Cultural Adaptation, Validation and Evaluation of the Psychometric Properties of Childbirth Experience Questionnaire Version 2.0 in the Spanish Context

Overview

Journal BMC Pregnancy Childbirth

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Gynecology & Obstetrics

Date 2024 Mar 20

PMID 38504191

Authors

Elisabet Machin-Martin

Hector Gonzalez-de la Torre

Haridian Bordon-Reyes

Julia Jeppesen-Gutierrez

Alicia Martin-Martinez

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Several instruments have been designed to assess the childbirth experience. The Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) is one of the most widely used tools. There is an improved version of this instrument, the Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (CEQ 2.0), which has not been adapted or validated for use in Spain. The aim of present study is to adapt the CEQ 2.0 to the Spanish context and evaluate its psychometric properties.

Methods: This research was carried out in 2 stages. In the first stage, a methodological study was carried out in which the instrument was translated and back-translated, content validity was assessed by 10 experts (by calculating Aiken's V coefficient) and face validity was assessed in a sample of 30 postpartum women. In the second stage, a cross-sectional study was carried out to evaluate construct validity by using confirmatory factor analysis, reliability evaluation (internal consistency and temporal stability) and validation by known groups.

Results: In Stage 1, a Spanish version of the CEQ 2.0 (CEQ-E 2.0) was obtained with adequate face and content validity, with Aiken V scores greater than 0.70 for all items. A final sample of 500 women participated in Stage 2 of the study. The fit values for the obtained four-domain model were RMSEA = 0.038 [95% CI: 0.038-0.042], CFI = 0.989 [95% CI: 0.984-0.991], and GFI = 0.990 [95% CI: 0.982-0.991]. The overall Omega and Cronbach's Alpha coefficients were 0.872 [95% CI: 0.850-0.891] and 0.870 [95% CI: 0.849-0.890] respectively. A coefficient of intraclass correlation of 0.824 [95% CI: 0.314-0.936] (p ≤ 0.001) and a concordance coefficient of 0.694 [95% CI: 0.523-0.811] were obtained.

Conclusions: The Spanish version of CEQ 2.0 (CEQ-E 2.0), has adequate psychometric properties and is a valid, useful, and reliable instrument for assessing the childbirth experience in Spanish women.

Citing Articles

Predictors of a positive birth experience in childbirth: A cross-sectional study.

Roqueta-Vall-Llosera M, Camara-Liebana D, Serrat-Graboleda E, Salleras-Duran L, Buxo-Pujolras M, Fuentes-Pumarola C Heliyon. 2024; 10(19):e38262.

PMID: 39386818 PMC: 11462331. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e38262.

References

Dencker A, Bergqvist L, Berg M, Greenbrook J, Nilsson C, Lundgren I . Measuring women's experiences of decision-making and aspects of midwifery support: a confirmatory factor analysis of the revised Childbirth Experience Questionnaire. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020; 20(1):199. PMC: 7137445. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-020-02869-0. View

Lok K, Fan H, Ko R, Kwok J, Wong J, Fong D . Validating the use of the revised childbirth experience questionnaire in Hong Kong. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022; 22(1):126. PMC: 8845391. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-022-04456-x. View

Sigurdardottir V, Mangindin E, Stoll K, Swift E . Childbirth experience questionnaire 2 - Icelandic translation and validation. Sex Reprod Healthc. 2023; 37:100882. DOI: 10.1016/j.srhc.2023.100882. View

Ferrando P, Lorenzo-Seva U, Hernandez-Dorado A, Muniz J . [Decalogue for the Factor Analysis of Test Items]. Psicothema. 2022; 34(1):7-17. DOI: 10.7334/psicothema2021.456. View

da Silva Vieira R, Ferreira C, de Carvalho Cavalli R, do Prado M, Beleza A, Driusso P . Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the Brazilian Portuguese version of the childbirth experience questionnaire. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020; 20(1):477. PMC: 7441667. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-020-03163-9. View

Jha P, Jha V, Sharma B, Jha A, Erlandsson K, Bogren M . Cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation of Childbirth Experience Questionnaire 2 in Karnataka state, India. PLoS One. 2023; 18(11):e0291591. PMC: 10684018. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0291591. View

