Psychometric Evaluation of an Instrument to Measure Prospective Pregnancy Preferences: The Desire to Avoid Pregnancy Scale

Corinne H Rocca, Lauren J Ralph, Mark Wilson, Heather Gould, Diana G Foster, Corinne H Rocca, Lauren J Ralph, Mark Wilson, Heather Gould, Diana G Foster

Abstract

Background: Existing approaches to measuring women's pregnancy intentions suffer important limitations, including retrospective assessment, overly simple categories, and a presumption that all women plan pregnancies. No psychometrically valid scales exist to prospectively measure the ranges of women's pregnancy preferences.

Materials and methods: Using a rigorous construct modeling approach, we developed a scale to measure desire to avoid pregnancy. We developed 60 draft items from existing research, assessed comprehension through 25 cognitive interviews, and administered items in surveys with 594 nonpregnant women in 7 primary and reproductive health care facilities in Arizona, New Jersey, New Mexico, South Carolina, and Texas in 2016-2017. We used item response theory to reduce the item set and assess the scale's reliability, internal structure validity, and external validity. Items were included based on fit to a random effects multinomial logistic regression model (partial credit item response model), correspondence of item difficulty with participants' pregnancy preference levels, and consistency of each item's response options with overall scale scores.

Results: The 14 final items covered 3 conceptual domains: cognitive preferences, affective feelings, and practical consequences. Items fit the unidimensional model, with a separation reliability of 0.90 (Cronbach α: 0.95). The scale met established criteria for internal validity, including correspondence between each item's response categories and overall scale scores. We found no important differential item functioning by participant characteristics.

Conclusions: A robust measure is available to prospectively measure desire to avoid pregnancy. The measure can aid in identifying women who could benefit from contraceptive care and research on less desired pregnancy.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

