Desire to Avoid Pregnancy Scale: Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version

Öz

Objective: This study aims to determine the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Desire to Avoid Pregnancy Scale. Methods: Originally published in English and Spanish, the Desire to Avoid Pregnancy Scale was translated into Turkish using the translation and back-translation technique. Data were obtained by face-to-face interview method with the participation of 185 volunteers between May 2021 and August 2021. The research sample consisted of women aged 18-49 who had at least a primary school education, were able to speak and understand Turkish, and had not been diagnosed with pregnancy or menopause. To determine the validity and reliability of the scale, confirmatory factor analysis was conducted, and Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient was calculated. Results: The Turkish version of the Desire to Avoid Pregnancy Scale, consisting of 14 items and three factors, is aligned with the original scale. In the model fit tests of the Turkish form of the Desire to Avoid Pregnancy Scale, χ2/df = 1.406, GFI = 0.988, AGFI = 0.983, TLI = 0.993, CFI = 0.995, RMSEA = 0.047, and SRMR = 0.077. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the Desire to Avoid Pregnancy Scale was found to be 0.951. Conclusion: The Turkish version of the Desire to Avoid Pregnancy Scale has demonstrated validity and reliability in Turkish. The scale can be utilized as an assessment tool for evaluating the desire to avoid pregnancy.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Avoiding pregnancy
• Reliability
• Scale
• Validity

Gebelikten Kaçınma İsteği Ölçeği: Türkçe Versiyonunun Geçerlik ve Güvenirliği

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, Gebelikten Kaçınma İsteği Ölçeği’nin Türkçe versiyonunun geçerlik ve güvenirliğini belirlemektir. Yöntem: İngilizce ve İspanyolca dilinde yayınlanan Gebelikten Kaçınma İsteği Ölçeği’nin İngilizce formu ileri ve geri çeviri yöntemi kullanılarak Türkçe’ye çevrilmiştir. Veriler, Mayıs 2021 - Ağustos 2021 tarihleri arasında 185 katılımcıdan yüz yüze görüşme yöntemiyle toplanmıştır. Araştırma örneklemini; en az ilkokul mezunu, Türkçe konuşup anlayabilen, gebelik veya menopoz tanısı almamış, 18-49 yaş arasındaki kadınlar oluşturmuştur. Ölçeğin geçerliği ve güvenirliği belirlemek için doğrulayıcı faktör analizi yapılmış ve Cronbach’s alfa güvenirlik katsayısı hesaplanmıştır. Bulgular: Gebelikten Kaçınma İsteği Ölçeği’nin Türkçe versiyonu orijinal ölçekle uyumlu olarak 14 madde ve üç faktöre sahiptir. Gebelikten Kaçınma İsteği Ölçeği’nin Türkçe versiyonunun uyum incelemesinde; model uyum incelemesi χ2/df = 1,406, GFI = 0,988, TLI = 0,993, AGFI = 0,983, CFI = 0,995, RMSEA = 0,047 ve SRMR = 0,077’dir. Gebelikten Kaçınma İsteği Ölçeği'nin Cronbach’s alfa katsayısı ise 0,951 olarak bulunmuştur. Sonuç: Gebelikten Kaçınma İsteği Ölçeği’nin Türkçe versiyonu geçerli ve güvenilirdir. Ölçek, gebelikten kaçınma isteğinin değerlendirilmesinde bir ölçüm aracı olarak kullanılabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Gebelikten kaçınma
• Geçerlik
• Güvenirlik
• Ölçek

Kaynakça

1. 1. Sakman, E. (2021). Voluntary Childlessness: A review of the factors underlying the decision not to have children. Studies in Psychology, 41 (1): 83-109. Doi: 10.26650/SP2020-0105.
2. 2. Rocca, C. H., Ralph, L. J., Wilson, M., Gould, H., Foster, D. G. (2019). Psychometric evaluation of an instrument to measure prospective pregnancy preferences: The Desire to Avoid Pregnancy Scale. Medical Care, 57 (2): 152-8. Doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000001048.
3. 3. Gribaldo, A., Judd, M. D., Kertzer, D. I. (2009). An “imperfect” Contraceptive Society: Fertility and contraception in Italy. Population and Development Review, 35 (3): 551-584. Doi: 10.1111/j.1728- 4457.2009.00296.x.
4. 4. Taskin, L. (2021). Obstetrics and Women's Health Nursing. Ankara. Academician Publisher.
5. 5. Aiken, A. R., Borrero, S., Callegari, L. S., Dehlendorf, C. (2016). Rethinking the pregnancy planning paradigm: Unintended conceptions or unrepresentative concepts?. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 48 (3): 147-151. Doi: 10.1363/48e10316.
6. 6. Rocca, C. H., Harper, C. C., Raine-Bennett, T. R. (2013). Young women’s perceptions of the benefits of childbearing: Associations with contraceptive use and pregnancy. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 45 (1): 23–32. Doi: 10.1363/4502313.
7. 7. Ozdemir Gokmen, O., Erbil, N., Demirbag, B. (2022). Adaptation of Birth Satisfaction Scale-revised to Turkish society. Middle Black Sea Journal of Health Science, 8 (4): 490-505. Doi: https://doi.org/10.19127/mbsjohs.1080337.
8. 8. Melo, C. R. M. e., Borges, A. L. V., Duarte, L. S., Nascimento, N. C. (2020). Contraceptive use and the intention to become pregnant among women attending the Brazilian Unified Health System. Revista Latino- Americana De Enfermagem, 28: e3328. Doi: 10.1590/1518-8345.3451.3328.

9. 9. Brooks, C. (2019). Meaning-making among intentionally childless women. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 38 (1): 140-153.
10. 10. Hall, J. A., Stephenson, J., Barrett, G. (2019). On the stability of reported pregnancy intentions from pregnancy to 1 year postnatally: Impact of choice of measure, timing of assessment, women’s characteristics and outcome of pregnancy. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 23 (9): 1177-1186. Doi: 10.1007/s10995-019-02748-x.
11. 11. Sappleton, N. (2018). Introduction: Childlessness through a feminist lens. In N. Sappleton (Ed.), Voluntary and involuntary childlessness (Emerald Studies in Reproduction, Culture and Society) (pp. 1-7). Emerald Publishing Limited.
12. 12. Agrillo, C., Nelini, C. (2008). Childfree by choice: A review. Journal of Cultural Geography, 25 (3): 347-363. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/08873630802476292.
13. 13. Carmichael, G. A., Whittaker, A. (2007). Choice and circumstance: Qualitative insights into contemporary childlessness in Australia. European Journal of Population / evue européenne de Démographie, 23 (2): 111-143. Doi: 10.1007/s10680-006-9112-4.
14. 14. Hall, J., Barrett, G., Rocca, C. H. (2022). Evaluation of the Desire to Avoid Pregnancy Scale in the UK: A psychometric analysis including predictive validity. BMJ open, 12 (7): e060287. Doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-060287.
15. 15. Ralph, L. J., Foster, D. G., Rocca, C. H. (2020). Comparing prospective and retrospective reports of pregnancy intention in a longitudinal cohort of U.S. women. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 52 (1): 39-48. Doi: 10.1363/psrh.12134.
16. 16. Rackin, H. M., Morgan, S. P. (2018). Prospective versus retrospective measurement of unwanted fertility: Strengths, weaknesses, and inconsistencies assessed for a cohort of US women. Demographic Research, 39: 61-94. Doi: 10.4054/DemRes.2018.39.3.
17. 17. Gipson, J. D., Koenig, M. A., & Hindin, M. J. (2008). The Effects of Unintended Pregnancy on Infant, Child, and Parental Health: A Review of the Literature. Studies in Family Planning, 39 (1): 18-38. Doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4465.2008.00148.x.
18. 18. Petersen, R., Moos, M. K. (1997). Defining and measuring unintended pregnancy: Issues and concerns. Womens Health Issues, 7 (4): 234–240. Doi: 10.1016/S1049-3867(97)00009-1.
19. 19. Erdogan, S., Nahcivan, N., Esin, M. N. (2017). Research Process, Practice and Critical in Nursing. 3st edition. Istanbul: Nobel Medicine Publications. (p: 106-108). ISBN: 978-605-335-346-1.
20. 20. Cakir, C., Aydin Gungor, T. (2016). Cultural Competence Scale (CCS): The study of adaptation to Turkish, validity and reliability. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies, 2 (1): 24-36.
21. 21. Capik, C., Gozum, S., Aksayan, S. (2018). Intercultural Scale adaptation stages, language and culture adaptation: Updated guideline. Florence Nightingale Journal of Nursing, 26 (3): 199-210. Doi: 10.26650/FNJN397481.
22. 22. Karacam, Z. (2019). Adaptation of scales to Turkish. Journal of Midwifery and Health Sciences, 2 (1): 28-37.
23. 23. Davis, L. L. (1992). Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts. Applied Nursing Research, 5: 194-197.
24. 24. R Core Team (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/.
25. 25. Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling and more. Version 0.5–12 (BETA). Journal of statistical software, 48 (2): 1-36.
26. 26. Evci, N., Aylar, F. (2017). Use of confirmatory factor analysis in scale development studies. The Journal of Social Sciences, 4 (10): 389-412. Doi: 10.16990/SOBIDER.3386.
27. 27. Sumbuloglu, V., Sumbuloglu, K. (1998). Research Methods in Health Sciences. 2. ed. Ankara: Hatiboglu Publisher. 1.
28. 28. Tavsancil, E., Keser, H. (2002). Development of a likert type attitude Scale towards internet usage. Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences & Practies, 1 (1): 79-100. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1501/Egifak_0000000043.
29. 29. Karaman, M. (2023). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: A conceptual study. International Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 9 (1): 47-63. Doi: 10.29131/uiibd.1279602.
30. 30. Akyuz, H. E. (2018). Confirmatory factor analysis for structural validity: An applied study. Bitlis Eren University Journal of Science, 7 (2): 186-198. Doi: 10.17798/bitlisfen.414490.