Hostname: page-component-669899f699-8p65j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-26T00:33:05.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Development of the Perceived Challenges in Disaster Response Scale (PCDRS): Validity and Reliability Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 April 2025

Ahmet Doğan Kuday Open the ORCID record for Ahmet Doğan Kuday [Opens in a new window] ,
Cüneyt Çalışkan Open the ORCID record for Cüneyt Çalışkan [Opens in a new window] ,
Kerem Kınık Open the ORCID record for Kerem Kınık [Opens in a new window] ,
Nihal Dağ Open the ORCID record for Nihal Dağ [Opens in a new window]  and
Hüseyin Koçak Open the ORCID record for Hüseyin Koçak [Opens in a new window]
Ahmet Doğan Kuday*
Affiliation:
Department of First and Emergency Aid, Vocational School of Health Services, Bezmialem Vakıf University, Istanbul, Türkiye
Cüneyt Çalışkan
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Aid and Disaster Management, Hamidiye Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Health Sciences, Istanbul, Türkiye
Kerem Kınık
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Aid and Disaster Management, Hamidiye Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Health Sciences, Istanbul, Türkiye
Nihal Dağ
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Aid and Disaster Management, Hamidiye Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Health Sciences, Istanbul, Türkiye
Hüseyin Koçak
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Aid and Disaster Management, Hamidiye Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Health Sciences, Istanbul, Türkiye
*
Correspondence: Ahmet Doğan Kuday Department of First and Emergency Aid Vocational School of Health Services Bezmialem Vakıf University Istanbul, Türkiye E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives:

This study aimed to design and validate a measurement tool in Turkish to assess the challenges perceived by individuals involved in the disaster response process, such as volunteers, health care personnel, firefighters, and members of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).

Methods:

This methodological study was conducted from November 2023 through March 2024. The scale development process comprised item development, expert reviews, and language control, followed by the creation of a draft survey, pilot testing, application of the final scale, and statistical analyses. All stages, including validity and reliability analyses, were conducted in Turkish. While reliability analysis used Cronbach’s alpha, item-total correlations, intraclass correlation coefficients, test-retest reliability, Tukey’s additivity, and Hotelling’s T-squared tests, validity analysis included Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analyses (EFA/CFA). Software such as AMOS 22.0 and SPSS 22.0 were used to perform statistical analysis.

Results:

Findings indicated six dimensions with 23 items, with factor loadings ranging from 0.478 to 0.881. The CFA demonstrated acceptable fit indices. Test-retest analysis showed a robust positive correlation (r = 0.962) between the measurements. The scale’s total Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.913. Sub-dimension reliability scores were calculated as follows: 0.865 for environmental and health, 0.802 for communication and information, 0.738 for organizational, 0.728 for logistical, 0.725 for individual, and 0.809 for other factors.

Conclusions:

This study showed that the Perceived Challenges in Disaster Response Scale (PCDRS), developed and validated in Turkish, is a reliable and valid measurement tool. It offers a foundation for understanding the challenges faced by disaster response teams and for formulating improvement strategies.

