Please wait a minute...
Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology  2020, Vol. 47 Issue (3): 365-371    DOI: 10.31083/j.ceog.2020.03.4834
Original Research Previous articles | Next articles
Obstetric intervention self-efficacy scale and the examination of obstetric intervention self-efficacy regarding department, grade level, and gender
K. Özdemir1, A. Çevirme1, S. Şahin2, *(), Ü. Sahranç3, G. Durat1, N. Uğurlu4, Ö. Ertürk1
1Sakarya University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Sakarya, Turkey
2Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ankara, Turkey
3Sakarya University, Faculty of Education, Sakarya, Turkey
4Muğla Sıtkı Kocaman University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Muğla, Turkey
Download:  PDF(206KB)  ( 269 ) Full text   ( 12 )
Export:  BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
Abstract  

The aim of this study was to develop the Obstetric Intervention Self-Efficacy Scale (OISES). A sample of 327 university students (307 females, 20 males; 168 from the midwifery department and 159 from the nursing department) were enrolled in the study. Out of 66 items, the 22 items with the highest factor loadings were chosen as a result of preliminary exploratory factor analysis regarding 22 general obstetric intervention behaviors. The final exploratory factor analysis revealed that the 22 items of the OISES had a single factor and 67.21% of the total variance was explained by these items. Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient was calculated as 0.98. As a result, the overall findings demonstrated that this scale is a valid and reliable instrument. The analysis further revealed that OISES scores of students did change according to gender (females’ OISES scores were higher), department (midwifery students’ OISES scores were higher), and grade level (M4th > M1st, M2nd, & M3rd; M3rd > M1st & M2nd).

Key words:  Obstetric intervention      Self-efficacy      Exploratory factor analysis      Gender      Grade level      Midwifery      Nursing     
Submitted:  16 April 2018      Accepted:  30 October 2019      Published:  15 June 2020     
*Corresponding Author(s):  SEVIL ŞAHIN     E-mail:  sevilsahin1@gmail.com

Cite this article: 

K. Özdemir, A. Çevirme, S. Şahin, Ü. Sahranç, G. Durat, N. Uğurlu, Ö. Ertürk. Obstetric intervention self-efficacy scale and the examination of obstetric intervention self-efficacy regarding department, grade level, and gender. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(3): 365-371.

URL: 

https://ceog.imrpress.com/EN/10.31083/j.ceog.2020.03.4834     OR     https://ceog.imrpress.com/EN/Y2020/V47/I3/365

Figure 1.  — OISES items categorize in the study group ( The factor numbers).

