Development of the Attitudes toward Infertility Scale (ATIS): validity and reliability study

Year 2018, , 173 - 180, 29.12.2018

Diğdem Müge Siyez , Erol Esen , Bahar Baran , Seçil Seymenler , Dilek Yelda Kağnıcı , Ender Siyez

https://doi.org/10.17826/cumj.403064

Cited By: 6

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of the study was to develop both a valid and reliable scale to determine the attitudes of university students towards infertility. 

Materials and Methods: This study was conducted in two phases, Study 1 (n = 443) and Study 2 (n = 309), with university students. Item analysis, exploratory factor analysis, discriminant validity, and internal reliability were calculated in Study 1. Confirmatory factor analysis and internal reliability were calculated in Study 2. 

Results: The result of exploratory factor analysis showed that the scale has a single factor structure with 12 items and confirmatory factor analysis indicated a good fit of the model for Attitudes Toward Infertility Scale. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were .85 and .83 for two studies.

Conclusion: The findings of this study demonstrate that the Attitudes toward Infertility Scale is a reliable and valid instrument.

Keywords

infertility, scale development, attitudes

İnfertiliteye Yönelik Tutum Ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmayla üniversite öğrencilerinin infertiliteye yönelik tutumlarını belirlemede güvenli ve geçerli bir ölçme aracının geliştirilmesi amaçlanmıştır.

Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışma iki aşamada gerçekleştirilmiştir, birinci çalışmaya 443, ikinci çalışmaya 309 öğrenci katılmıştır. Çalışma 1' de ölçme aracının madde analizi ve açımlayıcı faktör analizi yapılmış, ayırtedicilik geçerliği ve iç tutarlılığa dayalı güvenirliği hesaplanmıştır. Çalışma 2' de doğrulayıcı faktör analizi yapılmış ve iç tutarlılığa dayalı güvenirliği hesaplanmıştır.

Bulgular: Açımlayıcı faktör analizi sonuçları 12 maddeden oluşan ölçeğin tek faktörlü bir yapıda olduğunu gösterirken, doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonuçları modelin iyi uyum gösterdiğine işaret etmektedir. Cronbach alfa güvenirlik katsayısı iki çalışmada sırasıyla .83 ve .85 olarak hesaplanmıştır. 

Sonuç: Çalışma bulguları İnfertiliteye Yönelik Tutum Ölçeğinin geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğunu göstermektedir.

