Psychometric properties of the Swedish childbirth self-efficacy inventory (Swe-CBSEI)

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

Eva Nissen¹  Kristina Ziegert²  Ing-Marie Carlsson³ 

[1] Department of Women’s and Children’s health at Karolinska Institutet, SE-171 77 Stockholm, Sweden;School of Social and Health Sciences, Örebro University, SE-701 82 Örebro, Sweden;Halmstad County Hospital, SE-301 85 Halmstad, Sweden

关键词: Midwifery;    Think aloud;    Principal component analysis;    Psychometric properties;    Instrument development;    Self-efficacy;    Childbirth;   

Others  :  1090529
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2393-14-1

 received in 2013-08-26, accepted in 2013-12-29,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Previous research has reported that women who are admitted to delivery wards in early labour process before an active stage of labour has started run an increased risk of instrumental deliveries. Therefore, it is essential to focus on factors such as self-efficacy that can enhance a woman’s own ability to cope with the first stage of labour. However, there was no Swedish instrument measuring childbirth self-efficacy available. Thus, the aim of the study was to translate the Childbirth Self-efficacy Inventory and to psychometrically test the Swedish version on first- time mothers within the Swedish culture.

Methods

The method included a forward-backward translation with face and content validity. The psychometric properties were evaluated using a Principal Component Analysis and by using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and inter-item correlations. Descriptive statistics and non-parametric tests were used to describe and compare the scales. All data were collected from January 2011 to June 2012, from 406 pregnant women during the gestational week 35-42.

Results

The Swedish version of the Childbirth Self-Efficacy Inventory indicated good reliability and the Principal Component Analysis showed a three-component structure. The Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks Test indicated that the women could differentiate between the concepts outcome expectancy and self-efficacy expectatancy and between the two labour stages, active stage and the second stage of labour.

