Childbearing Motivation Questionnaire
Adaptação e evidências de validade para o Brasil
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15448/1980-8623.2020.4.36089Palavras-chave:
análise fatorial confirmatório, confiabilidade, validade, Childbearing Motivation Questionnaire, adaptação transculturalResumo
O presente artigo objetiva descrever os procedimentos de adaptação e evidências iniciais de validade do Childbearing Motivation Questionnaire (CBQ) para o Brasil. O CBQ está constituído por duas escalas: a primeira avalia as motivações positivas para ter filhos (PCM) e a segunda, as motivações negativas (NCM). A adaptação foi realizada em cinco etapas: 1) tradução do instrumento; 2) síntese das versões traduzidas; 3) avaliação por juízes experts; 4) avaliação pelo público-alvo e 5) tradução reversa. Para a avaliação da estrutura fatorial realizou-se análises fatoriais exploratórias e confirmatórias em uma amostra de 1894 brasileiros de 18 a 68 anos de 25 estados do Brasil. A escala PCM apresentou uma solução fatorial de segunda ordem similar à proposta pelo autor enquanto a NCM apresentou uma estrutura unifatorial com boas propriedades psicométricas. Os resultados mostram o CBQ como um instrumento válido para a mensuração das motivações para ter filhos na população brasileira.
Downloads
Referências
Alexander, K. A., Perrin, N., Jennings, J. M., Ellen, J., & Trent, M. (2019). Childbearing motivations and desires, fertility beliefs, and contraceptive use among urban African-American adolescents and young adults with STI histories. Journal of Urban Health, 96(2), 171-180.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Nova Iorque: AERA.
Arnold, F. (1975). The Value of Children: A Cross-National Study, Volume One. Introduction and Comparative Analysis.
Avison, M. & Furnham, A. (2015). Personality and voluntary childlessness. Journal of Population Research, 32, 45-67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12546-014-9140-6
Bagozzi, R. P. & Loo, M. F. van (1978). Toward a general theory of fertility: A causal modeling approach. Demography, 15(3), 301-320. https://doi.org/10.2307/2060652
Banco Mundial. (s.d.). Tasa de fertilidad, total (nacimientos por cada mujer). Recuperado de https://datos. bancomundial.org/indicador/sp.dyn.tfrt.in
Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of crosscultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186-3191. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
Ten Berge, J. M. & Sočan, G. (2004). The greatest lower bound to the reliability of a test and the hypothesis of unidimensionality. Psychometrika, 69(4), 613-625.
Borsa, J. C., Damásio, B. F., & Bandeira, D. R. (2012). Adaptação e validação de instrumentos psicológicos entre culturas: algumas considerações. Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto), 22(53), 423-432. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-863X2012000300014
Borsa, J. C., & Nunes, M. L. T. (2011). Aspectos psicossociais da parentalidade: O papel de homens e mulheres na família nuclear. Psicologia Argumento, 29(64), 31-39. https://doi.org/10.7213/rpa.v29i64.19835
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: The Guilford Press.
Byrne, B. M. (2013). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge.
Campo-Arias, A. & Oviedo, H. C. (2008). Propiedades psicométricas de una escala: la consistencia interna. Revista Salud Pública, 10(5), 831-839.
Capron, C. & Atam, V. (2001). Comments on “Why have children in the 21st century?”. European Journal of Population/Revue européenne de Démographie, 17(1), 21-30.
Conselho Nacional de Saúde. (2016). Resolução nº 510/2016. Recuperado de http://conselho.saude.gov.br/resolucoes/2016/Reso510.pdf
Costello, A. B. & Osborne, J. (2005). Practical assessment, research & evaluation. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 10(7), 1-9.
Dor, A. & Cohen-Fridel, S. (2010). Perceived parenthood: Cross-cultural differences between Jewish and Arab emerging adults. Journal of Adult Development, 17(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-009-9074-y
Finocchario-Kessler, S., Sweat, M. D., Dariotis, J. K., Anderson, J. R., Jennings, J. M., Keller, J. M., Vyas, A. A., & Trent, M. E. (2012). Childbearing motivations, pregnancy desires, and perceived partner response to a pregnancy among urban female youth: does HIV-infection status make a difference? AIDS care, 24(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540121.2011.596514
Flores-Kanter, P. E., Dominguez-Lara, S., Trógolo, M. A., & Medrano, L. A. (2018). Best practices in the use of bifactor models: Conceptual grounds, fit indices and complementary indicators. Revista Evaluar, 18(3), 44-48.
Fundo de População das Nações Unidas. (2018). O poder da escolha. Direitos reprodutivos e transição demográfica. Recuperado de https://brazil.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/SWOP_2018.pdf
Gauthier, L., Sénécal, C., & Guay, F. (2007). Construction et validation de l’Échelle de motivation à avoir un enfant (EMAE). Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée/European Review of Applied Psychology, 57(2), 77-89.
Ghazanfarpour, M., Arghavani, E., Khadivzade, T., Saeidi, M., Kareshki, H. Irani, M., Heidari, E. & Dizavandi, F. (2018). Childbearing Motivation in Iranian Engaged Couples. International Journal of Pediatrics, 6(4), 7563-7568.
Gignac, G. E. (2016). The higher-order model imposes a proportionality constraint: That is why the bifactor model tends to fit better. Intelligence, 55, 57-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2016.01.006
Gjersing, L., Caplehorn, J. R. M., & Clausen, T. (2010). Cross-cultural adaptation of research instruments: language, setting, time and statistical considerations. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 10(1), 10-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-10-13
Hambleton, R. K. (2005). Issues, designs, and technical guidelines for adapting tests into multiple languages and cultures. In R. K. Hambleton, P. F. Merenda, & C. D.
Spielberger (Eds.), Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment (pp. 3-38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hoffman, L. W., & Hoffman, M. L. (1973). The value of children to parents.
International Test Commission. (2010). International Test Commission guidelines for translating and adapting tests (2. ed.). Recuperado de https://www.intestcom.org/files/guideline_test_adaptation_2ed.pdf
Irani, M. & Khadivzadeh, T. (2018). The relationship between childbearing motivations with fertility preferences and actual child number in reproductive-age women in Mashhad, Iran. Journal of Education and Health Promotion, 7, 175. https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_175_18
Jagannathan, R. (2005). Economic Crisis and Women’s Childbearing Motivations: The Induced Abortion Response of Women on Public Assistance. Brief Treatment & Crisis Intervention, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/brief-treatment/mhi029
Jovanović, V. (2015). A bifactor model of subjective well- -being: A re-examination of the structure of subjective well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 87, 45-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.07.026
Kennedy, J. E. (2005). Personality and motivations to believe, misbelieve, and disbelieve in paranormal phenomena. Journal of Parapsychology, 69(2), 263.
Khadivzade, T., Arghavani, E., Shokrollahi, P., Ghazanfarpour, M., & Kareshki, H. (2018). Factorial structure of the Persian version of Childbearing Questionnaire in first time engaged couples in Iran. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 38(4), 470-475. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443615.2017.1379967
Lara, S. A. D. & Rodríguez, A. (2017). Índices estadísticos de modelos bifactor. Interacciones: Revista de Avances en Psicología, 3(2), 59-65.
Lee, R. D., & Bulatao, R. A. (1983). The demand for children: A critical essay. Determinants of fertility in developing countries: a summary of knowledge, 233-287.
Lorenzo-Seva, U. & Ferrando, P. J. (2019). Robust Promin: a method for diagonall weighted factor rotation. Technical report, URV. Tarragona, Spain.
McClelland, D. C. & Pilon, D. A. (1983). Sources of adult motives in patterns of parent behavior in early childhood. Journal of personality and social psychology, 44(3), 564. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.3.564
McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Menéndez, M. D. C. R. & García, C. M. F. (2010). Empleo y maternidad: el discurso femenino sobre las dificultades para conciliar familia y trabajo. Cuadernos de Relaciones Laborales, 28(2), 257.
Miller, W. B. (1994). Childbearing motivations, desires, and intentions: A theoretical framework. Genetic, Social, and General. Psychology Monographs, 120(2), 223-258.
