HAPPY MAMA Project (PART 1). Assessing the Reliability of the Italian Karitane Parenting Confidence Scale (KPCS-IT) and Parental Stress Scale (PSS-IT): A Cross-Sectional Study among Mothers Who Gave Birth in the Last 12 Months
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Material and Methods
2.1. Sample
2.2. Validation of the Instruments
- three independent researchers translated the English version of KPCS and PSS in Italian language, and then a consensus version was realized;
- the draft of the Italian version was back-translated in English by an interpreter in order to estimate the compliance with the original version and subsequently it was reviewed according to the translation;
- a telephone survey was conducted on an opportunistic sample of 30 mothers with at least a child aged 0–12 months. It was carried-out in order to obtain feedback on the level of the items comprehension;
- a second phone survey was conducted in order to assess the stability and to verify the level of comprehension of the new “final” version: the tool was administered twice over a period of two days to the same group of individuals;
- the final version was transformed in an online questionnaire using Google Form. A convenience mothers sample (called “validation sample”) with at least a child aged 0–12 months was involved to complete the same questionnaire twice (T0 and T1) with a two day interval (a “Whatsapp” message or an e-mail containing the link to the questionnaire were used as a reminder). Informative notes, aims and details of the study were reported at the beginning of the questionnaire.
2.3. HAPPY MAMA Web Survey
2.3.1. Design
2.3.2. Measures
2.3.3. Data Collection Strategy
2.4. Statistical Analysis
- 1.
- Assessing of instrument stability over time: test-retest reliability was estimated between T0 and T1, it was calculated with Intra-class Correlation Coefficient (ICC) with absolute agreement and two-way mixed model. The ICC was estimated using the data of “validation sample”. Test-retest reliability coefficients vary between 0 and 1 and the interpretation by Streiner et al. [27] was considered:
- 1: perfect reliability;
- ≥0.9: excellent reliability;
- ≥0.8 < 0.9: good reliability;
- ≥0.7 < 0.8: acceptable reliability;
- ≥0.6 < 0.7: questionable reliability;
- ≥0.5 < 0.6: poor reliability;
- <0.5: unacceptable reliability;
- 0: no reliability.
- 2.
- Correlation: Spearman’s coefficient was computed between T0 and T1 of PSS-IT e KPCS-IT scores considering the “validation sample”.
- 3.
- Assessing internal consistency: Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of each questionnaire was applied using a random selection of a sub-group from the sample of the web-survey.
3. Results
3.1. Validation of the Instruments
3.1.1. Translation and Level of the Items Comprehension
- In the KPCS questionnaire followed items were reviews:
- ○
- item 1: “I am confident about feeding my baby…” literally translated into Italian “mi sento fiduciosa quando nutro il mio bambino…” it was then translated into “Mi sento serena quando do da mangiare al mio bambino” with a more familiar tone;
- ○
- item 3: “I am confident about helping my baby to establish a good sleep routine” literally translated into Italian “Mi sento fiduciosa di aiutare il mio bambino a stabilire un buon ritmo del sonno” it was then translated into “Mi sento in grado di aiutare il mio bambino a stabilire un buon ritmo del sonno” with a more familiar tone;
- ○
- item 7: “I am confident about playing with my baby” literally translated into Italian “Mi sento fiduciosa quando gioco con il mio bambino”, it was then translated into “Mi sento tranquilla quando gioco con il mio bambino” with a more familiar tone;
- In the PSS questionnaire:
- ○
- item 4: “I sometimes worry whether I am doing enough for my child/ren”, literally translated into Italian “A volte mi preoccupo se sto facendo abbastanza per mio/miei figlio/i” was then translated into “Mi capita di preoccuparmi di non riuscire a fare abbastanza per mio/miei figlio/i” with a more familiar tone.
