The development and the psychometric evaluation of the Adolescents Intentions towards the Birth Options Scale in Greek.

Dimitra Varnakioti, Kleanthi Gourounti, Antigoni Sarantaki, Chara Tzavara, Aikaterini Lykeridou
Author Information
  1. Dimitra Varnakioti: Department of Midwifery, School of Health and Care Sciences, University of West Attica, Athens, Greece.
  2. Kleanthi Gourounti: Department of Midwifery, School of Health and Care Sciences, University of West Attica, Athens, Greece.
  3. Antigoni Sarantaki: Department of Midwifery, School of Health and Care Sciences, University of West Attica, Athens, Greece.
  4. Chara Tzavara: Centre for Health Services Research, Department of Hygiene, Epidemiology and Medical Statistics, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
  5. Aikaterini Lykeridou: Department of Midwifery, School of Health and Care Sciences, University of West Attica, Athens, Greece.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Worldwide, the rising of caesarean section rates is a major public health issue. Little is known regarding birth attitudes held by students who are the next generation of parents. The aim of this study was to develop and assess the psychometric properties of the Adolescents Intentions towards Birth Options Scale (AIBOS), a self-report and short instrument assessing intentions towards birth options in young adolescents.
METHODS: The AIBOS was framed by Ajzen's theory of planned behavior and developed in a three-phase process using an integrated mixed-methods approach that included literature reviews, professional focus groups, and a psychometric survey evaluation. The psychometric evaluation was conducted by recruiting a sample of 480 high school students. Content validity, exploratory factor analysis, discriminant and construct validity, test-retest reliability and internal consistency were explored.
RESULTS: The expert panel determined that the content validity was satisfactory. The final 17-item scale consisted of five factors explaining 48.9% of the total variance in the data. Discriminant validity was satisfactory. Cronbach's α coefficient was over 0.7 for each factor, indicating acceptable internal consistency of the questionnaire. There was significant agreement in all subscales as emerged from test-retest.
CONCLUSIONS: The AIBOS demonstrated good content validity, an easily interpretable five-factor structure, acceptable internal consistency, high test-retest reliability, and satisfactory discriminant and construct validity with sample characteristics. It is an easily comprehensible, easily completed tool, which matches the culture of young adolescents.

Keywords

References

  1. Lancet. 1985 Aug 24;2(8452):436-7 [PMID: 2863457]
  2. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015 Nov 17;12(11):14690-708 [PMID: 26593932]
  3. Birth. 2009 Jun;36(2):133-40 [PMID: 19489807]
  4. Birth. 2001 Sep;28(3):192-200 [PMID: 11552968]
  5. Health Care Women Int. 2018 Jun;39(6):684-696 [PMID: 29388880]
  6. Med Care. 2009 Feb;47(2):234-42 [PMID: 19169125]
  7. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2013 Sep;34(3):116-21 [PMID: 23952169]
  8. Res Nurs Health. 2007 Aug;30(4):459-67 [PMID: 17654487]
  9. Midwifery. 2014 Feb;30(2):220-6 [PMID: 23968778]
  10. Midwifery. 2012 Dec;28(6):e850-6 [PMID: 22098781]
  11. Eur J Public Health. 2005 Jun;15(3):288-95 [PMID: 15923214]
  12. Health Educ Monogr. 1978 Winter;6(4):394-405 [PMID: 299611]
  13. BJOG. 2016 Apr;123(5):745-53 [PMID: 26331389]
  14. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2012 Aug 03;12:78 [PMID: 22862846]
  15. Reprod Health. 2017 Sep 12;14(1):116 [PMID: 28893291]
  16. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2019 Sep;40(3):226-231 [PMID: 29745783]
  17. Lancet. 2018 Oct 13;392(10155):1349-1357 [PMID: 30322585]
  18. PLoS One. 2019 Mar 6;14(3):e0213352 [PMID: 30840678]
  19. Sex Reprod Healthc. 2016 Jun;8:49-54 [PMID: 27179378]
  20. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2010 Mar-Apr;55(2):117-23 [PMID: 20189130]
  21. Birth. 1997 Sep;24(3):159-64 [PMID: 9355274]
  22. Birth. 2004 Mar;31(1):3-11 [PMID: 15015987]
  23. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015 Oct 30;15:284 [PMID: 26518597]
  24. PLoS One. 2016 Apr 08;11(4):e0151268 [PMID: 27058952]
  25. Acta Inform Med. 2021 Mar;29(1):38-44 [PMID: 34012212]
  26. Midwifery. 2018 Aug;63:46-51 [PMID: 29803012]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0validitypsychometricbirthtowardsAIBOSadolescentsevaluationtest-retestinternalconsistencysatisfactoryeasilystudentsAdolescentsIntentionsBirthOptionsScaleoptionsyoungtheoryplannedbehaviorsamplehighfactordiscriminantconstructreliabilitycontentacceptableINTRODUCTION:WorldwiderisingcaesareansectionratesmajorpublichealthissueLittleknownregardingattitudesheldnextgenerationparentsaimstudydevelopassesspropertiesself-reportshortinstrumentassessingintentionsMETHODS:framedAjzen'sdevelopedthree-phaseprocessusingintegratedmixed-methodsapproachincludedliteraturereviewsprofessionalfocusgroupssurveyconductedrecruiting480schoolContentexploratoryanalysisexploredRESULTS:expertpaneldeterminedfinal17-itemscaleconsistedfivefactorsexplaining489%totalvariancedataDiscriminantCronbach'sαcoefficient07indicatingquestionnairesignificantagreementsubscalesemergedCONCLUSIONS:demonstratedgoodinterpretablefive-factorstructurecharacteristicscomprehensiblecompletedtoolmatchesculturedevelopmentGreek

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.