ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2020
How mothers feel: Validation of a measure of maternal mood.
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- How mothers feel: Validation of a measure of maternal mood.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
rationaleLow mood may affect developing relationships with a new baby, partner and family. Early identification of mood disturbance is crucial to improve outcomes for women perinatally. Instruments such as the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) are used routinely, with evidence that some women do not feel comfortable with how they are asked about their mental health.
objectiveTo develop a mood checklist as a user-friendly, effective measure of well-being in post-partum women, for use by health professionals.
methodsCognitive interviews with women who had recently given birth assessed response format and face validity of a prototype measure. A cross-sectional survey followed. A random split-half instrument development protocol was used. Exploratory factor analysis determined factor structure with the first sample,. The second sample confirmed factor structure and evaluationof key psychometric variables and known-groups discriminant validity (KGDV), requiring a supplementary between-subjects design with stratification based on case negative/case positive classification using EPDSscreening cut-off criteria.
resultsCognitive interview data confirmed the face validity of the measure. Exploratory factor analysis indicated an 18 item two-factor model with two (negatively) correlated factors. Factor 1 loaded with items reflecting positive mood and factor 2 negative items. Confirmatory factor analysis showed a good fit to the two-factor model across the full spectrum of fit indices. Statistically significant differences between groups were observed in relation to as EPDS caseness classification. Cronbach alpha coefficients for the positive and negative subscales revealed acceptable internal consistency of 0.79 and 0.72, respectively.
conclusionThe outcome checklist may be appropriate for use in clinical practice. It demonstrated effective psychometric properties and clear cross-validation with existing commonly used measures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.