Childbearing Motivation Questionnaire
Adaptación y evidencias de validez en Brasil
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15448/1980-8623.2020.4.36089Palabras clave:
análisis factorial confirmatorio, confiabilidad, validez, Childbearing Motivation Questionnaire, adaptación transculturalResumen
Este artículo tiene como objetivo describir los procedimientos de adaptación y evidencias iniciales de validez del Childbearing Motivation Questionnaire (CBQ) para Brasil. El CBQ consta de dos escalas. La primera evalúa la motivación positiva general para tener hijos (PCM) y cinco factores específicos y la segunda evalúa la motivación negativa general (NCM) y cuatro factores específicos. El CBQ se adaptó en cinco etapas: (i) traducción; (ii) síntesis de las versiones traducidas; (iii) evaluación por jueces expertos; (iv) evaluación por parte del público objetivo y (v) traducción inversa. Para la evaluación de la estructura factorial de ambas escalas del CBQ, se realizaron análisis factoriales exploratorios y análisis factoriales confirmatorios en modelos de segunda orden y bifactor en una muestra de 1894 brasileños de 18 a 68 años de 25 estados de Brasil. La escala PCM mostró un ajuste excelente tanto para una solución factorial de segunda orden como para el modelo bifactorial, pero los índices complementarios indican que la escala es principalmente unidimensional. El NCM, presentó una estructura unifactorial con buenas propiedades psicométricas. Los resultados muestran CBQ como un instrumento válido para medir las motivaciones positivas y negativas generales para tener hijos en la población brasileña.
Descargas
Citas
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.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Nova Iorque: AERA.
Arnold, F. (1975). The Value of Children: A Cross-National Study, Volume One. Introduction and Comparative Analysis.
Avison, M. & Furnham, A. (2015). Personality and voluntary childlessness. Journal of Population Research, 32, 45-67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12546-014-9140-6
Bagozzi, R. P. & Loo, M. F. van (1978). Toward a general theory of fertility: A causal modeling approach. Demography, 15(3), 301-320. https://doi.org/10.2307/2060652
Banco Mundial. (s.d.). Tasa de fertilidad, total (nacimientos por cada mujer). Recuperado de https://datos. bancomundial.org/indicador/sp.dyn.tfrt.in
Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of crosscultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186-3191. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
Ten Berge, J. M. & Sočan, G. (2004). The greatest lower bound to the reliability of a test and the hypothesis of unidimensionality. Psychometrika, 69(4), 613-625.
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
Borsa, J. C., & Nunes, M. L. T. (2011). Aspectos psicossociais da parentalidade: O papel de homens e mulheres na família nuclear. Psicologia Argumento, 29(64), 31-39. https://doi.org/10.7213/rpa.v29i64.19835
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: The Guilford Press.
Byrne, B. M. (2013). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge.
Campo-Arias, A. & Oviedo, H. C. (2008). Propiedades psicométricas de una escala: la consistencia interna. Revista Salud Pública, 10(5), 831-839.
Capron, C. & Atam, V. (2001). Comments on “Why have children in the 21st century?”. European Journal of Population/Revue européenne de Démographie, 17(1), 21-30.
Conselho Nacional de Saúde. (2016). Resolução nº 510/2016. Recuperado de http://conselho.saude.gov.br/resolucoes/2016/Reso510.pdf
Costello, A. B. & Osborne, J. (2005). Practical assessment, research & evaluation. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 10(7), 1-9.
Dor, A. & Cohen-Fridel, S. (2010). Perceived parenthood: Cross-cultural differences between Jewish and Arab emerging adults. Journal of Adult Development, 17(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-009-9074-y
Finocchario-Kessler, S., Sweat, M. D., Dariotis, J. K., Anderson, J. R., Jennings, J. M., Keller, J. M., Vyas, A. A., & Trent, M. E. (2012). Childbearing motivations, pregnancy desires, and perceived partner response to a pregnancy among urban female youth: does HIV-infection status make a difference? AIDS care, 24(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540121.2011.596514
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.
Fundo de População das Nações Unidas. (2018). O poder da escolha. Direitos reprodutivos e transição demográfica. Recuperado de https://brazil.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/SWOP_2018.pdf
Gauthier, L., Sénécal, C., & Guay, F. (2007). Construction et validation de l’Échelle de motivation à avoir un enfant (EMAE). Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée/European Review of Applied Psychology, 57(2), 77-89.
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.
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
Gjersing, L., Caplehorn, J. R. M., & Clausen, T. (2010). Cross-cultural adaptation of research instruments: language, setting, time and statistical considerations. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 10(1), 10-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-10-13
Hambleton, R. K. (2005). Issues, designs, and technical guidelines for adapting tests into multiple languages and cultures. In R. K. Hambleton, P. F. Merenda, & C. D.
Spielberger (Eds.), Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment (pp. 3-38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hoffman, L. W., & Hoffman, M. L. (1973). The value of children to parents.
International Test Commission. (2010). International Test Commission guidelines for translating and adapting tests (2. ed.). Recuperado de https://www.intestcom.org/files/guideline_test_adaptation_2ed.pdf
Irani, M. & Khadivzadeh, T. (2018). The relationship between childbearing motivations with fertility preferences and actual child number in reproductive-age women in Mashhad, Iran. Journal of Education and Health Promotion, 7, 175. https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_175_18
Jagannathan, R. (2005). Economic Crisis and Women’s Childbearing Motivations: The Induced Abortion Response of Women on Public Assistance. Brief Treatment & Crisis Intervention, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/brief-treatment/mhi029
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
Kennedy, J. E. (2005). Personality and motivations to believe, misbelieve, and disbelieve in paranormal phenomena. Journal of Parapsychology, 69(2), 263.
