ArticleHeliyon2021
The development and validation of the Multidimensional Paternal Perinatal Scale (MPPS).
Article in Heliyon, 2021. 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.
- Validation and optimal cut-off score of the Multidimensional Paternal Perinatal Scale (MPPS).BMC psychology · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The limited availability of screening tools for assessing fathers' emotional well-being during the perinatal period warrants the development of a new measure, especially since the existing measurements did not specifically focus on fathers' perinatal experiences. These existing measurements focus on the assessment of clinical symptoms rather than precursors that may negatively impact on perinatal father's well-being. Based on the paternal perinatal conceptual framework, the Multidimensional Paternal Perinatal Scale (MPPS) was developed to identify precursors that contribute to the father's emotional well-being during the perinatal period. This paper examines three steps of measurement development. The first step comprised item development based on the literature and qualitative findings. The second step comprised conducting the qualitative and quantitative judgment analysis of the MPPS content validity. The third step assessed inter-rater reliability. Two versions of the MPPS were developed: the antenatal and postnatal versions. The antenatal version of the MPPS includes 75 items and targets 11 precursors of paternal perinatal emotional well-being, while the postnatal version includes 103 items and targets 13 precursors of poor emotional well-being. The validity analysis showed that both the antenatal and postnatal subscales met content validity requirements. The overall Content Validity Index (CVI) of the antenatal version was equal to .95 for clarity and .99 for relevance, while the postnatal version showed a CVI of .98 for clarity and .93 for relevance. The inter-rater reliability for each of the antenatal and postnatal versions of the MPPS showed an AC2 of .67. The exploratory factor analysis derived a five-factor solution for the ANT-MPPS, and eight-factor solution for POST-MPPS. Both versions of the MPPS showed acceptable internal consistency. Overall, the findings showed adequate indices for content validity and inter-rater reliability of the new Multidimensional Paternal Perinatal Scales. Additionally, the MPPS demonstrated an acceptable construct validity and internal consistency. Results demonstrate that both versions of the scale successfully characterised antecedents of emotional well-being and as such can be used to identify fathers at risk of poor emotional well-being in the antenatal and postnatal environments.
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.