Conclusions

The Swedish version of Childbirth Self-efficacy Inventory is a reliable and valid instrument. The inventory can act as a tool to identify those women who need extra support and to evaluate the efforts of improving women’s self-efficacy during pregnancy.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Carlsson et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Simkin P: The experience of maternity in a woman’s life. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 1996, 25(3):247-252.
• [2]Boyle A, Reddy UM: Epidemiology of cesarean delivery:the scope of the problem. Semin Perinatol 2012, 36(5):308-314.
• [3]Althabe F, Sosa C, Belizan JM, Gibbons L, Jacquerioz F, Bergel E: Cesarean section rates and maternal and neonatal mortality in low-, medium-, and high-income countries: an ecological study. Birth 2006, 33(4):270-277.
• [4]Villar J, Valladares E, Wojdyla D, Zavaleta N, Carroli G, Velazco A, Acosta A: Caesarean delivery rates and pregnancy outcomes: the 2005 WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America. Lancet 2006, 367(9525):1819-1829.
• [5]Villar J, Carroli G, Zavaleta N, Donner A, Wojdyla D, Faundes A, Acosta A: Maternal and neonatal individual risks and benefits associated with caesarean delivery: multicentre prospective study. BMJ 2007, 335(7628):1025-1036.
• [6]Pallasmaa N, Ekblad U, Gissler M: Severe maternal morbidity and the mode of delivery. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2008, 87(6):662-668.
• [7]Nager A, Sundquist K, Ramirez-Leon V, Johansson LM: Obstetric complications and postpartum psychosis: a follow-up study of 1.1 million first-time mothers between 1975 and 2003 in Sweden. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2008, 117(1):12-19.
• [8]Bailit JL, Dierker L, Blanchard MH, Mercer BM: Outcomes of women presenting in active versus latent phase of spontaneous labor. Obstet Gynecol 2005, 105(1):77-79.
• [9]Main EK, Moore D, Farrell B, Schimmel LD, Altman RJ, Abrahams C, Sterling J: Is there a useful cesarean birth measure? Assessment of the nulliparous term singleton vertex cesarean birth rate as a tool for obstetric quality improvement. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006, 194(6):1644-1651.
• [10]Rahnama P, Ziaei S, Faghihzadeh S: Impact of early admission in labor on method of delivery. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2006, 92(3):217-220.
• [11]Shields SG, Ratcliffe SD, Fontaine P, Leeman L: Dystocia in nulliparous women. Am Fam Physician 2007, 75(11):1671-1678.
• [12]McDermott AM: Factors associated with non-normal birth outcomes for low-risk women in an inner-city hospital. J Midwifery Womens Health 2010, 55(2):101-106.
• [13]Carlsson IM, Hallberg LR, Odberg Pettersson K: Swedish women’s experiences of seeking care and being admitted during the latent phase of labour: a grounded theory study. Midwifery 2009, 25(2):172-180.
• [14]Carlsson IM, Ziegert K, Sahlberg-Blom E, Nissen E: Maintaining power: women’s experiences from labour onset before admittance to maternity ward. Midwifery 2012, 28(1):86-92.
• [15]Bandura A: Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev 1977, 84(2):191-215.
• [16]Bandura A: Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. W.H Freeman: Basingstoke; 1997.
• [17]Bandura A: Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health Education Behaviour 2004, 31(2):143-164.
• [18]Bandura A: Human agency in social cognitive theory. Am Psychol 1989, 44(9):1175-1184.
• [19]Drummond J, Rickwood D: Childbirth confidence: validating the childbirth self-efficacy inventory (CBSEI) in an australian sample. J Adv Nurs 1997, 26(3):613-622.
• [20]Lowe NK: Self-efficacy for labor and childbirth fears in nulliparous pregnant women. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 2000, 21(4):219-224.
• [21]Lowe NK: Parity and pain during parturition. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 1987, 16(5):340-346.
• [22]Crowe K, von Baeyer C: Predictors of a positive childbirth experience. Birth 1989, 16(2):59-63.
• [23]Lowe NK: Explaining the pain of active labor: the importance of maternal confidence. Research in Nursing and Health 1989, 12(4):237-245.
• [24]Holden G: The relationship of self-efficacy appraisals to subsequent health related outcomes: a meta-analysis. Soc Work Health Care 1991, 16(1):53-93.
• [25]Lowe NK: Maternal confidence for labor: development of the Childbirth Self-Efficacy Inventory. Research in Nursing and Health 1993, 16(2):141-149.
• [26]Sinclair M, O’Boyle C: The childbirth self-efficacy inventory: a replication study. J Adv Nurs 1999, 30(6):1416-1423.
• [27]Ip WY, Chan D, Chien WT: Chinese version of the childbirth self-efficacy inventory. J Adv Nurs 2005, 51(6):625-633.
• [28]Khorsandi M, Ghofranipour F, Faghihzadeh S, Hidarnia A, Bagheban AA, Aguilar-Vafaie ME: Iranian version of childbirth self-efficacy inventory. J Clin Nurs 2008, 17(21):2846-2855.
• [29]Cunqueiro MJ, Comeche MI, Docampo D: Childbirth self-efficacy inventory: psychometric testing of the spanish version. J Adv Nurs 2009, 65(12):2710-2718.
• [30]Tanglakmankhong K, Perrin NA, Lowe NK: Childbirth self-efficacy inventory and childbirth attitudes questionnaire: psychometric properties of thai language versions. J Adv Nurs 2011, 67(1):193-203.
• [31]Brislin R: Back translation for cross-cultural research. J Cross Cult Psychol 1970, 31(3):185-216.
• [32]WHO: Process of translation and adaptation of instruments. 2007. [cited 2013 Oct. 18]; http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/research_tools/translation/en/ webcite
• [33]Bowling A: Measuring health: a review of quality of life measurement scales 2nd edition. Buckingham: Open University Press; 2005.
• [34]Fonteyn ME, Kuipers B, Grobe S: A description of think aloud method and protocol analysis. Qual Health Res 1993, 3(4):430-441.
• [35]Ferguson E, Cox T: Exploratory factor analysis: a user’s guide. Int J Sel Assess 1993, 1:84-94.
• [36]Pallant J: SPSS survival manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS. 4th edition. Maidenhead: Open University Press/McGrawHill; 2010.
• [37]Rattray J, Jones MC: Essential elements of questionnaire design and development. J Clin Nurs 2007, 16(2):234-243.
• [38]Ferketich S: Focus on psycometrics aspects of item analysis. Res Nurs Health 1991, 14:165-168.
• [39]Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH: Psychometric theory. 3rd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.
• [40]Bandura A: Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Annu Rev Psychol 2001, 52:1-26.
• [41]Gau ML, Chang CY, Tian SH, Lin KC: Effects of birth ball exercise on pain and self-efficacy during childbirth: a randomised controlled trial in Taiwan. Midwifery 2011, 27(6):293-300.
• [42]Vasegh Rahimparvar SF, Hamzehkhani M, Geranmayeh M, Rahimi R: Effect of educational software on self-efficacy of pregnant women to cope with labor: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2012, 286(1):63-70.
• [43]Dixon L, Skinner J, Foureur M: Women’s perspectives of the stages and phase of labour. Midwifery 2013, 29(1):10-17.
• [44]Ip WY, Chung TK, Tang CS: The Chinese childbirth self-efficacy inventory: the development of a short form. J Clin Nurs 2008, 17(3):333-340.
• [45]Kline P: The handbook of psychological testing. London: Routledge; 2000.
• [46]Gaou LL, Ip WY, Sun K: Validation of the short form of the Chinese childbirth self-efficacy inventory in mainland china. Res Nurs Health 2011, 34(1):45-59.