Table 1  — First and last exploratory factor analysis results
1st EFA 2nd EFA
Items Factor Loading Items Factor Loading
1 0.72 6 0.87
2 0.85 7 0.88
3 0.86 10 0.83
4 0.85 18 0.86
5 0.86 19 0.85
6 0.87 24 0.86
7 0.88 25 0.88
8 0.83 26 0.86
9 0.64 27 0.88
10 0.83 34 0.84
11 0.75 38 0.72
12 0.80 45 0.76
13 0.70 52 0.86
14 0.70 53 0.83
15 0.73 55 0.79
16 0.70 57 0.72
17 0.74 58 0.73
18 0.86 59 0.75
19 0.85 61 0.77
20 0.85 64 0.87
21 0.80 65 0.81
22 0.73 66 0.84
23 0.76
24 0.86
25 0.88
26 0.86
27 0.88
28 0.86
29 0.87
30 0.80
31 0.82
32 0.79
33 0.76
34 0.84
35 0.70
36 0.68
37 0.72
38 0.72
39 0.74
40 0.78
41 0.83
42 0.87
43 0.79
44 0.83
45 0.76
46 0.84
47 0.88
48 0.85
49 0.86
50 0.83
51 0.88
52 0.86
53 0.83
54 0.82
55 0.79
56 0.82
57 0.72
58 0.73
59 0.75
60 0.72
61 0.77
62 0.82
63 0.84
64 0.87
65 0.81
66 0.84
Eigenvalue: 42.74 Eigenvalue: 14.79
Total Variance Explained: 64.76 Total Variance Explained: 67.21
Table 2  — Accepted and deleted items and related target behaviors as a result of the first exploratory factor analysis
Item no. Accepted item no. Target behavior Deleted item no.
1 6 Defining cervical effacement via vaginal examination 28 50
2 7 Defining cervical dilatation via vaginal examination 29 51
3 10 Examining fetus malposition via vaginal examination 32 54
4 18 Clamping umbilical cord 40 62
5 19 Cutting umbilical cord 41 63
6 24 Examining first Leopold maneuver (fundal grip) 2 46
7 25 Examining second Leopold (umbilical grip) 3 47
8 26 Examining fourth Leopold maneuver (2nd pelvic grip) 4 48
9 27 Examining third Leopold maneuver (1st pelvic grip) 5 49
10 34 Examining uterine contractions via fundal palpation 12 56
11 38 Repairing obstetric lacerations occurring in delivery 16 60
12 45 Measuring pelvic bone diameter 1 23
13 52 Evaluating amniotic fluid via vaginal examination 8 30
14 53 Examining any abnormality of fetus position via vaginal examination 9 31
15 55 Performing fetal heartbeat follow-up 11 33
16 57 Moving the mother into the appropriate position for delivery 13 35
17 58 Performing episiotomy if necessary 14 36
18 59 Repairing episiotomy 15 37
19 61 Evaluating anomalies of the umbilical cord 17 39
20 64 Examining signs of placental separation and removing the placenta properly 20 42
21 65 Controlling bleeding after delivery 21 43
22 66 Examining involution of the uterus 22 44
Table 3  — Item-total correlations and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient if item deleted
Item number Rjx (corrected item-total correlation) Cronbach’s alpha if item deleted
OGO6 0.84 0.974
OGO7 0.86 0.974
OGO10 0.81 0.974
OGO18 0.85 0.974
OGO19 0.83 0.974
OGO24 0.86 0.974
OGO25 0.88 0.974
OGO26 0.86 0.974
OGO27 0.87 0.974
OGO34 0.69 0.976
OGO38 0.68 0.975
OGO45 0.75 0.975
OGO52 0.85 0.974
OGO53 0.82 0.974
OGO55 0.77 0.975
OGO57 0.70 0.975
OGO58 0.70 0.975
OGO59 0.72 0.975
OGO61 0.74 0.975
OGO64 0.86 0.974
OGO65 0.80 0.974
OGO66 0.83 0.974
Table 4  — OISES differences, means, and t-values in terms of gender and department
N $\bar{X}$ Sd df t p
Gender Female 307 15.10 14.25 27.32 3.77 0.001
Male 20 7.60 8.12
Department Midwifery 168 19.36 14.33 319,820 6,674 0.000
Nursing 159 9.65 11.92
Table 5  — Descriptive statistics of OISES scores according to grade level
N $\bar{X}$ SD
Grade level Freshman 78 (M1) 5.46 10.94
Sophomore 58 (M2) 8.49 11.42
Junior 84 (M3) 13.80 10.66
Senior 102 (M4) 26.47 11.89
Table 6  — Tukey’s HSD post hoc test results according to grade level
(I) Grade (J) Grade Mean difference (I-J) Std. error Sig. 95% Confidence interval
Lower bound Upper bound
Tukey HSD 1 2 -3.02999 1.94373 0.404 -8.0499 1.9899
3 -8.34799* 1.77141 0.000 -12.9229 -3.7731
4 -21.00905* 1.69449 0.000 -25.3853 -16.6328
2 1 3.02999 1.94373 0.404 -1.9899 8.0499
3 -5.31800* 1.91360 0.029 -10.2601 -0.3759
4 -17.97906* 1.84262 0.000 -22.7379 -13.2203
3 1 8.34799* 1.77141 0.000 3.7731 12.9229
2 5.31800* 1.91360 0.029 0.3759 10.2601
4 -12.66106* 1.65984 0.000 -16.9478 -8.3743
4 1 21.00905* 1.69449 0.000 16.6328 25.3853
2 17.97906* 1.84262 0.000 13.2203 22.7379
3 12.66106* 1.65984 0.000 8.3743 16.9478
  
0: I cannot perform/I perform incorrectly Inability to perform the skill or incorrect performance
1: I need to improve Insufficient performance of skill or inability to perform in the correct order
2: I perform correctly Correct and full performance of skill in the correct order
  