Keywords

difficultiesdisasterobstaclesreliabilityvalidity
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , April 2025 , pp. 86 - 93
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Born, CT, Briggs, SM, Ciraulo, DL, et al. Disasters and mass casualties: I. General principles of response and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2007;15(7):388–396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shahrestanaki, YA, Khankeh, H, Masoumi, G, et al. What structural factors influencing emergency and disaster medical response teams? A comparative review study. J Educ Health Promot. 2019;8:110.Google ScholarPubMed
Boyd, A, Chambers, N, French, S, et al. Emergency planning and management in health care: priority research topics. Health Syst. 2014;3(2):83–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Djalali, A, Castren, M, Hosseinijenab, V, et al. Hospital Incident Command System (HICS) performance in Iran; decision making during disasters. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2012;20:14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vafadar, Z, Aghaei, MH, Ebadi, A. Military nurses’ experiences of interprofessional education in crisis management: a qualitative content analysis. J Adv Med Educ Prof. 2021;9(2):85–93.Google ScholarPubMed
Kavukcu, N, Altıntaş, KH. The challenges of the health care providers in refugee settings: a systematic review. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2019;34(2):188–196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tin, D, Granholm, F, Hata, R, et al. Rethinking mass-casualty triage. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2023;38(3):424–425.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Şen, G. Sağlık Profesyonellerinin Afet Triajında Etik Karar Verebilme Durumları: İzmir İli Örneği. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi. 2018;9(1):57–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altntaş, KH, Delooz, H. The problems faced by three government disaster response teams of Ankara city during the Marmara earthquake - 1999 response. Eur J Emerg Med. 2004;11(2):95–101.Google ScholarPubMed
Usta, G, Aslan, R, Gündüz, F, et al. On-site evaluation of emergency response carried out after earthquakes with epicentral base Kahramanmaraş/Pazarcık-Elbistan in Türkiye: an observational study. Türk Coğrafya Dergisi. 2023;(83):145–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kazancıoğlu, R, Erdoğan, Ö. Resilience of hospital in disaster. Journal of Design for Resilience in Architecture & Planning. 2023;(4):141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dağ, N, Çalışkan, C, Koçak, H, et al. Factors affecting the intervention of health-care professionals in radiological events: a systematic review. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2023;17:e348.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kınık, K, Dağ, N, Çalışkan, C, et al. Assault on healthcare in conflict: a critical examination of attacks on medical facilities and personnel in occupied Palestinian territories and Gaza post-October 7 under the lens of international law. Anadolu Klin. 2024;29(1):1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hugelius, K, Becker, J, Adolfsson, A. Five challenges when managing mass casualty or disaster situations: a review study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(9):3068.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sorani, M, Tourani, S, Khankeh, HR, et al. Prehospital Emergency Medical Services challenges in disaster; a qualitative study. Emergency. 2018;6(1):e26.Google ScholarPubMed
Kuday, AD, Özcan, T, Çalışkan, C, et al. Challenges faced by medical rescue teams during disaster response: a systematic review study. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2023;17:e548.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khalil, H, Munn, Z. Guidance on conducting methodological studies – an overview. Current Opinion in Epidemiology and Public Health. 2023;2(1):2–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorsuch, R. Factor Analysis. 2nd ed. L. Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, Michigan USA; 1983.Google Scholar
Anderson, JC, Gerbing, DW. The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and goodness-of-fit indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Psychometrika. 1984;49(2):155–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boomsma, A. Robustness of LISREL against small sample sizes in factor analysis models. In: Joreskog, KG, Wold, H, (eds). Systems Under Indirect Observation: Causality, Structure, Prediction (Part I). Amsterdam, Netherlands: North-Holland; 1982.Google Scholar
Nonconvergence, Boomsma A., improper solutions, and starting values in LISREL maximum likelihood estimation. Psychometrika. 1985;50:229–242.Google Scholar
Tabachnick, BG, Fidell, LS. Using Multivariate Statistics. 6th ed. London, UK: Pearson; 2013.Google Scholar
Hair, JF, Hult, GTM, Ringle, CM, et al. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). 3th ed. Thousand Oaks, California USA: Sage; 2022.Google Scholar
Lawshe, CH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology. 1975;28(4):563–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polit, DF, Beck, CT, Owen, SV. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2007;30(4):459–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Can, A. SPSS ile Bilimsel Araştırma Sürecinde Nicel Veri Analizi. 2nd ed. Türkiye: Pegem Akademi; 2014.Google Scholar
Hair, JF, Black, WC, Babin, BJ, et al. Multivariate Data Analysis. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey USA: Prentice Hall; 2010.Google Scholar
Kline, RB. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York USA: The Guilford Press; 2011.Google Scholar
AYAYDER. Association for Emergency Aid and Disaster Managers, 2023. https://www.ayayder.org. Accessed April 2024.Google Scholar
Simon, D, Kriston, L, Loh, A, et al. Confirmatory factor analysis and recommendations for improvement of the Autonomy-Preference-Index (API). Health Expect. 2010;13(3):234–243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schermelleh-Engel, K, Moosbrugger, H, Müller, H. Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research. 2003;8(2):23–74.Google Scholar
Bentler, PM, Bonett, DG. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin. 1980;88:588–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, L, Bentler, PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling. 1999;6(1):1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Büyüköztürk, Ş. Sosyal Bilimler Için veri Analizi el Kitabı. Türkiye: Pegem Akademi; 2007.Google Scholar
DeVellis, R. Scale Development: Theory and Application. Thousand Okas, California USA: Sage; 2003.Google Scholar
Wyse, AE. How days between tests impacts alternate forms reliability in computerized adaptive tests. Educ Psychol Meas. 2021;81(4):644–667.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pett, MA, Lackey, NR, Sullivan, JJ. Making Sense of Factor Analysis: The Use of Factor Analysis for Instrument Development in Health Care Research. Thousand Oaks, California USA: SAGE; 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aydın, B, Kaplan, M, Atılgan, H, et al. A preliminary study to evaluate the reproducibility of factor analysis results: the case of educational research journals in Turkey. J Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology. 2019;10(1):1–11.Google Scholar
Lorenzo-Seva, U. SOLOMON: a method for splitting a sample into equivalent subsamples in factor analysis. Behav Res. 2022;54:2665–2677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumacker, RE, Lomax, RG. A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. 3rd ed. New York USA: Routledge; 2010.Google Scholar
Byrne, BM, Campbell, TL. Cross-cultural comparisons and the presumption of equivalent measurement and theoretical structure: a look beneath the surface. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 1999;30:557–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cortina, JM. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. J Appl Psychol. 1993;78(1):98–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konting, MM, Kamaruddin, N, Man, NA. Quality assurance in higher education institutions: exist survey among Universiti Putra Malaysia graduating students. International Education Studies. 2009;2(1):25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, N. Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment. 1996;8(4):350–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irwing, P, Booth, T, Hughes, DJ. The Wiley Handbook of Psychometric Testing: A Multidisciplinary Reference on Survey, Scale, and Test Development. Hoboken, New Jersey USA: John Wiley & Sons; 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UNISDR. Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030; United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction: Sendai, Japan, 2015.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Kuday et al. supplementary material

Kuday et al. supplementary material
Download Kuday et al. supplementary material(File)
File 28.5 KB