Yasin EKİNCİ, Fatma ÇOBAN, Songül ATASAVUN UYSAL, Yavuz YAKUT

Edinburgh El Tercihi Anketi Türkçe güvenirliğinin araştırılması

Amaç: Türkçe dilinde bir el tercih anketinin olmaması ve fizyoterapi uygulamalarında bu anketin kullanımına olan ihtiyaçtan yola çıkarak, amacımız Edinburgh El Tercihi Anketinin Türkçe güvenirliğini araştırmak idi.Yöntem: Çalışmaya yaş ortalamaları 23,92±2,26 yıl olan 126 erkek, 185 kadın olmak üzere toplamda 311 kişi katıldı. Anket, on farklı aktiviteyi (yazı yazma, diş fırçalama, makas kullanma gibi) içeren alt başlıklardan oluşmaktadır. Anket sonucu elde edilen puana göre ambidextrous (her iki elini aktif kullananlar), sağ el tercihli veya sol el tercihli olarak kaydedildi.Bulgular: Anket sonuçları incelendiğinde 143 (%46) kişinin sağ, 63 (%20,3) kişinin sol, 105 (%33,8) kişinin ise ambidextrous olduğu bulundu. Katılımcıların günlük yaşamdaki pek çok aktivitede her iki ellerini de kullandıkları, her iki elden sonra en fazla sağ eli tercih ettikleri görüldü. Sadece fırlatma aktivitesinde sol elin tercih edildiği tespit edildi. Anketin alt başlıklarının güvenilirlikleri incelendiğinde, sadece diş fırçalama alt başlığı güvenirlik seviyesi iyi (K=0,783) olarak bulunurken, bu alt başlık dışındakilerde güvenirlik derecesi mükemmel olarak bulundu. Sonuç: Dominant yani tercih edilen elin belirlenmesinde kullanılacak Türkçe geçerliği ve güvenirliği olan bir anketin olmaması dominant el belirlenmesinde yanılmalara neden olmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın sonucunda Edinburgh El Tercih Anketi’nin Türkçe güvenirliği mükemmel olarak bulundu.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

güvenirlilik, el tercihi

Investigation of Turkish reliability of the Edinburgh Hand Preference Questionnaire

Purpose: Lack of a hand preference questionnaire in Turkish language and due to the need for the use of this survey in physiotherapy applications, the aim of this study was to investigate the reliability of the Turkish version of the Edinburgh Hand Preference Questionnaire.Methods: A total of 311 people, 126 males and 185 females with a mean age of 23.92±2.26 years participated in the study. The questionnaire consists of sub-headings that include ten different activities (such as writing, brushing, using scissors). According to the results of the questionnaire, ambidextrous (both hand active users), right hand preference or left hand preference were recorded.Results: When the results of the questionnaire were examined, it was found that 143 (46%) people were right and 63 (20.3%) were left and 105 (33.8%) were ambidextrous. It was observed that the participants used both hands in many activities in daily life and preferred the right hand after both hands. It was determined that the left hand was preferred only in throwing activity. When the reliability of the sub-headings of the questionnaire were examined, only the reliability level of the teeth brushing subtitle was found to be good (K = 0.783), while the reliability level was found to be excellent except for this subtitle. Conclusion: The lack of a valid and reliable Turkish questionnaire to be used in the determination of the preferred hand is a result of faults in dominant hand determination. As a result of this study, the reliability of the Turkish hand preference survey was investigated and found to be excellent.

PDF

___

1. Corey DM, Hurley MM, Foundas AL. Right and left handedness defined: a multivariate approach using hand preference and hand performance measures. Neuropsychiatry Neuropsychol Behav Neurol. 2001;14:144-152.
2. Tan U. The distribution of hand preference in normal men and women. The International journal of neuroscience. 1988;41:35-55.
3. Haberling IS, Corballis PM, Corballis MC. Language, gesture, and handedness: Evidence for independent lateralized networks. Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior. 2016;82:72-85.
4. Ocklenburg S, Garland A, Strockens F, Uber Reinert A. Investigating the neural architecture of handedness. Front Psychol. 2015;6:148.
5. Edlin JM, Leppanen ML, Fain RJ, Hacklander RP, Hanaver-Torrez SD, Lyle KB. On the use (and misuse?) of the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory. Brain Cogn. 2015;94:44-51.
6. Yang N, Waddington G, Adams R, Han J. Translation, cultural adaption, and test-retest reliability of Chinese versions of the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory and Waterloo Footedness Questionnaire. Laterality. 2018;23:255-273.
7. Medland SE, Duffy DL, Wright MJ, Geffen GM, Hay DA, Levy F, et al. Genetic influences on handedness: data from 25,732 Australian and Dutch twin families. Neuropsychologia. 2009;47:330-337.
8. Christman SD, Prichard EC, Corser R. Factor analysis of the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory: Inconsistent handedness yields a two-factor solution. Brain and cognition. 2015;98:82-86.
9. Ocklenburg S, Beste C, Gunturkun O. Handedness: a neurogenetic shift of perspective. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2013;37:2788-2793.
10. Dragovic M, Milenkovic S, Hammond G. The distribution of hand preference is discrete: a taxometric examination. Br J Psychol. 2008;99:445-459.
11. Prichard E, Propper RE, Christman SD. Degree of Handedness, but not Direction, is a Systematic Predictor of Cognitive Performance. Frontiers in psychology. 2013;4:9.
12. Oldfield RC. Ambidexterity in surgeons. Lancet. 1971;1:655.
13. Annett M. A classification of hand preference by association analysis. Br J Psychol. 1970;61:303-321.
14. Fazio R, Dunham KJ, Griswold S, Denney RL. An Improved Measure of Handedness: The Fazio Laterality Inventory. Applied neuropsychology: Adult. 2013;20:197-202.
15. Elalmis DD, Tan U. Hand preference in Turkish population. The International journal of neuroscience. 2005;115:705-712.
16. Ransil BJ, Schachter SC. Test-retest reliability of the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory and Global Handedness preference measurements, and their correlation. Perceptual and motor skills. 1994;79:1355-1372.
17. Busch D, Hagemann N, Bender N. The dimensionality of the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory: An analysis with models of the item response theory. Laterality. 2010;15:610-28.
18. Oldfield RC. The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia. 1971;9:97-113.
19. Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, Eremenco S, McElroy S, Verjee-Lorenz A, et al. Principles of Good Practice for the Translation and Cultural Adaptation Process for Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Measures: report of the ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. 2005;8:94-104.
20. Peters M, Reimers S, Manning JT. Hand preference for writing and associations with selected demographic and behavioral variables in 255,100 subjects: the BBC internet study. Brain and cognition. 2006;62:177-189.
21. Gilbert A WC. Hand preference and age in the Unıted States. Neuropsychologia. 1992;30:601-608.
22. Gursoy R. Effects of left- or right-hand preference on the success of boxers in Turkey. British journal of sports medicine. 2009;43:142-144.
23. Espirito-Santo H, Pires CF, Garcia IQ, Daniel F, Silva AG, Fazio RL. Preliminary validation of the Portuguese Edinburgh Handedness Inventory in an adult sample. Appl Neuropsychol Adult. 2017;24:275-287.
24. Ghirlanda S, Vallortigara G. The evolution of brain lateralization: a game-theoretical analysis of population structure. Proc Biol Sci. 2004;27:853-857.
25. Payne MA. Impact of cultural pressures on self-reports of actual and approved hand use. Neuropsychologia. 1987;25:247-258.