Miller, W. B. (1995) Chilbearing Motivations and its measurement, Journal of Biosocial Science, 27, 473-487. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932000023087
Miller, W. B. (2011). Differences between fertility desires and intentions: Implications for theory, research and policy. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, 9, 75-98. https://doi.org/10.2307/41342806
Miller, W. B., Millstein, S.G., & Pasta, D.J. (2008) The measurement of childbearing motivation in couples considering the use of assisted reproductive technology, Biodemography and Social Biology, 54(1), 8-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/19485565.2008.9989129
Miller, W.B., & Pasta, D. J. (1993). Motivational and Nonmotivational Determinants of Child-Number Desires, Population and Environment. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 15(2), 113-136. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02209405
Miller, W. B., Pasta, D. J., MacMurray, J., Chiu, C., Wu, S., & Comings, D. E. (1999). Genetic influences on childbearing motivation: A theoretical framework and some empirical evidence. In L. J. Severy & W. B. Miller (Eds.),
Advances in population: Psychosocial perspectives (Vol. 3, pp. 53-102). London, England: Jessica Kingsley.
Miller, W. B., Pasta, D. J., MacMurray, J., Muhleman, D., & Comings, D. E. (2000). Genetic influences on childbearing motivation: Further testing a theoretical framework. In J. L. Rodgers, D. C. Rowe, & W. B. Miller (Eds.), Genetic influences on human fertility and sexuality: Theoretical and empirical contributions from the biological and behavioral sciences (pp. 35-66). Boston, MA: Springer.
Morgan, S. P., & King, R. B. (2001). Why have children in the 21st century? Biological predisposition, social coercion, rational choice. European Journal of Population, 17(1), 3-20. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010784028474
Morgan, G.B., Hodge, K. J., Wells, K. E., & Watkins, M.W. (2015). Are fit indices biased in favor of bi-factor models in cognitive ability research?: A comparison of fit in correlated factors, higher-order, and bi factor models via Monte Carlo simulations. Journal of Intelligence, 3, 2–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence3010002
Mynarska, M. (2009). Individual fertility choices in Poland. Doctoral dissertation. Rostock: Rostock University.
Mynarska, M. & Rytel, J. (2014). Pomiar motywacji do posiadania dzieci wśród osób bezdzietnych. Polska adaptacja kwestionariusza motywów rodzicielskich. In Polskie Forum Psychologiczne (Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 522-543).
Mynarskay, M. & Rytek, J. (2017). From motives through desires to intentions: investigating the reproductive choices of childless men and women in Poland. Journal of Biosocial Science, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932017000190
Mynarska, M. & Rytel, J. (2020). Fertility Desires of Childless Poles: Which Childbearing Motives Matter for Men and Women? Journal of Family Issues, 41(1), 7-32.
Pezeshki, M. Z., Zeigham, B., & Miller, W. (2014). Measuring the Childbearing Motivation of couples referred to the Shiraz Health Center for premarital examinations. Journal of Biosocial Science, 37(1), 37 53. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932003006485
Pontello, A. C. S. & Wagner, A. (2008). Paternidade em tempos de mudança. Psicologia: Teoria e Prática, 10(1), 174-185.
Reise, S. P., Scheines, R., Widaman, K. F., & Haviland, M. G. (2013). Multidimensionality and structural coefficient bias in structural equation modeling: A bifactor perspective. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(1), 5-26.
Revelle, W. & Zinbarg, R. E. (2009). Coefficients alpha, beta, omega, and the glb: Comments on Sijtsma. Psychometrika, 74(1), 145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9102-z
Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P., & Haviland, M. G. (2016). Evaluating bifactor models: Calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychological Methods, 21(2), 137-150. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000045
Sina, M., Ter Meulen, R., & Carrasco de Paula, I. (2010). Human infertility: is medical treatment enough? A cross-sectional study of a sample of Italian couples. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology, 31(3), 158-167. https://doi.org/10.3109/0167482X.2010.487952
Sijtsma, K. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika, 74(1), 107.
Sireci, S. G., Yang, Y., Harter, J., & Ehrlich, E. J. (2006). Evaluating guidelines for test adaptations: A methodological analysis of translation quality. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(5), 557-567. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022106290478
Stucky, B. D., & Edelen, M. O. (2015). Using heierarchical IRT models to create unidimensional measures from multidimensional data. In S. P. Reise & D. A. Revicki (Eds.), Handbook of item response theory modeling: Applications to typical performance assessment (pp. 183-206). New York: Routledge.
Stucky, B. D., Thissen, D., & Orlando Edelen, M. (2013). Using logistic approximations of marginal trace lines to develop short assessments. Applied Psychological Measurement, 37(1), 41-57.
Tavares, L. P. (2016). Who Delays Childbearing? The Associations Between Time to First Birth, