Scholarlink

Background <p>Pressure ulcers are significant healthcare challenges that threaten patient safety, increase healthcare costs, and serve as important indicators of the quality of nursing care. Nurses’ perceived self-efficacy regarding pressure ulcer prevention and management is an important psychological construct that may influence their confidence in performing relevant clinical tasks. However, a valid and reliable instrument is needed to assess nurses’ perceived self-efficacy regarding pressure ulcer management in Turkey. This methodological study aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Pressure Ulcer Management Self-Efficacy Scale for Nurses (PUM-SES).</p> Methods <p>The study included 197 nurses working at the X Health Practice and Research Hospital. Linguistic validity was established using a forward–backward translation procedure, and content validity was evaluated using the Davis technique. Construct validity was examined using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency coefficient, item–total correlation analyses, and test–retest methods.</p> Results <p>The sample size was adequate for factor analysis (KMO = 0.926; Bartlett’s χ² = 2001.338, p &lt; 0.001). The Scale Content Validity Index (S-CVI) was 0.97. The EFA supported a four-factor structure that explained 72.22% of the total variance. CFA demonstrated an acceptable-to-good model fit, with improved fit indices following model modification (χ²/df = 1.55; CFI = 0.993; GFI = 0.962; AGFI = 0.917; RMSEA = 0.053). The scale demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.958), with subdimension reliability coefficients ranging from 0.893 to 0.914. Test–retest analysis revealed a statistically significant correlation (r = 0.842, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), supporting the temporal stability of the Turkish version of the PUM-SES. In addition, PUM-SES scores were significantly positively correlated with the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES) scores.</p> Conclusion <p>The Turkish version of the PUM-SES is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing nurses’ perceived self-efficacy regarding pressure ulcer prevention and management. The scale may facilitate the standardized assessment of perceived self-efficacy in clinical practice, nursing education, and research. However, as the instrument measures perceived self-efficacy rather than objective competence, observed clinical performance, quality of care, or patient outcomes, its findings should be interpreted within the scope of perceived self-efficacy.</p> Graphical Abstract <p></p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the pressure ulcer management self-efficacy scale for nurses

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月25日

查看全文
  • Emine Derya Ister,
  • Yasemin Altinbaş

摘要

Background

Pressure ulcers are significant healthcare challenges that threaten patient safety, increase healthcare costs, and serve as important indicators of the quality of nursing care. Nurses’ perceived self-efficacy regarding pressure ulcer prevention and management is an important psychological construct that may influence their confidence in performing relevant clinical tasks. However, a valid and reliable instrument is needed to assess nurses’ perceived self-efficacy regarding pressure ulcer management in Turkey. This methodological study aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Pressure Ulcer Management Self-Efficacy Scale for Nurses (PUM-SES).

Methods

The study included 197 nurses working at the X Health Practice and Research Hospital. Linguistic validity was established using a forward–backward translation procedure, and content validity was evaluated using the Davis technique. Construct validity was examined using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency coefficient, item–total correlation analyses, and test–retest methods.

Results

The sample size was adequate for factor analysis (KMO = 0.926; Bartlett’s χ² = 2001.338, p < 0.001). The Scale Content Validity Index (S-CVI) was 0.97. The EFA supported a four-factor structure that explained 72.22% of the total variance. CFA demonstrated an acceptable-to-good model fit, with improved fit indices following model modification (χ²/df = 1.55; CFI = 0.993; GFI = 0.962; AGFI = 0.917; RMSEA = 0.053). The scale demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.958), with subdimension reliability coefficients ranging from 0.893 to 0.914. Test–retest analysis revealed a statistically significant correlation (r = 0.842, p < 0.001), supporting the temporal stability of the Turkish version of the PUM-SES. In addition, PUM-SES scores were significantly positively correlated with the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES) scores.

Conclusion

The Turkish version of the PUM-SES is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing nurses’ perceived self-efficacy regarding pressure ulcer prevention and management. The scale may facilitate the standardized assessment of perceived self-efficacy in clinical practice, nursing education, and research. However, as the instrument measures perceived self-efficacy rather than objective competence, observed clinical performance, quality of care, or patient outcomes, its findings should be interpreted within the scope of perceived self-efficacy.

Graphical Abstract