Childbearing Motivation Questionnaire
cross-cultural adaptation and evidence of validation in Peru
Keywords:
Cross-cultural comparisons, Factor analysis, Reliability, Reproductive behaviorAbstract
Objective
This study aims to adapt and validate the Childbearing Motivation Questionnaire for use in Peru and to test the independence hypothesis between the two scales that compose it (Positive Childbearing Motivation and Negative Childbearing Motivation).
Method
The process considered six steps: 1) Translations, 2) Synthesis of the translations, 3) Evaluation by judges, 4) Evaluation by the target audience, 5) Back-translation e 6) Validity analysis using factorial analysis, evaluation of internal consistency, and test of the independence of the scales through correlation analysis. The sample consisted of 1,054 Peruvians from 22 regions of Peru.
Results
The Positive Childbearing Motivation scale showed a good fit for a bifactor, second-order structure, but the complementary bifactor indices indicate that the scale is mainly onedimensional. The Negative Childbearing Motivation scale presented a unifactorial structure with adequate psychometric properties.
Conclusion
The results show that the Childbearing Motivation Questionnaire is a valid instrument to measure the motivations to have children in Peru.
Downloads
References
Ahmadi Rezamahaleh, F., Khadivzadeh, T., & Asghari Nekah, M. (2020). Comparing the Childbearing Motivations of Fertile and Infertile Women in Mashhad, Iran. Journal of Midwifery and Reproductive Health, 8(4), 2429–2436. https://doi.org/10.22038/JMRh.2019.28904.1312
Alexander, K. A., Perrin, N., Jennings, J. M., Ellen, J., & Trent, M. (2019). Childbearing motivations and desires, fertility beliefs, and contraceptive use among urban African-American adolescents and young adults with STI histories. Journal of Urban Health, 96(2), 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-018-0282-2
Arafat, S. Y., Chowdhury, h. R., Qusar, M. M. A. S., & hafez, M. A. (2016). Cross cultural adaptation & psychometric validation of research instruments: A methodological review. Journal of Behavioral Health, 5(3), 129–136. https://doi.org/10.5455/jbh.20160615121755
Bell, J. S., Bancroft, J., & Philip, A. (1985). Motivation for parenthood: A factor analytic study of attitudes towards having children. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 16(1), 111–119. https://doi.org/10.3138/jcfs.16.1.111
Borsa, J. C., Damásio, B. F., & Bandeira, D. R. (2012). Adaptação e validação de instrumentos psicológicos entre culturas: Algumas considerações. Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto), 22(53), 423–432. https://doi.org/10.1590/ S0103-863X2012000300014
Brown, T. A. (2019). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford. Byrne, B. M. (2013). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge.
Campo-Arias, A., & Oviedo, h. C. (2008). Propiedades psicométricas de una escala: La consistencia interna. Revista de Salud Pública, 10, 831–839. http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?pid=S012400642008000500015&script=sci_abstract&tlng=pt
Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. (2005). Practical assessment, research y evaluation. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 10(7), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.7275/jyj1-4868
Damásio, B. F. (2012). Uso da análise fatorial exploratória em psicologia. Journal of Psychological Assessment, 11(2), 213–228. https://www.proquest.com/openview/b1f3c2e05e6691e6f0a06cd2bd94aff9/1?pqorigsite=gscholar&cbl=5599823
Domínguez-Lara, S., & Rodriguez, A. (2017). Statistical indices from bifactor models. Interacciones, 3(2), 59–65. https://doi.org/10.24016/2017.v3n2.51
Flores-Kanter, P. E., Dominguez-Lara, S., Trógolo, M. A., & Medrano, L. A. (2018). Best practices in the use of bifactor models: Conceptual grounds, fit indices and complementary indicators. Revista Evaluar, 18(3), 44–48. https://doi.org/10.35670/1667-4545.v18.n3.22221
Ghazanfarpour, M., Arghavani, E., Khadivzade, T., Saeidi, M., Kareshki, h. Irani, M., heidari, E., & Dizavandi, F. (2018). Childbearing Motivation in Iranian Engaged Couples. International Journal of Pediatrics, 6(4), 7563–7568. https://doi.org/10.22038/IJP.2018.27375.2359
Gignac, G. E. (2016). The higher-order model imposes a proportionality constraint: That is why the bifactor model tends to fit better. Intelligence, 55, 57–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2016.01.006
Goretzko, D., Pham, T. T. h., & Bühner, M. (2019). Exploratory factor analysis: Current use, methodological developments and recommendations for good practice. Current Psychology, 40, 3510–3521. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00300-2
hernández, A., hidalgo, M. D., hambleton, R. K., & Gómez Benito, J. (2020). International test commission guidelines for test adaptation: A criterion checklist. Psicothema, 32(3), 390–398. https://doi. org/10.7334/psicothema2019.306
Irani, M., & Khadivzadeh, T. (2018). The relationship between childbearing motivations with fertility preferences and actual child number in reproductive-age women. Journal of Education and Health Promotion, 7, 175. https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_175_18
Jovanović, V. (2015). A bifactor model of subjective well-being: A re-examination of the structure of subjective well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 87, 45–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.07.026
Kalkbrenner, M. T. (2021). Alpha, Omega, and h internal consistency reliability estimates: Reviewing these options and when to use them. Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation, 12(1), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/21501378.2021.1940118
Khadivzade, T., Arghavani, E., Shokrollahi, P., Ghazanfarpour, M., & Kareshki, h. (2018). Factorial structure of the Persian version of Childbearing Questionnaire in first time engaged couples in Iran. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 38(4), 470–475. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443615.2017.1379967
McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Erlbaum. Miller, W. B. (1994). Childbearing motivations, desires, and intentions: A theoretical framework. Genetic, Social, and General. Psychology Monographs, 120(2), 223–258. https://psycnet.apa.org/ record/1994-40830-001
Miller, W. B. (1995) Chilbearing Motivations and its measurement. Journal of Biosocial Science, 27, 473-487. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932000023087
Miller, W. B., Barber, J. S., & Gatny, h. h. (2018). Mediation models of pregnancy desires and unplanned pregnancy in young, unmarried women. Journal of Biosocial Science, 50(3), 291–311. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0021932017000165
Miller, W. B., & Pasta, D. J. (1993). Motivational and nonmotivational determinants of child-number desires. Population and Environment, 15(2), 113–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02209405
Miranda, V., Dahlberg, J., & Andersson, G. (2018). Parents’ preferences for sex of children in Sweden: Attitudes and outcomes. Population Research and Policy Review, 37(3), 443–459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113018-9462-8
Morgan, G. B., hodge, K. J., Wells, K. E., & Watkins, M. W. (2015). Are fit indices biased in favor of bi-factor models in cognitive ability research? A comparison of fit in correlated factors, higher-order, and bifac-tor models via Monte Carlo Simulations. Journal of Intelligence, 3(1), 2–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/ jintelligence3010002
Mynarska, M., & Rytel, J. (2014) Pomiar motywacji do posiadania dzieci wśród osób bezdzietnych. Polska adaptacja Kwestionariusza Motywów Rodzicielskich. Polskie Forum Psychologiczne 19(4), 522–543. http://repozytorium.ukw.edu.pl/handle/item/1367
Mynarska, M., & Rytel, J. (2017). Costs and (Negligible) Benefits of Children: A Mixed-Methods Study on Voluntary Childlessness in Poland. In PAA 2017 Annual Meeting, PAA. https://paa.confex.com/ paa/2017/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/11225
Mynarska, M., & Rytel, J. (2018). From motives through desires to intentions: Investigating the reproductive choices of childless men and women in Poland. Journal of Biosocial Science, 50(3), 421–433. https:// doi.org/10.1017/S0021932017000190
Mynarska, M., & Rytel, J. (2020). Fertility desires of childless poles: Which childbearing motives matter for men and women? Journal of Family Issues, 41(1), 7–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X19868257
Mynarska, M., & Rytel, J. (2022). Childbearing motivation at the onset of emerging adulthood. Journal of Youth Studies, 26(9), 1163–1181. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2022.2080536
Pezeshki, M. Z., Zeigham, B., & Miller, W. (2005). Measuring the Childbearing Motivation of couples referred to the Shiraz health Center for premarital examinations. Journal of Biosocial Science, 37(1), 37–53. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932003006485
Reise, S. P., Scheines, R., Widaman, K. F., & haviland, M. G. (2013). Multidimensionality and structural coefficient bias in structural equation modeling: A bifactor perspective. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164412449831
Rodríguez, A., Reise, S. P., & haviland, M. G. (2016). Evaluating bifactor models: Calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychological Methods, 21(2), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000045
Shoaee, F., hafezipour, F., Khoshnejad Afkham, E., Mameneh, M., Mohammadabadi, L., Shafiei Rad, B., heydari, O., Ghazanfarpour, M., & Babakhanian, M. (2020). Psychometric characteristics of childbearing motivation questionnaire: A review. International Journal of Pediatrics, 8(1), 10705-10709. https:// doi.org/10705-10709
Sijtsma, K. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika, 74(1), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9101-0
Sina, M., ter Meulen, R., & Carrasco de Paula, I. (2010). human infertility: Is medical treatment enough? A cross-sectional study of a sample of Italian couples. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics y Gynecology, 31(3), 158–167. https://doi.org/10.3109/0167482X.2010.487952
Stucky, B. D., & Edelen, M. O. (2015). Using heierarchical IRT models to create unidimensional measures from multidimensional data. In S. P. Reise & D. A. Revicki (Eds.), Handbook of item response theory modeling: Applications to typical performance assessment (pp. 183–206). Routledge.
Stucky, B. D., Thissen, D., & Orlando Edelen, M. (2013). Using logistic approximations of marginal trace lines to develop short assessments. Applied Psychological Measurement, 37(1), 41–57. https://doi. org/10.1177/0146621612462759
Timmerman, M. E., Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ceulemans, E. (2018). The number of factors problem. In P. Irwing, U. Lorenzo-Seva, & E. Ceulemans (Eds.), The wiley handbook of psychometric testing: A multidisciplinary reference on survey, scale and test development (pp. 305–324). Wiley. https://doi. org/10.1002/9781118489772.ch11
Valashani, S. T., heidari, Z., Shoushtari-Moghaddam, E., & Zamani-Alavijeh, F. (2020). Predictors of Childbearing Willingness in the Center of Iran in 2019: A cross sectional study. Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-53261/v1
Varas, G. V., & Borsa, J. (2020). Childbearing motivation questionnaire: Adaptação e evidências de validade para o Brasil. Psico, 51(4), e36089. https://doi.org/10.15448/1980-8623.2020.4.36089
Zinbarg, R. E., Yovel, I., Revelle, W., & McDonald, R. P. (2006). Estimating generalizability to a latent variable common to all of a scale’s indicators: A comparison of estimators for ωh. Applied Psychological Measurement, 30(2), 121–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621605278814
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Giuliana Violeta Vásquez Varas, Juliane Callegaro Borsa
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
