Birth-Related Psychological Trauma Perception Scale Development and Psychometric Properties: A Methodological Study

Abstract

Birth-Related Psychological Trauma Perception Scale Development and Psychometric Properties: A Methodological Study

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to develop a valid and reliable measurement tool for assessing mothers’ psychological trauma perception regarding birth. Materials and Methods: This is a methodologically type study. This study was conducted with 430 mother who had normal delivery. Personel information form and Birth-related psychological trauma perception scale draft form were used to data curation. Results: The statistics show that the sample is sufficient for factor analysis (Kaiser-Meyer Olkin measure = 0.858) and that the correlation between the questions is appropriate (Bartlett's test of sphericity, χ2 = 9211.281, p = 0.001). The total explained variance of the scale is 28.309%. It was determined that the scale consists of 39 items and a single sub-dimension. The internal consistency coefficient of the total scale was calculated as 0.92. The scale's invariance over time shows that its reliability is high (r = 0.83, p< 0.001). Conclusion: Results showed that the developed scale is a valid and reliable tool for measuring the perception of traumatic birth. This scale can be used to determine whether women are susceptible to psychological trauma from the first postpartum month to a year later.

Keywords

• Birth
• perception
• psychological
• scale
• trauma

References

1. Ayers S. Thoughts and emotions during traumatic birth: A qualitative study. Birth 2007;34(3): 253-263.
2. Beck CT, Watson S. Impact of birth trauma on breast-feeding: A tale of two pathways. Nurs Res 2008;57(4):228-236.
3. Chen C, Wang X, Xu H, Liu X, Li Y. Validity and reliability of the Chinese version of traumatic childbirth perception scale in Chinese women. Current Psychology 2024;43:7205–7216.
4. Isbir GG, Inci F, Bektas M, Yildiz PD, Ayers S. Risk factors associated with post-traumatic stress symptoms following childbirth in Turkey. Midwifery 2016;41:96-103.
5. Riklikienė O, Jarašiūnaitė-Fedosejeva G, Sakalauskienė E, Luneckaitė Ž, & Ayers S. (2024). Translation and Validation of the City Birth Trauma Scale With Lithuanian Postpartum Women: Findings and Initial Results. Eval Health Prof 2024;01632787241239339.
6. Taghizadeh Z, Irajpour A, Arbabi M. Mothers' response to psychological birth trauma: A qualitative study. Iran Red Crescent Med J 2013;15(10):1-7.
7. Beck CT, Watson S. Subsequent childbirth after a previous traumatic birth. Nurs Res 2010;59(4):241-249.
8. Olde E, Hart OVD, Kleber R, Son MV. Posttraumatic stress following childbirth: A review. Clinical Psychology Review. 2006;26;1-16.

9. Ayers S, Wright DB, Thornton A. Development of a measure of postpartum PTSD: The City Birth Trauma Scale. Frontiers in Psychiatry. 2018;9:409.
10. Yildiz H. Intrapartum care model for a positive childbirth experience: world health organization’ recommendations. Kocaeli University Journal of Health Sciences. 2019;5(2):98-105.
11. Callahan J, Borja S, Hynan M. Modification of the Perinatal PTSD Questionnaire to enhance clinical utility. Journal of Perinatology. 2006;26:533.
12. Cetin FC, Sezer A, Merih YD. The birth satisfaction scale: Turkish adaptation, validation and reliability study. Northern Clinics of Istanbul. 2015;2:142.
13. Gungor I, Beji NK. Development and psychometric testing of the scales for measuring maternal satisfaction in normal and caesarean birth. Midwifery 2012;28:348-357.
14. Kitapcioglu G, Yanikkerem E, Sevil U, Yuksel D. Fear of childbirth and the postpartum period: A scale development and validation study. Journal of ADU Faculty of Medicine. 2008;9(1):47-54.
15. Korukcu O, Kukulu K, Firat M. The reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Wijma Delivery Expectancy/Experience Questionnaire (W‐DEQ) with pregnant women. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs 2012;19:193-202.
16. Yalniz H, Canan F, Genc R, Kuloglu MM. Development of a scale of traumatic childbirth perception. Bartin University Institutional Academic Archive. 2017;8(3):81-88.
17. Crawley R, Wilkie S, Gamble J, et al. Characteristics of memories for traumatic and nontraumatic birth. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2018;32:584-591.
18. Gunay EY, Gul A. Reliability and validity of the Cambridge Worry Scale in pregnant Turkish women. Midwifery. 2015;31(3):359-364.
19. İsbir GG, Inci F. Traumatic childbirth and nursing approach. Journal of Women's Health Nursing 2014;1:29-40.
20. Association AP. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM5®). 5 th ed, USA, American Psychiatric Pub, 2013.
21. Tavşancıl E. Tutumların Ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile Veri Analizi. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım; 2010.
22. DeVellis R. Scale development theory and applications. 4th ed. USA: SAGE Publications; 2012.
23. Esin N. Data collection methods and tools and reliability and validity of data collection tools. 3th ed. Istanbul: Nobel Medical Press; 2018.
24. Karakoc FY, Donmez L. Basic principles in scale development studies. Tıp Eğitimi Dünyası 2014;40:39-49.
25. Aydin N, Yildiz H. Effects of traumatic birth experience and transmission intergenerational. Journal of Human Sciences 2018;15(1):604-618.
26. Hollander M, van Hastenberg E, van Dillen J, van Pampus M, de Miranda E, Stramrood C. Preventing traumatic childbirth experiences: 2192 women’s perceptions and views. Arch Womens Ment Health 2017;20:515-523.
27. Koç Ö, Ozkan H. The relationship between childbirth satisfaction and motherhood role. International Journal of Health Sciences 2018a;6(3):8-15.
28. Mucuk O, Ozkan H. The role of midwife in the acquisition of motherhood role maternal childbirth satisfaction and in the postpartum period. International Refereed Journal of Gynecology and Maternal and Child Health 2018b;12:169-185.
29. Ponti L, Smorti M, Ghinassi S, Mannella P, Simoncini T. Can a traumatic childbirth experience affect maternal psychopathology and postnatal attachment bond? Current Psychology 2022;41(3):1237–1242.
30. Yilmaz E, Nazik F. The correlation between perception of birth and nursing care levels of mothers. Journal of Gynecology-Obstetrics and Neonatology Medicine 2018;15(2):52-56.
31. Ayre C, Scally AJ. Critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio: revisiting the original methods of calculation. Meas Eval Counsel Dev 2014;47(1):79–86.
32. Abbass-Dick J, Newport A, Pattisona D, Suna W, Kenaszchukc C, Dennis CL. Development, psychometric assessment, and predictive validity of the comprehensive breastfeeding knowledge scale. Midwifery 2020;83:102642.
33. Alpar R. Applied Statistics and Validity-Reliability With Examples From Sports, Health and Educational Sciences. 5th ed. Ankara: Detay Publisher; 2012.
34. Esin, N. Data collection methods and tools and reliability and validity of data collection tools. 3th ed. Nobel Medical Press; 2018.
35. Şahin S, Huri M, Köse B, Akel BS, Probst M. Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of body attitude test in women with breast cancer. Current Psychology 2022;41(2):963–969.
36. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 1999;6:1–55.
37. Kline P. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 3th ed. New York: The Guilford Press; 2011.
38. Setyaedhi HS. Comparative test of cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient, Kr-20, Kr-21, and split-half method. Journal of Education Research and Evaluation 2024; 8(1): 47-57.
39. Cam MO, Baysan AL. Qualitative and quantitative steps on attitude scale construction. Turkish Journal of Research & Development in Nursing 2010;12(2):59-71.
40. Sencan H. Reliability and validity in social and behavioral measurements. 1th ed. Ankara: Seckin Publishing; 2005.
41. George D, Mallery P. SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update. 4th ed. Allyn & Bacon; 2003.
42. Cakmur H. Measurement-reliability-validity in research. TAF Preventive Medicine Bulletin 2012;11:339-344.
43. Ergin YD. Reliability and validity in the scales. Marmara University Faculty of Education Journal of Educational Sciences 1995;7:125-148.