Item No. Old Item No. 0: I cannot perform/I perform incorrectly/ 1: I need to improve / 2: I perform correctly 0 1 2
1 6 I can identify cervical effacement by vaginal examination.
2 7 I can identify cervical dilatation by vaginal examination.
3 10 I can assess fetal malposition by vaginal examination.
4 18 I can perform umbilical cord clamping.
5 19 I can cut the umbilical cord.
6 24 I can assess by the first Leopold’s maneuver.
7 25 I can assess by the second Leopold’s maneuver.
8 26 I can assess by the fourth Leopold’s maneuver.
9 27 I can assess by the third Leopold’s maneuver.
10 34 I can assess uterine contractions by fundal palpation.
11 38 I can fix perineal lacerations.
12 45 I can measure diameters of the pelvic bone.
13 52 I can assess if amniotic sac has ruptured by vaginal examination.
14 53 I can assess an abnormality in fetal position by vaginal examination.
15 55 I can monitor fetal heart rate.
16 57 I can position the pregnant woman correctly for delivery.
17 58 I can perform an episiotomy, if necessary.
18 59 I can repair an episiotomy.
19 61 I can assess umbilical cord abnormalities.
20 64 I can monitor the signs of placental separation and remove the placenta correctly.
21 65 I can check postpartum hemorrhage.
22 66 I can perform involution assessment.
[1] Hovancsek M.T.: “Using simulation in nursing education”. Jeffries, P. R. (Ed.). Simulation in Nursing Education. National League for Nursing, New York, 2007, 2-6.
[2] Nehring W.M., Lashley F.R.: “Nursing simulation: A review of the past 40 years” Simulation & Gaming, 2009, 40, 528-552.
[3] Elfrink V.I., Nininger J., Rohig L., Lee J.: “The CASE for group planning in human patient simulation” Nursing Education Perspectives, 2009, 30, 83-86.
pmid: 19476070
[4] Jeffries P.R., Rogers K.J.: “Theoretical framework for simulation design”. Jeffries, P. R. (Ed.). Simulation in Nursing Education: From Conceptualization to Evaluation National League for Nursing, New York, 2007, 20-33.
[5] Mıdık Ö., Kartal M.: “Simulation-based medical education (Simülasyona dayalı tıp eğitimi)” Marmara Med. J., 2010, 23, 389-399.
[6] Dupuis O., Silveira R., Zentner A., Dittmar A., Gaucherand P., Cucherat M., Redarce T., Rudigoz RC.: “Birh Simülator: reliability of transvaginal assessment of fetal health station as defined by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists classification” Am J Obstet Gynecol., 2005, 192, 868-874.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.09.028 pmid: 15746684
[7] Maslovitz S., Barkai G., Lessing J.B., Ziv A., Many A.: “Recurrent obstetric management mistakes identified by simulation” Obstet Gynecol., 2007, 109, 1295-1300.
doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000265208.16659.c9 pmid: 17540800
[8] Gonik B., Zhang N., Grimm M.J.: “Prediction of brachial plexus strerching during shoulder dystocia using a computer simulation model” Am J Obstet Gynecol., 2003, 189, 1168-1172.
doi: 10.1067/s0002-9378(03)00578-7 pmid: 14586372
[9] Bambini D., Washburn J., Perkins R.: “Outcomes of clinical simulation for novice nursing students: Communication, confidence, clinical judgment” Nursing Educion Research, 2009, 30, 79-82.
[10] Goldenberg D., Andrusyszyn M.A., Iwasiw C.: “The effect of classroom simulation on nursing students’self- efficacy related to health teaching” J Nurs Educ., 2005, 44, 310-314.
pmid: 16094789
[11] Yiğitbaş Ç., Yetkin A.: “Evaluation of self-efficacy level of health college students (Sağlık yüksekokulu öğrencilerinin öz-etkililik-yeterlik düzeyinin değerlendirilmesi)” Journal of Cumhurıyet Unıversıty School of Nursıng, 2003, 7, 6-13.
[12] Bandura A.: “Regulation of cognitive processes through perceived self-efficacy” Developmental Psychology, 1989, 25, 729-735.
doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.25.5.729
[13] Bandura A.: “Health promotion from the perspective of social cognitive theory” Psychology and Health, 1998, 13, 623-649.
doi: 10.1080/08870449808407422
[14] Tipton R.M., Worthington E.L.: “The measurement of generalized self-efficacy: a study of construct validity” J Pers Assess., 1984, 48, 545-548.
doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4805_14 pmid: 16367514
[15] Bandura A.: “Health promotion by social cognitive means” Health Educ Behav., 2004, 31, 143-64.
doi: 10.1177/1090198104263660 pmid: 15090118
[16] Hendy J., Lyons E., Breakwell G.M.: “Genetic testing and the relationship between specific and general self-efficacy” Br J Health Psychol., 2006, 11, 221-233.
doi: 10.1348/135910705X52543 pmid: 16643695
[17] Luszczynska A., Scholz U., Schwarzer R.: “The general self-efficacy scale: multicultural validation studies” J Psychol., 2005, 139, 439-57.
doi: 10.3200/JRLP.139.5.439-457 pmid: 16285214
[18] Kourkouta L., Papathanasiou V.L.: “Communication in Nursing Practice” Materia Socio Medica, 2014, 26, 65-67.
doi: 10.5455/msm.2014.26.65-67 pmid: 24757408
[19] Büyüköztürk Ş.: “Manual of data analysis for social sciences (Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El Kitabı)” Baskı. Pegem Ankara: Yayınevi, 2008.
[20] Sipahi B., Yurtkoru E.S., Çinko M.: “Data analysis with SPSS in social sciences (Sosyal bilimlerde SPSS’le veri analizi)” İstanbul, Beta Basım Yayım Dağıtım, 2008.
[21] Alpar R.: “Applied Statistics with examples from sports, health and education sciences and validity-reliability (Spor, Sağlık ve Eğitim Bilimlerinden Örneklerle Uygulamalı İstatistik ve Geçerlilik-Güvenirlik) Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık, 2012.
[1] S. Coremans, J. Muys, J. De Winter, H. De Raedemaecker, Y. Jacquemyn. Ultrasound by midwives in the postpartum period: feasibility, reproducibility and midwives’ perspectives[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(3): 348-354.
[2] Ze Chen, Xiaoping Lei, Yongjun Zhang. The effects of fetal gender on pregnancy induced hypertension in twin pregnancy[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2018, 45(3): 353-356.
No Suggested Reading articles found!