Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35933351›Full record

Observational studyBMC pregnancy and childbirth2022

Development and psychometric properties of the maternal ambivalence scale in spanish women.

Magdalena Belén Martín-Sánchez, Verónica Martínez-Borba, Patricia Catalá, Jorge Osma, Cecilia Peñacoba-Puente, Carlos Suso-Ribera

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Magdalena Belén Martín-SánchezDepartment of Basic and Clinical Psychology and Psychobiology, Jaume I University, Castellón, Spain.
Verónica Martínez-BorbaDepartment of Basic and Clinical Psychology and Psychobiology, Jaume I University, Castellón, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2082-8115
Patricia CataláDepartment of Psychology, Rey Juan Carlos University, Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4989-9099
Jorge OsmaDepartament of Psychology and Sociology, Universidad de Zaragoza, Teruel, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7293-318X
Cecilia Peñacoba-PuenteDepartment of Psychology, Rey Juan Carlos University, Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6307-5921
Carlos Suso-RiberaDepartment of Basic and Clinical Psychology and Psychobiology, Jaume I University, Castellón, Spain. susor@uji.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2655-1017
Universitat Jaume I · ESUniversidad Rey Juan Carlos · ESUniversidad de Zaragoza · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundmaternal ambivalence, which refers to experiencing mixed emotions about motherhood, like happiness and sadness, is frequent during the perinatal period.

aimDue to the relevance of this topic and the lack of psychometrically-sound instruments to measure it, this study aims to develop and test a measure of maternal ambivalence called the Maternal Ambivalence Scale (MAS).

methodsin this cross-sectional, observational study, participants were 1424 Spanish women recruited online who were either pregnant (33%) or recent mothers of children under 2 years (67%). They responded to the MAS and measures of anxiety and depressive symptoms and life satisfaction. Analyses included exploratory and confirmatory factor solutions for the MAS, internal consistency estimates (Cronbach's α) for all scales, as well as bivariate correlations to investigate sources of validity evidence. Comparisons between pregnant and postpartum women were also examined.

resultsThe assumptions for factor analysis about the relationship between items were met (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin's [KMO] test = 0.90; Barlett's Chi-square sphericity test = 5853.89, p < .001). A three-factor solution (Doubts, Rejection, and Suppression) for the MAS showed a good model fit both in exploratory (Chi-square = 274.6, p < .001, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] = 0.059, RMSEA 90% Confidence Interval [CI]=[0.052, 0.066], Comparative Fit Index [CFI] = 0.985, Tucker Lewis Index [TLI] = 0.974) and confirmatory analyses (Chi-square = 428.0, p < .001, RMSEA = 0.062, RMSEA 90% CI=[0.056, 0.068], CFI = 0.977, TLI = 0.971). Doubts (α = 0.83), Rejection (α = 0.70), and Suppression (α = 80) were associated with higher anxiety and depressive symptoms, as well as lower life satisfaction (all p < .001). Pregnant women presented greater Rejection (mean difference = 0.30, p = .037, 95% CI=[0.02, 0.58]) and less Suppression (mean difference=-0.47, p = .002, 95% CI=[-0.77,-0.17]) than mothers.

conclusionwith this study, we provide clinicians and researchers with a novel tool that successfully captures the complex nature of maternal ambivalence. Given the associations of maternal ambivalence with important outcomes in perinatal women, this tool could be important for the prevention of distress associated with chronic ambivalence and to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions addressing ambivalence.

Indexed as

PsychometricsChildCross-Sectional StudiesFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHumansInfantPregnancyReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesMaternal ambivalence; pregnancyPostpartumQuestionnaire development psychometric properties

Identifiers

PMID35933351
PMCPMC9356446
OpenAlexW4290000863

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.