Keywords

infertilite, ölçek geliştirme, tutum

References

• 1. De Melo-Martin I. On cloning human beings. Bioethics. 2002;16:246–65.
• 2. Burns LH. Psychiatric aspects of infertility and infertility treatments. Psychiatric Clinics of North America. 2007;30:689-716.
• 3. Baird DT, Collins J, Egozcue J, Evers LH, Gianaroli L, Leridon H, et al. Fertility and ageing. Hum Reprod Update. 2005;11:261-76.
• 4. Chavarro JE, Rich-Edwards JW, Rosner BA, Willett WC. Diet and lifestyle in the prevention of ovulatory disorder infertility. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110:1050-58.
• 5. Weström, L. Sexually transmitted diseases and infertility. Sexually Transmitted Diseases. 1994;21(2):32-7.
• 6. Wyndham N, Figueira PGM, Patrizio P. A persistent misperception: assisted reproductive technology can reverse the “aged biological clock”. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:1044-57.
• 7. Hammarberg K, Setter T, Norman RJ, Holden CA, Michelmore J, Johnson L. Knowledge about factors that influence fertility among Australians of reproductive age: A population-based survey. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:502-7.
• 8. Hammarberg K, Zosel R, Comoy C, Robertson S, Holden C, Deeks M, et al. Fertility-related knowledge and information-seeking behaviour among people of reproductive age: A qualitative study. Hum Fertil. 2017;20:88-95.
• 9. Bunting L, Boivin J. Knowledge about infertility risk factors, fertility myths and illusory benefits of healthy habits in young people. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:1858–64.
• 10. Bohner G, Dickel N. Attitudes and attitude change. Annu Rev Psychol. 2011;62:391-417.
• 11. Dündar C. Dünyada ve Türkiye’de infertilite epidemiyolojisi. In Aşcı R, Çayan S, Erdemir F, Orhan İ, Yaman Ö, Usta MF, Kendirci M, Ekmekçioğlu O, Kadıoğlu A, editors. Erkek üreme sistemi hastalıkları ve tedavisi. İstanbul, TR: İstanbul Tıp Kitabevi; 2013. p. 177-98.
• 12. Domar A, Zuttermeister P, Seibel M, Benson H. Psychological improvement in infertile women after behavioral treatment: A replication. Fertil Steril. 1992;58:144-7.
• 13. Peterson BD, Newton CR, Rosen KH. Examining congruence between partners' perceived infertility-related stress and its relationship to marital adjustment and depression in infertile couples. Fam Process. 2003;42:59–70.
• 14. Topdemir Koçyiğit O. İnfertilite ve sosyo-kültürel etkileri. İnsanbilim Dergisi. 2012;1:27-38.
• 15. Ekelin M, Akesson C, Angerud M, Kvist LI. Swedish high school students’ knowledge and attitudes regarding fertility and family building. Reprod Health. 2012;9:6-14.
• 16. Fotopoulou V, Chasiakou A, Gryparis A, Baka S. Greek medical students’ knowledge and attitudes towards infertility and assisted reproductive technologies (Greek medical students and art). Journal of Women’s Health Care. 2015;4:268-71.
• 17. Gerhard RS, Ritenour CWM, Goodman M, Vashi D, Hsiao W. Awareness of and attitudes towards infertility and its treatment: A cross-sectional survey of men in a United States primary care population. Asian J Androl. 2014;16:858-63.
• 18. Söderbeg M, Lundgren I, Christensson K, Hildingsson I. Attitudes toward fertility and childbearing scale: an assessment of a new instrument for women who are not yet nothers in Sweden. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013;13:197-204.
• 19. DeVellis RF. Scale development: Theory and applications. 2nd ed. London, UK: Sage Publications; 2003.
• 20. Hinkin TR. A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. J Manage. 1995;21:967-88.
• 21. Bunting L, Tsibulsky I, Boivin J. Fertility knowledge and beliefs about fertility treatment: Findings from the International Fertility Decision-making Study. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:385-97.
• 22. Lampic C, Svanberg AS, Karlström P, Tyden T. Fertility awareness, intentions concerning childbearing, and attitudes towards parenthood among female and male academics. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:558–64.
• 23. Matic SD. Development and validation of the questionnaire measuring fear from infertility. Racionalna Terapija. 2015;7:1-12.
• 24. Quach S, Librach C. Infertility knowledge and attitudes in urban high school students. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:2099-106.
• 25. Tyden T, Svanberg AS, Karlström PO, Lihoff L, Lampic C. Female university students’ attitudes to future motherhood and their understanding about fertility. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2006;11:181–9.
• 26. Hinkin TR, Tracey JB, Enz CA. Scale construction: Developing reliable and valid measurement instruments. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research. 1997;21(1):100-20.
• 27. Rubio DM, Berg-Weger M, Tebb S, Lee ES, Rauch S. Objectifying content validity: Conducting a content validity study in social work research. Social Work Research. 2003;27:94-104.
• 28. Schriesheim CA, Cogliser CC, Scandura TA, Lankau MJ, Powers KJ. An empirical comparison of approaches for quantitatively assessing the content adequacy of paper-and-pencil measurement instruments. Organizational Research Methods. 1999;2:140-56.
• 29. Davis LL. Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts. Appl Nurs Res. 1992;5:194-7.
• 30. Cabrera-Nguyen P. Author guidelines for reporting scale development and validation results in the Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research. 2010;1:99-103.
• 31. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling. 1999;6:1-55.
• 32. Kline P. An easy guide to factor analysis. London: Routledge, 1994.
• 33. Wang J, Wang X. Structural equation modeling: Applications using mplus: Methods and applications. West Susex: John Wiley & Sons; 2012.
• 34. Costello AB, Osborne JW. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation. 2005;10:131-46.
• 35. Büyüköztürk Ş, Kılıç-Çakmak E, Akgün ÖE, Karadeniz Ş, Demirel F. Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara, TR: Pegem Yayıncılık; 2008.
• 36. Hurley AE, Scandura TA, Schriesheim CA, Brannick MT, Seers A, Vandenberg RJ, et al. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Guidelines, issues, and alternatives. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 1997;18:667-83.
• 37. Kelley TL. The selection of upper and lower groups for the validation of test items. J Educa Psychol. 1939;30:17-24.
• 38. Nunnally JC. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978.
• 39. Henson RK. Understanding internal consistency reliability estimates: A conceptual primer on coefficient alpha. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development. 2001;34(3):177-89.
• 40. Morokoff PJ, Calderone KL. Sexuality and infertility. In: Adesso VJ, Reddy DM, Fleming R, editors. Psychological perspectives on women’s health. Washington, DC, USA: Taylor & Francis; 1994. p. 251-84.
• 41. Andersen RM. Revisiting the behavioral model and access to medical care: Does it matter? J Health Soc Behav. 1995;36:1–10.
• 42. Onat G. Development of a scale for determining violence against infertile women: A scale development study. Reprod Health. 2014;11:18-25.
• 43. Verhaak C, Hammer Burns L. Behavioral medicine approaches to infertility counseling. In: Covington SN, Hammer Burns L, editors. Infertility Counseling, A Comprehensive Handbook for Clinicians. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2006. p. 169-95.