Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30533297›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2018

A single Spanish version of maternal and paternal postnatal attachment scales: validation and conceptual analysis.

Anna Riera-Martín, Antonio Oliver-Roig, Ana Martínez-Pampliega, Susana Cormenzana-Redondo, Violeta Clement-Carbonell, Miguel Richart-Martínez

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Anna Riera-MartínDepartment of Social and Developmental Psychology, University of Deusto, Bilbao, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-4417-2088
Antonio Oliver-RoigDepartment of Nursing, University of Alicante, Alicante, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-9171-820X
Ana Martínez-PampliegaDepartment of Social and Developmental Psychology, University of Deusto, Bilbao, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-9130-9553
Susana Cormenzana-RedondoDepartment of Social and Developmental Psychology, University of Deusto, Bilbao, Spain.
Violeta Clement-CarbonellDepartment of Health Psychology, University of Alicante, Alicante, Spain.
Miguel Richart-MartínezDepartment of Nursing, University of Alicante, Alicante, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-6890-3001
Universidad de Deusto · ESUniversity of Alicante · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPostnatal bonding constitutes a major process during the postpartum period, and there is evidence that bonding difficulties have negative consequences for parents' mental health and the child's development. However, the conceptualization of postnatal bonding presents inconsistencies, as well as problems in having instruments that encompasses the father figure. The objective was to adapt the maternal postnatal attachment scale (MPAS) and the paternal postnatal attachment scale (PPAS) to Spanish, to evaluate its validity and reliability and to analyze the construct dimensionality of both questionnaires from a gender perspective.

methodsInstrumental design. In 2016-2017, a sample of 571 mothers and 376 fathers, with children between 6 and 11 months of age, responded to the Spanish version of MPAS and PPAS, respectively. After a process of translation-back-translation of the instrument, we empirically analyzed the internal consistency (Cronbach alpha, composite reliability (CR)) construct and concurrent validity (with regard to postpartum depression and dyadic adjustment). Additionally, we studied the instrument's content validity, using the Delphi methodology; and the differential analysis in both samples (mothers and fathers), examining the invariance.

resultsA short version of 15 items was obtained, common for mothers and fathers. The results of the Delphi methodology showed a 100% inter-judge agreement, highlighting the absence of differences in the adequacy of the items as a function of the parents' gender. Confirmatory factor analysis showed a good fit of three original factors proposed by the authors. The global Cronbach alpha coefficients in the total sample were adequate (mothers, 0.70; fathers, 0.78); and Cronbach alpha of each dimension in the case of mothers was 0.50 (Quality of bonding), 0.55 (Absence of hostility), and 0.60 (Pleasure in interaction); in the case of fathers, it was respectively 0.54, 0.64, and 0.72. CR of each dimension were: quality of bonding, 0.74 in mothers and 0.80 in fathers; absence of hostility, 0.93 in mothers and 0.94 in fathers; pleasure in interaction, 0.83 in mothers and 0.90 in fathers. With regard to the analysis of group invariance, the results revealed empirical evidence of configural and metric invariance. Concurrent validity showed moderate negative correlations for postnatal depression (mothers, DISCUSSION: A new version of the instrument was generated, with good psychometric properties, adequate for use both with mothers and with fathers. This scale helps evaluate postnatal maternal and paternal bonding, allowing to study it from within the family system, a necessary step forward to advance perinatal mental health.

Indexed as

Gender differenceMaternal postnatal attachment scaleNursingPaternal postnatal attachment scalePostnatal bondingPostpartumPsychometric propertiesReliabilityValidity

Identifiers

PMID30533297
PMCPMC6276590
OpenAlexW2902677603

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.