Sexual & reproductive healthcare : official journal of the Swedish Association of Midwives · 2026
Beliefs in pregnancy: the psychometric properties of the German version of the birth beliefs scale (BBS).
СтатьяВалидационное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Schmidt Gaby, Dietsche Stefan, Stoll Kathrin, Müller Astrid, Gross Mechthild M
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the psychometric properties of the German Birth Beliefs Scale (G-BBS) in a large sample of pregnant women in Germany, and its potential utility for women-centred birth counselling, and respectful maternity care.
METHODS: In this cross-sectional study pregnant women were recruited across antenatal care settings in Bremen, Germany (n = 602). We assessed item performance, internal consistency, structural validity using confirmatory factor analysis of the original two-factor model, and post hoc split-sample exploratory analyses with confirmatory testing. Construct validity was examined using correlations with self-efficacy, life satisfaction, desire for control, and general anxiety. Known-groups validity was tested by women's preferred place of birth. Methodological quality and interpretation followed Consensus-based Standards for the selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) criteria for measurement properties.
RESULTS: Internal consistency was acceptable for both subscales. Hypothesis testing supported construct validity: natural birth beliefs were associated with higher self-efficacy and life satisfaction, whereas medicalised birth beliefs were associated with lower self-efficacy and life satisfaction; associations with general anxiety and desire for control were small. Known-groups validity was strong, with clear gradients in subscale scores by preferred place of birth. However, structural validity was not established: confirmatory analyses did not support the original two-factor structure, and a shortened structure derived from exploratory analyses could not be confirmed either.
CONCLUSIONS: The G-BBS showed promising evidence for construct and known-groups validity, but insufficient structural validity according to COSMIN. Refinement informed by qualitative work and independent psychometric re-testing are needed before routine clinical use or standardised subscale scoring in Germany.
METHODS: In this cross-sectional study pregnant women were recruited across antenatal care settings in Bremen, Germany (n = 602). We assessed item performance, internal consistency, structural validity using confirmatory factor analysis of the original two-factor model, and post hoc split-sample exploratory analyses with confirmatory testing. Construct validity was examined using correlations with self-efficacy, life satisfaction, desire for control, and general anxiety. Known-groups validity was tested by women's preferred place of birth. Methodological quality and interpretation followed Consensus-based Standards for the selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) criteria for measurement properties.
RESULTS: Internal consistency was acceptable for both subscales. Hypothesis testing supported construct validity: natural birth beliefs were associated with higher self-efficacy and life satisfaction, whereas medicalised birth beliefs were associated with lower self-efficacy and life satisfaction; associations with general anxiety and desire for control were small. Known-groups validity was strong, with clear gradients in subscale scores by preferred place of birth. However, structural validity was not established: confirmatory analyses did not support the original two-factor structure, and a shortened structure derived from exploratory analyses could not be confirmed either.
CONCLUSIONS: The G-BBS showed promising evidence for construct and known-groups validity, but insufficient structural validity according to COSMIN. Refinement informed by qualitative work and independent psychometric re-testing are needed before routine clinical use or standardised subscale scoring in Germany.