rubio

D. M. G.

Berg-Weger

Tebb

S. S.

Lee

E. S.

Rauch

(2003). Objectifying content validity: Conducting a content validity study in social work research. Social Work Research, 27(2), 94–104. https://doi.org/10.1093/SWR/27.2.94

29.

Sabapathi

Roberts

M. B.

Fuller

B. M.

Puskarich

M. A.

Jones

C. W.

Kilgannon

J. H.

Braz

Creel-Bulos

Scott

Tester

K. L.

Mazzarelli

Trzeciak

Roberts

B. W.

(2019). Validation of a 5-item tool to measure patient assessment of clinician compassion in the emergency department. BMC Emergency Medicine, 19(1), Article 63. https://doi.org/10.1186/S12873-019-0279-5

30.

Sarıçam

Erdemir

(2019). First psychometric properties of lovingkindness-compassion scale. 3rd International Symposium of Education and Values-ISOEVA E-Book. (pp.152-163). DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18792.01288

31.

Selvanathan

Jayabalan

N. S.

Kaur

Supramaniam

(2020). Employee productivity in Malaysian private higher educational institutions. PalArch s Journal of Archaeology of Egypt, 17(8), 66–79. https://doi.org/10.48080/jae.v17i3.50

32.

Şeremet

G. G.

Ekinci

(2021). Compassion fatigue, compassion satisfaction and fears of compassion in healthcare employees. Süleyman Demirel University Visionary Journal, 12(29), 330–344. https://doi.org/10.21076/vizyoner.722874

33.

Sinclair

Hack

T. F.

MacInnis

C. C.

Jaggi

Boss

McClement

Sinnarajah

Thompson

COMPASS Research Team . (2021). Development and validation of a patient-reported measure of compassion in healthcare: The Sinclair Compassion Questionnaire (SCQ). BMJ Open, 11(6), Article e045988. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045988

34.

Sinclair

Kondejewski

Hack

T. F.

Boss

H. C. D.

MacInnis

C. C.

(2022). What is the most valid and reliable compassion measure in healthcare? An updated comprehensive and critical review. The Patient, 15(4), 399–421. https://doi.org/10.1007/S40271-022-00571-1

35.

Sinclair

Kondejewski

Raffin-Bouchal

King-Shier

K. M.

Singh

(2017). Can self-compassion promote healthcare provider well-being and compassionate care to others? Results of a systematic review. Applied Psychology. Health and Well-Being, 9(2), 168–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/APHW.12086

36.

Sinclair

McClement

Raffin-Bouchal

Hack

T. F.

Hagen

N. A.

McConnell

Chochinov

H. M.

(2016). Compassion in health care: An empirical model. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 51(2), 193–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JPAINSYMMAN.2015.10.009

37.

Sinclair

Raffin-Bouchal

Venturato

Mijovic-Kondejewski

Smith-MacDonald

(2017). Compassion fatigue: A meta-narrative review of the healthcare literature. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 69(April), 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJNURSTU.2017.01.003

38.

Soto-Rubio

Andreu

Gil-Juliá

Picazo

Murgui

MacInnis

C. C.

Sinclair

(2024). Adaptation and validation of a patient-reported compassion measure in the Spanish population: The Spanish version of the Sinclair Compassion Questionnaire (SCQesp). Research in Nursing & Health, 47(3), 344–355. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.22373

39.

Sousa

V. D.

Rojjanasrirat

(2011). Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: A clear and user-friendly guideline. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 17(2), 268–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1365-2753.2010.01434.X

40.

Sümbüloğlu

(2014). Biyoistatistik (Biostatistics) (16th ed.). Hatipoğlu Press.

41.

Tanrıkulu

Denat

(2022). Compassionate care in nursing. Dokuz Eylul University Faculty of Nursing Electronic Journal, 15(4), 541–556. https://doi.org/10.46483/DEUHFED.993707

42.

Taşkın

Ç.

Akat

Ö.

(2010). Araştırma yöntemlerinde yapısal eşitlik modelleme (Structural equation modeling in research methods). Ekin Press.

43.

Thomas

L. H.

McColl

Priest

Bond

Boys

R. J.

(1996). Newcastle Satisfaction with Nursing Scales: An instrument for quality assessments of nursing care. Quality in Health Care: QHC, 5(2), 67–72. https://doi.org/10.1136/QSHC.5.2.67

44.

World Health Organization . (2023, 24 February). Adaptation and translation guide. https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/366278/WHO-MSD-GSEDpackage-v1.0-2023.9-eng.pdf

Adaptation of the Sinclair Compassion Questionnaire Into Turkish: A Validity and Reliability Study

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Method

Setting and Sample

Instruments

Demographic Data Form

Sinclair Compassion Questionnaire (SCQ)

Newcastle Satisfaction With Nursing Care Scale (NSNS)

Implementation of the Study

Evaluation of Data

Ethical Dimension of the Research

Results

Sociodemographic Data

Validity and Reliability Stages of the Sinclair Compassion Questionnaire

Translation and Psycholinguistic Features

Language Validity

Validity

Content Validity

Face Validity

Criterion Dependent Validity

Construct Validity

Reliability

Invariance With Respect to Time

Internal Consistency

Discussion

Conclusion and Recommendations

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Ethical Approval

Consent to Participate

Consent for Publication

Author Contributions

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

References