ArticleArchives of women's mental health2026
Development and validation of the eco-reproductive concern scale.
Article in Archives of women's mental health, 2026. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeClimate change has emerged as a growing psychosocial stressor that shapes individuals' perceptions of the future, including decisions related to childbearing. However, the lack of standardized measurement tools limits the systematic assessment of eco-reproductive concerns within public health and nursing research. This study aims to develop a measurement tool that assesses individuals' reproductive concerns and intentions in the context of climate change and environmental crises.
methodThis cross-sectional methodological study was conducted with 617 adults aged 18-45 years between September and December 2025. Data were collected using the Personal Information Form and the Eco-Reproductive Concern Scale (ERCS). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were performed on independent samples. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha, McDonald's omega, and split-half methods. Convergent, discriminant, and construct validity, as well as measurement invariance across gender, were evaluated. Data analyses were conducted using SPSS Statistics 29 and AMOS.
resultsParticipants' mean age was 26.37 ± 8.28 years in the EFA phase (74.3% women, 25.7% men) and 26.97 ± 8.65 years in the CFA phase (72.1% women, 27.9% men). EFA yielded a 28-item, four-factor structure, accounting for 70.12% of the total variance. CFA confirmed the factor structure, demonstrating acceptable model fit (χ²/df = 2.35, CFI = 0.909, TLI = 0.900, RMSEA = 0.074, SRMR = 0.064). Convergent and discriminant validity were supported by AVE, CR, and Fornell-Larcker criteria. The scale's internal consistency was excellent (Cronbach's α = 0.946). Measurement invariance across women and men was established at configural, metric, and scalar levels.
conclusionsThe study found that the ERCS is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing reproductive concerns associated with climate change. The ERCS can be used across a broad range of health research and clinical settings, including public health, nursing, medicine, psychology, and other behavioral and allied health disciplines, to better understand how environmental crises influence reproductive attitudes and intentions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42435063What 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.