Development of Pregnancy Risk Symptom Perception Scale

Mi Heyi Kim; So Young Choi

doi:10.4069/kjwhn.2018.24.3.297

Journal List > Korean J Women Health Nurs > v.24(3) > 1101325

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Kim and Choi: Development of Pregnancy Risk Symptom Perception Scale

Original Article

Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing 2018; 24(3): 297-309.

Published online: 20 September 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2018.24.3.297

Development of Pregnancy Risk Symptom Perception Scale

Mi Heyi Kim¹

, So Young Choi²

¹Assistant Professor, Department of Nursing, Cheongam College, Suncheon, Korea.

²Professor, College of Nursing, Institute of Health Science, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju, Korea.

Corresponding author: Choi, So Young. College of Nursing, Institute of Health Science, Gyeongsang National University, 816-15 Jinju-daero, Jinju 52727, Korea. Tel: +82-55-772-8241, Fax: +82-55-771-8210, css4214@gnu.ac.kr

Received 2 August 2018 Revised 1 September 2018 Accepted 5 September 2018

Korean Society of Women Health Nursing

(open-access):

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

To develop Pregnancy Risk symptom Perception Scale (PRPS) and evaluate its validity and reliability.

Methods

A preliminary 30-item version of PRPS was developed through literature review, in-depth interview, and Content Validity. Each item was scored on a four-point Likert scale. The preliminary scale was developed based on 301 pregnant women who visited a hospital. Date were analyzed using item analysis, factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, Pearson's correlation coefficients, and Cronbach's α (0.90 for total item, 0.80 to 0.88 for factors).

Results

The PRPS consisted of 27 items. Three factors (physical, environmental, and emotional factors) explained 55% of the total variance. Cronbach's Criterion validity was supported by comparison with the Perception of Pregnancy Risk Questionnaire (r=0.34). In reliability test, the reliability coefficient of pregnancy risk symptom perception was high at 0.90.

Conclusion

These results suggest that the pregnancy risk symptom perception scale developed in this study comprises items that can assess the level of pregnant women's pregnancy risk symptom perception in Korea. Its validity and reliability were proven. PRPS can be utilized to measure pregnant women's risk symptom perception during pregnancy. PRPS will contribute to the development of systematic prenatal care and effective risk management.

Keywords: Pregnancy, Risk, Symptom, Perception

Figures and Tables

Figure 1

Development phase of the pregnancy risk symptom perception scale.

Table 1

General Characteristics of the Subject (N=301)

^†Exclude missing values.

Table 2

Final Exploratory Factor Analysis (N=301)

^†Body, ^‡Environment, ^§Emotion, Elimination item: 16, 17, 18.

Table 3

Final Confirmation Factor Analysis (N=301)

Table 4

Goodness of Fit Indices (N=301)

Table 5

The Correlation and Discriminant Validity

Notes

This article is a condensed form of the first author's doctoral thesis from Gyeongsang university.

^{Conflict of Interest} This article is a condensed form of the first author's doctoral thesis from Gyeongsang university.

Summary Statement

▪ What is already known about this topic?

Although pregnancy complications and risk factors for pregnancy are high, health behavior and knowledge are low when perception of pregnancy risk is low. On the other hand, excessive perception of pregnancy risk can result in anxiety and fear of childbirth. It has negative impact on childbirth outcome.

▪ What this paper adds?

This study developed a pregnancy risk symptom perception scale for Korean pregnant women with proven validity and reliability. This PRPS consisted of 27 items, with physical, environmental, and emotional factors explaining 55% of the total variance. Criterion validity was supported by comparison with the Perception of Pregnancy Risk Questionnaire(r=0.34).

▪ Implications for practice, education and/or policy

Pregnancy risk symptom perception scale contributes to the development of systematic prenatal care and education for medical counseling and effective risk management programs for pregnant women visiting hospitals.

Appendix

Appendix 1

References

1. Whang RI, Kim GH, Youn JW, Lee JS. The trend of national health insurance service use among pregnant and postpartum women aged 35 years and older. Korean J Health Policy Adm. 2011; 21(4):585–598. DOI: 10.4332/KJHPA.2011.21.4.585.

2. Choi JH, Han HJ, Hwang JH, Chung SR, Moon H, Park MI, et al. Meta analysis of clinical studies of pregnancy and delivery in elderly gravida. Korean J Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 49(2):293–308.

3. Lee SS, Kim DH, Kim TH. Fertility differentials by demographic and socioeconomic characteristic: Analysis of Korean population census data. Korea J Popul Stud. 2006; 29(1):1–23.

4. National Statistical Office. Birth Statistics 2016 [Internet]. Seoul: Statistics Korea;2017. cited 2017 August 29. Available from: http://www.kostat.go.kr/portal/korea/kor_nw/2/1/index.board?bmode=read&aSeq=362574.

5. Lee JY, Choi US. Stress and coping style of high-risk pregnant women's spouses. Korean J Women Health Nurs. 2010; 16(3):234–244. DOI: 10.4069/kjwhn.2010.16.3.234.

6. Kim SM, Kim DS. The effect of parental socioeconomic position on the association between birth outcomes and infant mortality in Korea: Focusing on early and late 2000's. Korea J Popul Stud. 2012; 35(1):131–149.

7. Salem Yaniv S, Levy A, Wiznitzer A, Holcberg G, Mazor M, Sheiner E. A significant linear association exists between advanced maternal age and adverse perinatal outcome. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011; 283(4):755–759. DOI: 10.1007/s00404-010-1459-4.

8. Kim TE, Lee SP, Park JM, Whang BC, Kim SY. The effects of maternal age on outcome of pregnancy in healthy elderly primipara. Korean J Perinatol. 2009; 20(2):146–152.

9. Carolan MC. Towards understanding the concept of risk for pregnant women: Some nursing and midwifery implications. J Clin Nurs. 2009; 18(5):652–658. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2008.02480.x.

10. Richter MS, Parkes C, Chaw-Kant J. Listening to the voices of hospitalized high-risk antepartum patient. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2007; 36(4):313–318. DOI: 10.1111/j.1552-6909.2007.00159.x.

11. Bayrampour H, Heaman M, Duncan KA, Tough S. Comparison of perception of pregnancy risk of nulliparous women of advanced maternal age and younger age. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2012; 57(5):445–453. DOI: 10.1111/j.1542-2011.2012.00188.x.

12. Heaman M, Gupton A, Gregory D. Factors influencing pregnant women's perceptions of risk. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs. 2004; 29(2):111–116.

13. Lee S, Ayers S, Holden D. Risk perception of women during high risk pregnancy: A systematic review. Health Risk Soc. 2012; 14(6):511–531. DOI: 10.1080/13698575.2012.701277.

14. Kim MH, Choi SY. The comparative study for pregnancy stress, anxiety and birth outcomes of pregnant women under 35 years old and over 35 years old. J Korean Data Anal Soc. 2014; 16(4):2177–2190.

15. Heaman MI, Gupton AL. Psychometric testing of the perception of pregnancy risk questionnaire. Res Nurs Health. 2009; 32(5):493–503. DOI: 10.1002/nur.20342.

16. National Korean Language Institute. 2012 standard Korean dictionary [Internet]. Seoul: Author;2017. cited 2017 September 1. Available from: http://stdweb2.korean.go.kr/search/List_dic.jsd.

17. Lee YJ. Development of workplace bullying in nursing-consequence inventory (WPBN-CI). J Korea Acad Ind Coop Soc. 2016; 17(2):479–488. DOI: 10.5762/KAIS.2016.17.2.479.

18. Lynn MR. Determination and quantification of content validity. Nurs Res. 1986; 35(6):382–385.

19. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. 4th ed. New York: Allyn and bacon;2000. 966 p.

20. Seo UH. Statistical analysis using SPSS 18.0. Seoul: freedom academy;2010. 434 p.

21. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use. 4th ed. Oxfordshire county: Oxford university press;2009. p. 25–39.

22. Her S, Kim KH. Development and evaluation of job stress measurement tool for infection control nurse. J Korean Acad Nurs Adm. 2013; 19(5):622–635. DOI: 10.11111/jkana.2013.19.5.622.

23. Choi HJ. Study on the development of cultural competency scale for social workers. J Korean Soc Welf Adm. 2014; 16(2):55–91.

24. Choi JS. Pregnancy risk assessment mornitoring system. Health Welf Policy. 2012; 19:61–69.

25. Bae BY. Structural equation modeling with amos 19-principles and practices. Seoul: Chungram;2011. p. 229–239.

26. Joe YR, Kim JH. Confirmatory factor analysis of the Korean version of the Beck depression inventory: Testing configural and metric invariance across undergraduate and clinical samples. Korean J Clin Psychol. 2002; 21(4):843–857.

27. Sun TJ, Si GJ. Rearch methodology. Seoul: Hakjisa;2007. p. 163–211.

28. Lee GH, Shin SJ. Validity of instrument development research in Korean nursing research. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2013; 43(6):697–703. DOI: 10.4040/jkan.2013.43.6.697.

TOOLS

ORCID iDs

Mi Heyi Kim
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3687-0740

So Young Choi
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0766-2053

Similar articles