Kohan S, Hajihashemi M, Valiani M, Beigi M, Mohebbi-Dehnavi Z . Maternal-infant outcomes of birth planning: A review study. J Educ Health Promot. 2023; 12:315. PMC: 10670885. DOI: 10.4103/jehp.jehp_1450_22. View

Shahveisi M, Nourizadeh R, Mehrabi E . The effect of shared decision-making in choosing the method of labor analgesia on childbirth experience among primiparous women. PLoS One. 2023; 18(2):e0274559. PMC: 9931133. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0274559. View

Nilver H, Begley C, Berg M . Measuring women's childbirth experiences: a systematic review for identification and analysis of validated instruments. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017; 17(1):203. PMC: 5492707. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-017-1356-y. View

10.

Joensuu J, Saarijarvi H, Rouhe H, Gissler M, Ulander V, Heinonen S . Maternal childbirth experience and pain relief methods: a retrospective 7-year cohort study of 85 488 parturients in Finland. BMJ Open. 2022; 12(5):e061186. PMC: 9086622. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061186. View

11.

Akoglu H . User's guide to correlation coefficients. Turk J Emerg Med. 2018; 18(3):91-93. PMC: 6107969. DOI: 10.1016/j.tjem.2018.08.001. View

12.

Peters L, van der Pijl M, Vedam S, Barkema W, van Lohuizen M, Jansen D . Assessing Dutch women's experiences of labour and birth: adaptations and psychometric evaluations of the measures Mothers on Autonomy in Decision Making Scale, Mothers on Respect Index, and Childbirth Experience Questionnaire 2.0. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022; 22(1):134. PMC: 8857821. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-022-04445-0. View

13.

Mena-Tudela D, Iglesias-Casas S, Gonzalez-Chorda V, Cervera-Gasch A, Andreu-Pejo L, Valero-Chilleron M . Obstetric Violence in Spain (Part I): Women's Perception and Interterritorial Differences. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; 17(21). PMC: 7660046. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17217726. View

14.

Dencker A, Taft C, Bergqvist L, Lilja H, Berg M . Childbirth experience questionnaire (CEQ): development and evaluation of a multidimensional instrument. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2010; 10:81. PMC: 3008689. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2393-10-81. View

15.

Place K, Kruit H, Rahkonen L . Comparison of primiparous women's childbirth experience in labor induction with cervical ripening by balloon catheter or oral misoprostol - a prospective study using a validated childbirth experience questionnaire (CEQ) and visual analogue scale.... Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2022; 101(10):1153-1162. PMC: 9812104. DOI: 10.1111/aogs.14433. View

16.

Ferrando P, Lorenzo-Seva U . Assessing the Quality and Appropriateness of Factor Solutions and Factor Score Estimates in Exploratory Item Factor Analysis. Educ Psychol Meas. 2020; 78(5):762-780. PMC: 7328234. DOI: 10.1177/0013164417719308. View

17.

Deng L, Chan W . Testing the Difference Between Reliability Coefficients Alpha and Omega. Educ Psychol Meas. 2018; 77(2):185-203. PMC: 5965544. DOI: 10.1177/0013164416658325. View

18.

Abbaspoor Z, Moghaddam-Banaem L, Ronaghi S, Dencker A . Translation and Cultural Adaptation of the Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) in Iran. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2019; 24(4):296-300. PMC: 6621505. DOI: 10.4103/ijnmr.IJNMR_103_18. View

19.

Walker K, Dencker A, Thornton J . Childbirth experience questionnaire 2: Validating its use in the United Kingdom. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol X. 2020; 5:100097. PMC: 6994391. DOI: 10.1016/j.eurox.2019.100097. View

20.

Ruger-Navarrete A, Vazquez-Lara J, Antunez-Calvente I, Rodriguez-Diaz L, Riesco-Gonzalez F, Palomo-Gomez R . Antenatal Fear of Childbirth as a Risk Factor for a Bad Childbirth Experience. Healthcare (Basel). 2023; 11(3). PMC: 9914781. DOI: 10.3390/healthcare11030297. View