    1. Finer LB, Zolna MR. Declines in unintended pregnancy in the United States, 2008-2011. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:843–852.
    1. US Department of Health and Human Services. Health people 2020, family planning objectives. 2011. Available at: . Accessed August 10, 2015.
    1. Gipson JD, Koenig MA, Hindin MJ. The effects of unintended pregnancy on infant, child, and parental health: a review of the literature. Stud Fam Plann. 2008;39:18–38.
    1. Mumford SL, Sapra KJ, King RB, et al. Pregnancy intentions—a complex construct and call for new measures. Fertil Steril. 2016;106:1453–1462.
    1. Santelli J, Rochat R, Hatfield-Timajchy K, et al. The measurement and meaning of unintended pregnancy. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2003;35:94–101.
    1. Petersen R, Moos MK. Defining and measuring unintended pregnancy: issues and concerns. Womens Health Issues. 1997;7:234–240.
    1. Santelli JS, Lindberg LD, Orr MG, et al. Toward a multidimensional measure of pregnancy intentions: evidence from the United States. Stud Fam Plann. 2009;40:87–100.
    1. Bachrach CA, Newcomer S. Intended pregnancies and unintended pregnancies: distinct categories or opposite ends of a continuum? Fam Plann Perspect. 1999;31:251–252.
    1. Aiken ARA, Borrero S, Callegari LS, et al. Rethinking the pregnancy planning paradigm: unintended conceptions or unrepresentative concepts? Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2016;48:147–151.
    1. Casterline JB, El-Zeini LO. The estimation of unwanted fertility. Demography. 2007;44:729–745.
    1. National Center for Health Statistics. National Survey of Family Growth 2015. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2015.
    1. Barrett G, Wellings K. What is a “planned” pregnancy? Empirical data from a British study. Soc Sci Med. 2002;55:545–557.
    1. Borrero S, Nikolajski C, Steinberg JR, et al. “It just happens”: a qualitative study exploring low-income women’s perspectives on pregnancy intention and planning. Contraception. 2015;91:150–156.
    1. Kendall C, Afable-Munsuz A, Speizer I, et al. Understanding pregnancy in a population of inner-city women in New Orleans: results of qualitative research. Soc Sci Med. 2005;60:297–311.
    1. Rocca CH, Harper CC, Raine-Bennett TR. Young women’s perceptions of the benefits of childbearing: associations with contraceptive use and pregnancy. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2013;45:23–32.
    1. Aiken ARA, Dillaway C, Mevs-Korff N. A blessing I can’t afford: factors underlying the paradox of happiness about unintended pregnancy. Soc Sci Med. 2015;132:149–155.
    1. Ajzen I.Kuhl J, Beckmann J. From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 1985:11–39.
    1. Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1975.
    1. Gribaldo A, Judd MD, Kertzer DI. An imperfect contraceptive society: fertility and contraception in Italy. Popul Dev Rev. 2009;35:551–584.
    1. Johnson-Hanks J. Demographic transitions and modernity. Ann Rev Anthropol. 2008;37:301–315.
    1. Barrett G, Smith SC, Wellings K. Conceptualisation, development, and evaluation of a measure of unplanned pregnancy. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004;58:426–433.
    1. Morin P, Payette H, Moos M-K, et al. Measuring the intensity of pregnancy planning effort. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2003;17:97–105.
    1. Joyce T, Kaestner R, Korenman S. On the validity of retrospective assessments of pregnancy intention. Demography. 2002;39:199–213.
    1. Guzzo KB, Hayford SR. Revisiting retrospective reporting of first-birth intendedness. Matern Child Health J. 2014;18:2141–2147.
    1. Rocca CH, Krishnan S, Barrett G, et al. Measuring pregnancy planning: an assessment of the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy among urban, south Indian women. Demogr Res. 2010;23:293–334.
    1. Bhrolchain MN, Beaujouan E. How Real are Reproductive Goals? Uncertainty and the Construction of Fertility Preferences. Southampton, UK: ESRC Centre for Population Change; 2015.
    1. De Boeck P, Wilson M. Explanatory Item Response Models: a Generalized Linear and Nonlinear Approach. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 2004.
    1. Embretson SE, Reise SP. Item Response Theory for Psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: MEA; 2000.
    1. Wilson M. Constructing Measures: An Item Response Modeling Approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2005.
    1. Bachrach CA, Morgan SP. A cognitive-social model of fertility intentions. Popul Dev Rev. 2013;39:459–485.
    1. Johnson-Hanks J. When the future decides: uncertainty and intentional action in contemporary Cameroon. Curr Anthropol. 2005;46:363–385.
    1. Hayford SR, Guzzo KB, Kusunoki Y, et al. Perceived costs and benefits of early childbearing: new dimensions and predictive power. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2016;48:83–91.
    1. Jones RK. Change and consistency in US women’s pregnancy attitudes and associations with contraceptive use. Contraception. 2017;95:485–490.
    1. Rocca CH, Hubbard AE, Johnson-Hanks J, et al. Predictive ability and stability of adolescents’ pregnancy intentions in a predominantly Latino community. Stud Fam Plann. 2010;41:179–192.
    1. Kline P. A Handbook of Test Construction: Introduction to Psychometric Design. London, UK: Methuen; 1986.
    1. Embretson SE. The new rules of measurement. Psychol Assess. 1996;8:341–349.
    1. Hays RD, Morales LS, Reise SP. Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Med Care. 2000;38:II28–II42.
    1. Nguyen TH, Han H-R, Kim MT, et al. An introduction to item response theory for patient-reported outcome measurement. Pat Cen Out Res. 2014;7:23–35.
    1. Wilson M, Allen DD, Li JC. Improving measurement in health education and health behavior research using item response modeling: comparison with the classical test theory approach. Health Educ Res. 2006;21:19–32.
    1. Adams RJ, Wu ML, Macaskill G, et al. ACER ConQuest version 4.5.0: Generalized Item Response Modeling Software. Camberwell, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research and University of California, Berkeley; 2016.
    1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council for Measurement in Psychology. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2014.
    1. Masters GN. Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika. 1982;47:149–174.
    1. Wright BD, Masters GN. Rating Scale Analysis (Rasch Measurement Series). Chicago, IL: MESA Press; 1982.
    1. Meulders M, Xie Boeck P, Wilson M. Person-by-item predictors. Explanatory Item Response Models: A Generalized Linear and Nonlinear approach. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 2004:213–226.
    1. Steinberg L, Thissen D. Using effect sizes for research reporting: examples using item response theory to analyze differential item functioning. Psychol Methods. 2006;11:402–415.
    1. Uebelacker LA, Strong D, Weinstock LM, et al. Use of item response theory to understand differential functioning of DSM-IV major depression symptoms by race, ethnicity and gender. Psychol Med. 2009;39:591–601.
    1. Longford NT, Holland PW, Thayer DT.Holland PW, Thayer DT. Stability of the MH D-DIF statistics across populations. Differential Item Functioning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1993:67–113.
    1. Paek I. Investigations of Differential Item Functioning: Comparisons Among Approaches, and Extension to a Multidimensional Context [unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Berkeley: University of California; 2002.
    1. Wilson M. Validity Constructing Measures: An Item Response Modeling Approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2005:165–169.
    1. Zabin LS, Huggins GR, Emerson MR, et al. Partner effects on a woman’s intention to conceive: “not with this partner”. Fam Plann Perspect. 2000;32:39–45.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera