Turkish Adaptation of the Desire to Avoid Pregnancy Scale: A Validity and Reliability Study

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to adapt the Desire to Avoid Pregnancy scale into Turkish and conduct its validity and reliability analyses. Methods: A methodological study was carried out with a total of 742 women included in the sample, and they were randomly allocated into two groups. Exploratory factor analysis was performed on sample I (462 women), and confirmatory factor analysis was performed on sample II (280 women). Among the reliability analyses, Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient, test–retest analysis, and the item–total score correlation coefficient were administered. Results: As a result of the exploratory factor analysis performed on sample I, it was determined that 14 items explaining 57.262% of the total variance for the Desire to Avoid Pregnancy scale were included in one sample. According to the confirmatory factor analysis performed on sample II, the scale model was found to have good fit values. It was determined that Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency coefficient obtained from the reliability analysis of the scale was .94, and the item–total score correlation and test–retest reliability coefficients obtained after the application at 2-week intervals were at acceptable levels for the women. Conclusion: The results showed that the Desire to Avoid Pregnancy scale is valid and reliable for measures of pregnancy avoidance in women in the Turkish population.

Keywords

• Desire to Avoid Pregnancy scale
• pregnancy
• pregnancy avoidance
• reliability
• validity

Gebelikten Kaçınma Ölçeğinin Türkçe Uyarlaması: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı Gebelikten Kaçınma Ölçeğini (GKÖ) Türkçeye uyarlamak, geçerlik ve güvenirliğini yapmaktır. Yöntemler: Örnekleme 742 kadın alındı. Örneklem grubu rasgele 2’ye ayrıldı. Birinci örneklem (462 kadın) grubuna Açımlayıcı Faktör Analizi (AFA); 2. örneklem (280 kadın) grubuna Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA) yapıldı. Güvenirlik analizlerinden madde toplam puan korelasyon katsayısı, Cronbach’s alfa güvenirlik katsayısı ve test-retest analysis bakıldı. Bulgular: Birinci örnekleme uygulanan AFA’ya göre GKÖ’nün toplam varyansın %57,262’sini açıklayan 14 maddelik tek faktör altında toplandığı belirlendi. İkinci örnekleme uygulanan DFA’ya göre ölçek modelinin uyum değerlerinin iyi olduğu bulundu. Güvenirlik analiz sonuçlarına göre, ölçeğin Cronbach’s alfa iç tutarlılık katsayısının 0,94 olduğu, madde-toplam puan korelasyon katsayı değerlerinin ve test-retest güvenilirlik katsayı değerinin örneklem için kabul edilebilir düzeyde olduğu belirlendi. Sonuç: Elde edilen sonuçlar GKÖ’nün Türk toplumundaki kadınlarda gebelikten kaçınma ölçümleri için geçerli ve güvenilir olduğunu gösterdi.

Keywords

• Gebelikten kaçınma ölçeği (GKÖ)
• gebelikten kaçınma
• gebelik
• geçerlik
• güvenirlik

References

1. Bachrach, C. A., & Morgan, S. P. (2013). A cognitive–social model of fertility intentions. Population and Development Review, 39(3), 459–485. [CrossRef]
2. Bowling, A., & Ebrahim, S. (2005). Handbook of health research methods: ınvestigation, measurement and analysis. Mcgraw-Hill Education.
3. Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (2013). A first course in factor analysis. Psychology press.
4. De Boeck, P., & Wilson, M. (2004). Explanatory ıtem response models: A generalized linear and nonlinear approach. Springer-Verlag.
5. Evci, N., & Aylar, F. (2017). Use of confirmatory factor analysis in scale development studies. Journal of Social Science, 4, 389–412.
6. Fenwick, J., Toohill, J., Creedy, D. K., Smith, J., & Gamble, J. (2015). Sources, responses and moderators of childbirth fear in Australian women: A qualitative investigation. Midwifery, 31(1), 239–246. [CrossRef]
7. Ganatra, B., Gerdts, C., Rossier, C., Johnson Jr., B. R., Tunçalp, Ö., Assifi, A., Sedgh, G., Singh, S., Bankole, A., Popinchalk, A., Bearak, J., Kang, Z., & Alkema, L., Singh, S., Bankole, A., Popinchalk, A., Bearak, J., Kang, Z., & Alkema, L. (2017). Global, regional, and subregional classification of abortions by safety, 2010–14: Estimates from a Bayesian hierarchical model. Lancet, 390(10110), 2372–2381. [CrossRef]
8. Gatny, H. H., Kusunoki, Y., & Barber, J. S. (2014). Pregnancy scares and subsequent unintended pregnancy. Demographic Research, 31, 1229–1242. [CrossRef]

9. Gatny, H., Kusunoki, Y., & Barber, J. (2018). Pregnancy scares and change in contraceptive use. Contraception, 98(4), 260–265. [CrossRef]
10. Hadi, N. U., Abdullah, N., & Sentosa, I. (2016). An easy approach to exploratory factor analysis: Marketing perspective. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 6(1), 215–215.
11. Hall, J. A., Benton, L., Copas, A., & Stephenson, J. (2017). Pregnancy intention and pregnancy outcome: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 21(3), 670–704. [CrossRef]
12. 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. [CrossRef]
13. Klabbers, G. A., van Bakel, H. J., van den Heuvel, M. M., & Vingerhoets, A. J. (2016). Severe fear of childbirth: Its features, assesment, prevalence, determinants, consequences and possible treatments. Psychological Topics, 25(1), 107–127.
14. Metsämuuronen, J. (2016). Item–total correlation as the cause for the underestimation of the alpha estimate for the reliability of the scale. GJRA-global journal for research analysis, 5(1), 471–477.
15. Mumford, S. L., Sapra, K. J., King, R. B., Louis, J. F., & Buck Louis, G. M. B. (2016). Pregnancy intentions—A complex construct and call for new measures. Fertility and Sterility, 106(6), 1453–1462. [CrossRef]
16. Quansah, F. (1916). The use of Cronbach alpha reliability estimate in research among students in public universities in Ghana. African Journal of Teacher Education, 6. [CrossRef]
17. 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), 152–158. [CrossRef]
18. Samari, G., Foster, D. G., Ralph, L. J., & Rocca, C. H. (2020). Pregnancy preferences and contraceptive use among US women. Contraception, 101(2), 79–85. [CrossRef]
19. Samuels, P. (2017). Advice on exploratory factor analysis.
20. Say, L., Chou, D., Gemmill, A., Tunçalp, Ö., Moller, A. B., Daniels, J., Gülmezoglu, A. M., Temmerman, M., & Alkema, L., Temmerman, M., & Alkema, L. (2014). Global causes of maternal death: A WHO systematic analysis. Lancet. Global Health, 2(6), e323–e333. [CrossRef]
21. Stulberg, D. B., Datta, A., White VanGompel, E. W., Schueler, K., & Rocca, C. H. (2020). One Key Question® and the Desire to Avoid Pregnancy Scale: A comparison of two approaches to asking about pregnancy preferences. Contraception, 101(4), 231–236. [CrossRef]
22. Taherdoost, H. (2016). Validity and reliability of the research instrument; how to test the validation of a questionnaire/survey in a research. SSRN Electronic Journal. [CrossRef]
23. Weitzman, A., Barber, J. S., Kusunoki, Y., & England, P. (2017). Desire for and to avoid pregnancy during the transition to adulthood. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 79(4), 1060–1075. [CrossRef]
24. Wilson, M. (2004). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Routledge.
25. Yaşlıoğlu, M. (2017). Factor analysis and validity in social sciences: Application of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Istanbul University Journal of the School of Business, 46, 74–85.