ArticleBMC psychiatry2025
Development and psychometric evaluation of a questionnaire addressing the psychosocial needs of oocyte recipient women.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe social pressures of using a third party in infertility treatment impose a high psychosocial burden, particularly on women, increasing their psychosocial needs whose identification is imperative to provide comprehensive wellness programs in infertility treatment systems. Accordingly, the present study aimed to development and psychometric evaluation of a questionnaire addressing the psychosocial needs of oocyte recipient women.
methodsThe study was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, a preliminary questionnaire was designed in the Persian language with 38 items on the Likert scale, and its face and content validity were evaluated qualitatively and quantitatively using experts’ opinions and calculating the Content Validity Ratio (CVR) and Content Validity Index (CVI). Reliability was measured by calculating Cronbach’s alpha correlation coefficient and repeatability coefficient. A cross-sectional study was conducted on 180 women receiving oocyte to evaluate the instrument’s construct validity. Moreover, an exploratory factor analysis was performed using the Varimax rotation method.
resultsThe psychometric evaluation of the questionnaire confirmed robust face and content validity, with a finalized pool of 26 items, a content validity ratio (CVR) exceeding 0.75, and a content validity index (CVI) above 0.80. Subsequent exploratory factor analysis revealed a clear four-factor structure namely, need to preserve married life, and legal principles, need for parenting, and the need for support collectively accounting for 55.512% of the total variance in the psychosocial needs of the target population. The instrument demonstrated good internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.91, and strong test–retest reliability, evidenced by a repeatability coefficient of 0.84.
conclusionThe results showed that the psychosocial needs of oocyte recipients could be presented in four dimensions: preserving married life, observing moral and legal principles, the need for parenting, and the need for support. Moreover, the designed 26-item questionnaire enjoyed acceptable reliability and validity in measuring the psychosocial needs of oocyte recipients and can be used in planning mental health services for oocyte recipients.
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.