3.1.2. Reliability of the Instruments
3.2. Web Survey Analysis: Descriptive, Univariate and Bivariate Analysis
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Cowan, C.P.; Cowan, P.A. Interventions to Ease the Transition to Parenthood: Why They are Needed and What They Can Do. Fam. Relat. Interdiscip. J. Appl. Fam. Stud. 1995, 44, 412–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, C.-Y.; Li, Q. Integrative Review of Research on General Health Status and Prevalence of Common Physical Health Conditions of Women after Childbirth. Women Health Issues 2008, 18, 267–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nyström, K.; Ohrling, K. Parenthood Experiences during the Child’s First Year: Literature Review. J. Adv. Nurs. 2004, 46, 319–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rouhi, M.; Stirling, C.; Ayton, J.; Crisp, E.P. Women’s Help-Seeking Behaviours within the First Twelve Months after Childbirth: A Systematic Qualitative Meta-Aggregation Review. Midwifery 2019, 72, 39–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Phelps, J.L.; Belsky, J.; Crnic, K. Earned Security, Daily Stress, and Parenting: A Comparison of Five Alternative Models. Dev. Psychopathol. 1998, 10, 21–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leahy-Warren, P.; McCarthy, G.; Corcoran, P. First-Time Mothers: Social Support, Maternal Parental Self-Efficacy and Postnatal Depression. J. Clin. Nurs. 2012, 21, 388–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kronborg, H.; Vaeth, M.; Kristensen, I. The Effect of Early Postpartum Home Visits by Health Visitors: A Natural Experiment. Public Health Nurs. 2012, 29, 289–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kristensen, I.H.; Simonsen, M.; Trillingsgaard, T.; Pontoppidan, M.; Kronborg, H. First-Time Mothers’ Confidence Mood and Stress in the First Months Postpartum. A Cohort Study. Sex. Reprod. Healthc. 2018, 17, 43–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sroufe, L.A. Attachment and Development: A Prospective, Longitudinal Study from Birth to Adulthood. Attach. Hum. Dev. 2005, 7, 349–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lilja, G.; Edhborg, M.; Nissen, E. Depressive Mood in Women at Childbirth Predicts Their Mood and Relationship with Infant and Partner during the First Year Postpartum. Scand. J. Caring Sci. 2012, 26, 245–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, T.L.; Prinz, R.J. Potential Roles of Parental Self-Efficacy in Parent and Child Adjustment: A Review. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 2005, 25, 341–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berry, J.O.; Jones, W.H. The Parental Stress Scale: Initial Psychometric Evidence. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 1995, 12, 463–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Montigny, F.; Lacharité, C. Perceived Parental Efficacy: Concept Analysis. J. Adv. Nurs. 2005, 49, 387–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crncec, R.; Barnett, B.; Matthey, S. Development of an Instrument to Assess Perceived Self-Efficacy in the Parents of Infants. Res. Nurs. Health 2008, 31, 442–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crncec, R.; Barnett, B.; Matthey, S. Review of Scales of Parenting Confidence. J. Nurs. Meas. 2010, 18, 210–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Carpiniello, B.; Pariante, C.M.; Serri, F.; Costa, G.; Carta, M.G. Validation of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale in Italy. J. Psychosom. Obstet. Gynaecol. 1997, 18, 280–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cox, J.L.; Holden, J.M.; Sagovsky, R. Detection of Postnatal Depression. Development of the 10-Item Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. Br. J. Psychiatry 1987, 150, 782–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Benvenuti, P.; Ferrara, M.; Niccolai, C.; Valoriani, V.; Cox, J.L. The Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale: Validation for an Italian Sample. J. Affect. Disord. 1999, 53, 137–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Vet, H.C.W.; Terwee, C.B.; Mokkink, L.B.; Knol, D.L. Measurement in Medicine A Practical Guide; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Bandura, A. Regulation of Cognitive Processes through Perceived Self-Efficacy. Dev. Psychol. 1989, 25, 729–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cox, R.A.F. Offshore Medicine Medical Care of Employees in the Offshore Oil Industry; Springer: London, UK, 1987; ISBN 978-1-4471-1395-9. [Google Scholar]
- Zubaran, C.; Schumacher, M.; Roxo, M.R.; Foresti, K. Screening Tools for Postpartum Depression: Validity and Cultural Dimensions. Afr. J. Psychiatry 2010, 13, 357–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jardri, R.; Pelta, J.; Maron, M.; Thomas, P.; Delion, P.; Codaccioni, X.; Goudemand, M. Predictive Validation Study of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale in the First Week after Delivery and Risk Analysis for Postnatal Depression. J. Affect. Disord. 2006, 93, 169–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsang, S.; Royse, C.; Terkawi, A. Guidelines for Developing, Translating, and Validating a Questionnaire in Perioperative and Pain Medicine. Saudi J. Anaesth. 2017, 11, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- von Elm, E.; Altman, D.G.; Egger, M.; Pocock, S.J.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Vandenbroucke, J.P. STROBE Initiative Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies. BMJ 2007, 335, 806–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- von Elm, E.; Altman, D.G.; Egger, M.; Pocock, S.J.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Vandenbroucke, J.P. STROBE Initiative The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2008, 61, 344–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Streiner, D.L.; Norman, G.R.; Cairney, J. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2015; ISBN 978-0-19-968521-9. [Google Scholar]
- Rao, P.V. Statistical Research Methods in the Life Sciences; Duxbury Press: Pacific Grove, CA, USA, 1998; ISBN 978-0-534-93141-4. [Google Scholar]
- Heeren, T.; D’Agostino, R. Robustness of the Two Independent Samples T-Test When Applied to Ordinal Scaled Data. Stat. Med. 1987, 6, 79–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fox, C.R.; Gelfand, D.M. Maternal Depressed Mood and Stress as Related to Vigilance, Self-Efficacy and Mother-Child Interactions. Early Dev. Parent. 1994, 3, 233–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goecke, T.W.; Voigt, F.; Faschingbauer, F.; Spangler, G.; Beckmann, M.W.; Beetz, A. The Association of Prenatal Attachment and Perinatal Factors with Pre- and Postpartum Depression in First-Time Mothers. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2012, 286, 309–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsu, H.-C.; Wickrama, K.A.S. Maternal Life Stress and Health during the First 3 Years Postpartum. Women Health 2018, 58, 565–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Green, J.; Young, J.A. Test-Retest Reliability Study of the Barthel Index, the Rivermead Mobility Index, the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale and the Frenchay Activities Index in Stroke Patients. Disabil. Rehabil. 2001, 23, 670–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- ISTAT. The Life of Women and Men in Europe-Internet Habits. Available online: https://www.istat.it/donne-uomini/bloc-3c.html?lang=it (accessed on 9 December 2020).
- EUROSTAT Individuals−Frequency of Internet Use. Available online: http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?query=BOOKMARK_DS-053748_QID_7B4F68C8_UID_-3F171EB0&layout=IND_TYPE,L,X,0;GEO,L,Y,0;INDIC_IS,L,Z,0;UNIT,L,Z,1;TIME,C,Z,2;INDICATORS,C,Z,3;&zSelection=DS-053748TIME,2016;DS-053748UNIT,PC_IND;DS-053748INDICATORS,OBS_FLAG;DS-053748INDIC_IS,I_IUSE;&rankName1=UNIT_1_2_-1_2&rankName2=INDICATORS_1_2_-1_2&rankName3=INDIC-IS_1_2_-1_2&rankName4=TIME_1_0_1_0&rankName5=IND-TYPE_1_2_0_0&rankName6=GEO_1_2_0_1&rStp=&cStp=&rDCh=&cDCh=&rDM=true&cDM=true&footnes=false&empty=false&wai=false&time_mode=NONE&time_most_recent=false&lang=EN&cfo=%23%23%23%2C%23%23%23.%23%23%23&lang=it (accessed on 4 December 2020).
- Italian Minister of Health. Direzione Generale della Digitalizzazione del Sistema Informativo Sanitario e della Statistica. In Ufficio di Statistica Certificato Di Assistenza al Parto (CeDAP)Analisi Dell’evento Nascita-Anno 2018; Attività Editoriali Ministero della Salute, Italy; 2018. Available online: http://www.salute.gov.it/imgs/C_17_pubblicazioni_3034_allegato.pdf (accessed on 4 April 2021).
Questionnaire | Item | Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Deleted |
---|---|---|
1 | 0.850 | |
2 | 0.863 | |
3 | 0.859 | |
4 | 0.863 | |
5 | 0.857 | |
6 | 0.856 | |
7 | 0.861 | |
8 | 0.857 | |
PSS-IT | 9 | 0.852 |
10 | 0.853 | |
11 | 0.858 | |
12 | 0.851 | |
13 | 0.855 | |
14 | 0.856 | |
15 | 0.847 | |
16 | 0.849 | |
17 | 0.852 | |
18 | 0.859 | |
Pooled Cronbach’s alpha | 0.862 | |
1 | 0.792 | |
2 | 0.786 | |
3 | 0.793 | |
4 | 0.783 | |
5 | 0.787 | |
6 | 0.787 | |
7 | 0.787 | |
KPCS-IT | 8 | 0.792 |
9 | 0.805 | |
. | 10 | 0.783 |
11 | 0.783 | |
12 | 0.791 | |
13 | 0.781 | |
14 | 0.791 | |
15 | 0.810 | |
Pooled Cronbach’s alpha | 0.801 |
Variables | |||
---|---|---|---|
Qualitative | n | % | |
Cesarean delivery | No | 270 | 69 |
Yes | 606 | 31 | |
Gestational age (weeks) | ≥38 | 782 | 89 |
<38 | 94 | 11 | |
Lives with infant’s father | Yes | 856 | 98 |
No | 12 | 1 | |
No answer | 8 | 1 | |
Geographical area where she lives | North | 248 | 28 |
Center | 410 | 47 | |
South | 218 | 25 | |
Months after delivery (quarters) | 1st | 192 | 22 |
2nd | 251 | 29 | |
3rd | 191 | 22 | |
4th | 242 | 27 | |
Number of sons | 1 | 572 | 65 |
>1 | 304 | 35 | |
Age groups (years) | ≤31 | 269 | 32 |
32–35 | 281 | 32 | |
≥36 | 296 | 34 | |
Employed/student or housewife | Yes | 777 | 89 |
No | 99 | 11 | |
KPCS-IT a (perception of self-efficacy) | Yes | 591 | 68 |
No | 283 | 32 | |
EPDS a (presence risk of depression) | Low | 603 | 69 |
High | 273 | 31 | |
Quantitative | Mean | SD | |
PSS-IT score | 35.4 | 8.9 | |
KPCS-IT score | 36.8 | 5.0 | |
EPDS score | 9.7 | 5.2 |
Variables | PSS-IT Score | Test | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | SD | p | |||
Cesarean delivery | Yes | 35.62 | 9.04 | 0.774 | T-student |
No | 35.44 | 8.96 | |||
Gestational age (weeks) | ≥38 | 35.2 | 8.2 | 0.688 | T-student |
<38 | 35.5 | 9.2 | |||
Employed | Yes | 35.2 | 8.8 | 0.016 | T-student |
No | 37.5 | 9.6 | |||
Geographical area where she lives | North | 35.57 | 8.45 | 0.358 | Anova |
Center | 35.09 | 9.26 | |||
South | 36.16 | 9.01 | |||
Months after delivery (quarters) | 1st | 34.84 | 8.52 | 0.006 * | ANOVA * |
2nd | 34.59 | 8.81 | |||
3rd | 35.18 | 8.96 | |||
4th | 37.20 | 9.33 | |||
Number of sons | 1 | 34.71 | 9.16 | <0.001 | T-student |
>1 | 36.97 | 8.44 | |||
Age groups (years) | ≤31 | 34.71 | 8.97 | 0.178 | Anova |
32–35 | 35.82 | 8.97 | |||
≥36 | 36.01 | 8.84 | |||
KPCS-IT a | Yes | 30.05 | 6.58 | <0.001 | Anova |
No | 38.13 | 8.8 | |||
EPDS a | Low | 32.45 | 6.95 | <0.001 | Anova |
High | 42.22 | 9.30 |
(I) Quarter | (J) Quarter | Mean Difference (I–J) | Bonferroni’s Test p Value | 95% CI | |
Lower | Upper | ||||
1 | 2 | 0.25 | 0.99 | −2.01 | 2.51 |
3 | −0.33 | 0.99 | −2.75 | 2.08 | |
4 | −2.35 | 0.04 | −4.64 | −0.07 | |
2 | 1 | −0.25 | 0.99 | −2.51 | 2.01 |
3 | −0.58 | 0.99 | −2.85 | 1.68 | |
4 | −2.60 | 0.01 | −4.73 | −0.48 | |
3 | 1 | 0.33 | 0.99 | −2.08 | 2.75 |
2 | 0.58 | 0.99 | −1.68 | 2.85 | |
4 | −2.02 | 0.12 | −4.31 | 0.26 | |
4 | 1 | 2.35 | 0.04 | 0.07 | 4.64 |
2 | 2.60 | 0.01 | 0.48 | 4.73 | |
3 | 2.02 | 0.12 | −0.26 | 4.31 |
Covariates | PSS-IT Score | ||
---|---|---|---|
Coefficient | p | ||
Employed | Yes | −0.026 | 0.320 |
No * | |||
Age (years) | 0.050 | 0.053 | |
Days from delivery | 0.095 | <0.001 | |
Number of sons | 1 | −0.135 | <0.001 |
>1 * | |||
KPCS-IT score | −0.353 | <0.001 | |
EPDS score | 0.378 | <0.001 | |
Goodness-of-fit: R2 | 0.455 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Mannocci, A.; Massimi, A.; Scaglietta, F.; Ciavardini, S.; Scollo, M.; Scaglione, C.; La Torre, G. HAPPY MAMA Project (PART 1). Assessing the Reliability of the Italian Karitane Parenting Confidence Scale (KPCS-IT) and Parental Stress Scale (PSS-IT): A Cross-Sectional Study among Mothers Who Gave Birth in the Last 12 Months. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4066. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18084066
Mannocci A, Massimi A, Scaglietta F, Ciavardini S, Scollo M, Scaglione C, La Torre G. HAPPY MAMA Project (PART 1). Assessing the Reliability of the Italian Karitane Parenting Confidence Scale (KPCS-IT) and Parental Stress Scale (PSS-IT): A Cross-Sectional Study among Mothers Who Gave Birth in the Last 12 Months. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(8):4066. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18084066
Chicago/Turabian StyleMannocci, Alice, Azzurra Massimi, Franca Scaglietta, Sara Ciavardini, Michela Scollo, Claudia Scaglione, and Giuseppe La Torre. 2021. "HAPPY MAMA Project (PART 1). Assessing the Reliability of the Italian Karitane Parenting Confidence Scale (KPCS-IT) and Parental Stress Scale (PSS-IT): A Cross-Sectional Study among Mothers Who Gave Birth in the Last 12 Months" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 8: 4066. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18084066