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
Lara, S. A. D. & Rodríguez, A. (2017). Índices estadísticos de modelos bifactor. Interacciones: Revista de Avances en Psicología, 3(2), 59-65.
Lee, R. D., & Bulatao, R. A. (1983). The demand for children: A critical essay. Determinants of fertility in developing countries: a summary of knowledge, 233-287.
Lorenzo-Seva, U. & Ferrando, P. J. (2019). Robust Promin: a method for diagonall weighted factor rotation. Technical report, URV. Tarragona, Spain.
McClelland, D. C. & Pilon, D. A. (1983). Sources of adult motives in patterns of parent behavior in early childhood. Journal of personality and social psychology, 44(3), 564. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.3.564
McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Menéndez, M. D. C. R. & García, C. M. F. (2010). Empleo y maternidad: el discurso femenino sobre las dificultades para conciliar familia y trabajo. Cuadernos de Relaciones Laborales, 28(2), 257.
Miller, W. B. (1994). Childbearing motivations, desires, and intentions: A theoretical framework. Genetic, Social, and General. Psychology Monographs, 120(2), 223-258.
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. (2011). Differences between fertility desires and intentions: Implications for theory, research and policy. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, 9, 75-98. https://doi.org/10.2307/41342806
Miller, W. B., Millstein, S.G., & Pasta, D.J. (2008) The measurement of childbearing motivation in couples considering the use of assisted reproductive technology, Biodemography and Social Biology, 54(1), 8-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/19485565.2008.9989129
Miller, W.B., & Pasta, D. J. (1993). Motivational and Nonmotivational Determinants of Child-Number Desires, Population and Environment. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 15(2), 113-136. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02209405
Miller, W. B., Pasta, D. J., MacMurray, J., Chiu, C., Wu, S., & Comings, D. E. (1999). Genetic influences on childbearing motivation: A theoretical framework and some empirical evidence. In L. J. Severy & W. B. Miller (Eds.),
Advances in population: Psychosocial perspectives (Vol. 3, pp. 53-102). London, England: Jessica Kingsley.
Miller, W. B., Pasta, D. J., MacMurray, J., Muhleman, D., & Comings, D. E. (2000). Genetic influences on childbearing motivation: Further testing a theoretical framework. In J. L. Rodgers, D. C. Rowe, & W. B. Miller (Eds.), Genetic influences on human fertility and sexuality: Theoretical and empirical contributions from the biological and behavioral sciences (pp. 35-66). Boston, MA: Springer.
Morgan, S. P., & King, R. B. (2001). Why have children in the 21st century? Biological predisposition, social coercion, rational choice. European Journal of Population, 17(1), 3-20. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010784028474
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 bi factor models via Monte Carlo simulations. Journal of Intelligence, 3, 2–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence3010002
Mynarska, M. (2009). Individual fertility choices in Poland. Doctoral dissertation. Rostock: Rostock University.
Mynarska, M. & Rytel, J. (2014). Pomiar motywacji do posiadania dzieci wśród osób bezdzietnych. Polska adaptacja kwestionariusza motywów rodzicielskich. In Polskie Forum Psychologiczne (Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 522-543).
Mynarskay, M. & Rytek, J. (2017). From motives through desires to intentions: investigating the reproductive choices of childless men and women in Poland. Journal of Biosocial Science, 1-13. 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.
Pezeshki, M. Z., Zeigham, B., & Miller, W. (2014). 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
Pontello, A. C. S. & Wagner, A. (2008). Paternidade em tempos de mudança. Psicologia: Teoria e Prática, 10(1), 174-185.
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.
Revelle, W. & Zinbarg, R. E. (2009). Coefficients alpha, beta, omega, and the glb: Comments on Sijtsma. Psychometrika, 74(1), 145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9102-z
Rodriguez, 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
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 & Gynecology, 31(3), 158-167. https://doi.org/10.3109/0167482X.2010.487952
Sijtsma, K. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika, 74(1), 107.
Sireci, S. G., Yang, Y., Harter, J., & Ehrlich, E. J. (2006). Evaluating guidelines for test adaptations: A methodological analysis of translation quality. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(5), 557-567. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022106290478
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). New York: 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.
Tavares, L. P. (2016). Who Delays Childbearing? The Associations Between Time to First Birth, Personality Traits and Education. The European Journal of Population, 575-597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-016-9393-1
Timmerman, M. E. & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2011). Dimensionality Assessment of Ordered Polytomous Items with Parallel Analysis. Psychological Methods, 16, 209-220. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023353
Van Egeren, L. A. (2003). Prebirth predictors of coparenting experiences in early infancy. Infant Mental Health Journal: Official Publication of The World Association for Infant Mental Health, 24(3), 278-295. https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.10056
Varas, G. V. & Borsa, J. C. (2019). Revisión sistemática del estudio de las motivaciones para la parentalidad. Estudos e Pesquisas em Psicologia, 19(1), 261-283. https://doi.org/10.12957/epp.2019.43019
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.
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2021 Psico
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
Derechos de Autor
La sumisión de originales para la Psico implica la transferencia, por los autores, de los derechos de publicación. El copyright de los artículos de esta revista es el autor, junto con los derechos de la revista a la primera publicación. Los autores sólo podrán utilizar los mismos resultados en otras publicaciones indicando claramente a Psico como el medio de la publicación original.
Creative Commons License
Excepto donde especificado de modo diferente, se aplican a la materia publicada en este periódico los términos de una licencia Creative Commons Atribución 4.0 Internacional, que permite el uso irrestricto, la distribución y la reproducción en cualquier medio siempre y cuando la publicación original sea correctamente citada.
