LinkedIn

 آمار

تعداد نشریات20
تعداد شماره‌ها1,149
تعداد مقالات10,518
تعداد مشاهده مقاله45,416,120
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله11,291,834
Naab, Florence, Brown, Roger, Heidrich, Susan. (1396). The Fertility Belief Questionnaire (FBQ). سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 3(2), 109-120. doi: 10.18869/nrip.jamsat.3.2.109
Florence Naab; Roger Brown; Susan Heidrich. "The Fertility Belief Questionnaire (FBQ)". سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 3, 2, 1396, 109-120. doi: 10.18869/nrip.jamsat.3.2.109
Naab, Florence, Brown, Roger, Heidrich, Susan. (1396). 'The Fertility Belief Questionnaire (FBQ)', سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 3(2), pp. 109-120. doi: 10.18869/nrip.jamsat.3.2.109
Naab, Florence, Brown, Roger, Heidrich, Susan. The Fertility Belief Questionnaire (FBQ). سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 1396; 3(2): 109-120. doi: 10.18869/nrip.jamsat.3.2.109

The Fertility Belief Questionnaire (FBQ)

Journal of Advanced Medical Sciences and Applied Technologies
مقاله 8، دوره 3، شماره 2، شهریور 2017، صفحه 109-120    اصل مقاله (508.81 K)
نوع مقاله: Original Articles
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.18869/nrip.jamsat.3.2.109
نویسندگان
Florence Naab* 1؛ Roger Brown2؛ Susan Heidrich3
1Department of Maternal and Child Health, School of Nursing, College of Health Sciences, University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana.
2Department of Research Methodology and Medical Statistics, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, USA.
3William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, USA.
چکیده
Objectives: The experience of infertility in Africa is associated with some cultural beliefs that warrant scientific investigations. However, the quantitative exploration of these beliefs has been problematic because of lack of psychometric instruments to measure beliefs about infertility. The purpose of this study was to develop the Fertility Belief Questionnaire (FBQ) based on the constructs of the Common Sense Model (CSM) and examine the content and construct validity of the FBQ. Materials & Methods: The FBQ was developed based on a revision of an existing revised illness perception questionnaire (Illness Perception Questionnaire-Revised [IPQ-R]). Some items of the IPQ-R were deleted and others were added based on findings of a pilot study, literature review, and suggestions from an expert panel who evaluated the content validity of the FBQ. A Scale Content Validity Index (S-CVI) for each sub-scale of the FBQ was calculated by averaging the I-CVIs for individual items over the total number of expert and lay panel members. To evaluate the construct validity, a confirmatory factor analysis, composite reliability and internal consistency reliability testing were conducted. Results: The final FBQ is made up of a total of 57 items and six sub-scales with good construct validity. Three sub-scales had reliabilities ranging from 0.71 to 0.80 while two sub-scales had reliabilities less than 0.70. Conclusion: The FBQ has shown acceptable psychometric properties that will enable the examination of relationships between beliefs and psychosocial health problems of infertility. 
کلیدواژه‌ها
Fertility؛ Infertility؛ Beliefs؛ Common Sense Questionnaire
مراجع
  1. Fincham FD, Sigel IE, McGillicudy-DeLisi AV, Goodnow JJ. Parental Belief Systems: The psychological consequences for children. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1992; 54(4):1005. doi: 10.2307/353190
  2. Kleinman A, Benson P. Anthropology in the clinic: The problem of cultural competency and how to fix it. PLoS Medicine. 2006; 3(10):294. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0030294
  3. Kleinman A, Eisenberg L, Good B. Culture, illness, and care: Clinical lessons from anthropologic and cross-cultural research. Focus. 2006; 4(1):140–9. doi: 10.1176/foc.4.1.140
  4. Naab F, Brown R, Heidrich S. Psychosocial health of infertile Ghanaian women and their infertility beliefs. Journal of Nursing Scholarship. 2013; 45(2):132–40. doi: 10.1111/jnu.12013
  5. Leventhal H, Nerenz D, Steele DJ. Illness representation and coping with health threats. In: A. Baum, S. E. Taylor, & J. E. Singer editors. Handbook of Psychology and Health. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1984.
  6. Leventhal H, Meyer D, Nerenz D. The common sense representation of illness danger. In: S. Rachman. Contribution to Medical Psychology. Oxford: Pergamon Press; 1980.
  7. Hagger MS, Orbell S. A Meta-analytic review of the common-sense model of illness representations. Psychology & Health. 2003; 18(2):141–84. doi: 10.1080/088704403100081321
  8. Ward SE. The common sense model: An organizing framework for knowledge development in nursing. Research and Theory for Nursing Practice. 1993; 7(2):79–90. PMID: 8367629
  9. Moss-Morris R, Weinman J, Petrie K, Horne R, Cameron L, Buick D. The Revised Illness Perception Questionnaire (IPQ-R). Psychology & Health. 2002; 17(1):1–16. doi: 10.1080/08870440290001494
  10. Weinman J, Petrie KJ, Moss-morris R, Horne R. The illness perception questionnaire: A new method for assessing the cognitive representation of illness. Psychology & Health. 1996; 11(3):431–45. doi: 10.1080/08870449608400270
  11. Dyer SJ, Abrahams N, Hoffman M, van der Spuy ZM. Men leave me as I cannot have children’: Women’s experiences with involuntary childlessness. Human Reproduction. 2002; 17(6):1663-8. doi: 10.1093/humrep/17.6.1663
  12. Hollos M, Larsen U, Obono O, Whitehouse B. The problem of infertility in high fertility populations: Meanings, consequences and coping mechanisms in two Nigerian communities. Social Science & Medicine. 2009; 68(11):2061–8. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.03.008
  13. Okonofua F, Harris D, Odebiyi A, Kane T, Snow RC. The social meaning of infertility in Southwest Nigeria. Health Transit Rev. 1997; 7:205–20.
  14. Lynn MR. Determination and Quantification Of Content Validity. Nursing Research. 1986; 35(6):382-6. doi: 10.1097/00006199-198611000-00017
  15. Grant JS, Davis LL. Selection and use of content experts for instrument development. Research in Nursing & Health. 1997; 20(3):269–74. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1098-240x(199706)20:33.3.co; 2-3
  16. Rubio DM, Berg-Weger M, Tebb SS, Lee ES, Rauch S. Objectifying content validity: Conducting a content validity study in social work research. Social Work Research. 2003; 27(2):94–104. doi: 10.1093/swr/27.2.94
  17. Davis LL. Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts. Applied Nursing Research. 1992; 5(4):194–7. doi: 10.1016/s0897-1897(05)80008-4
  18. Muthen BO, Muthen L. Mplus Version 6.1 [Software]. Los Angeles: CA Author Publishers; 2010.
  19. Meyers LS, Gamst G, Guarino AJ. Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation. Philadelphia: Sage; 2006.
  20. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 1999; 6(1):1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118
  21. Dillon WR, Goldstein M. Multivariate analysis–methods and applications. New York: Wiley; 1984.
  22. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research. 1981; 18(3):382. doi: 10.2307/3150980
  23. Raykov T. Analytic estimation of standard error and confidence interval for scale reliability. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 2002; 37(1):89–103. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr3701_04
  24. Naab F. Every month becomes a funeral when they menstruate: African Women’s beliefs about couple infertility. Journal of Infertility and Reproductive Biology. 2014; 2(3),92-100.
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 2,559
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 679


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب