Safer Conception Methods and Counseling: Psychometric Evaluation of New Measures of Attitudes and Beliefs Among HIV Clients and Providers.
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
6-2016
Identifier
DOI: 10.1007/s10461-015-1199-3; PMCID: PMC5537001
Abstract
With data from 400 HIV clients with fertility intentions and 57 HIV providers in Uganda, we evaluated the psychometrics of new client and provider scales measuring constructs related to safer conception methods (SCM) and safer conception counselling (SCC). Several forms of validity (i.e., content, face, and construct validity) were examined using standard methods including exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Internal consistency was established using Cronbach's alpha correlation coefficient. The final scales consisted of measures of attitudes towards use of SCM and delivery of SCC, including measures of self-efficacy and motivation to use SCM, and perceived community stigma towards childbearing. Most client and all provider measures had moderate to high internal consistency (alphas 0.60-0.94), most had convergent validity (associations with other SCM or SCC-related measures), and client measures had divergent validity (poor associations with depression). These findings establish preliminary psychometric properties of these scales and should facilitate future studies of SCM and SCC.
Journal Title
AIDS and behavior
Volume
20
Issue
6
First Page
1370
Last Page
1381
MeSH Keywords
Adult; Attitude of Health Personnel; Counseling; Factor Analysis, Statistical; Female; Fertility; Fertilization; HIV Infections; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Humans; Intention; Male; Psychometrics; Reproducibility of Results; Self Efficacy; Social Stigma; Uganda
Keywords
HIV; Psychometric evaluation; Safer conception counseling; Safer conception methods; Uganda
Recommended Citation
Woldetsadik MA, Goggin K, Staggs VS, et al. Safer Conception Methods and Counseling: Psychometric Evaluation of New Measures of Attitudes and Beliefs Among HIV Clients and Providers. AIDS Behav. 2016;20(6):1370-1381. doi:10.1007/s10461-015-1199-3
Comments
Grant support