Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40333955›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Analysing the factor structure of the MAIA scale for pregnant women: Development of the MAIA-Preg.

Anna E Crossland, Lydia B Munns, Catherine E J Preston

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Anna E CrosslandUniversity of York, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0998-6246
Lydia B MunnsUniversity of York, United Kingdom.
Catherine E J PrestonUniversity of York, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During pregnancy many elements of the bodily experience change, suggesting that measuring these constructs may require different instruments to those validated in the general population. This study reports an exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis exploration of the Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness (MAIA) in 716 pregnant women (mean gestation 26.4 weeks), from six different datasets who completed the MAIA online. Exploratory factor analysis condensed the questionnaire from a 32- to a 19- item scale, with five factor structure, which best fitted the data. Key subscales of Trust, Attention Regulation, Self-Regulation and Not Distracting remained robust. The one remaining item from the Noticing subscale loaded heavily with the Emotional Awareness subscale. Subscales of Body Listening, Not Worrying and Noticing did not load and therefore were excluded as factors. This led to the development of the scale referred to as the MAIA-Preg, which demonstrated a good fit with a confirmatory factor analysis along with good subscale reliability (ω= 0.73 -0.92), and measurement invariance for second and third trimesters. The MAIA-Preg was also found to be a good fit for separate non-pregnant (N = 396) and postnatal (N = 174) samples and thus provides a reliable and valid measure, providing nuanced information about the bodily experience in perinatal populations, allowing comparisons of changes to interoceptive sensibility the perinatal period.

Indexed as

AwarenessInteroceptionPregnant PeopleAdolescentAdultFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHumansPregnancyPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID40333955
PMCPMC12058024

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.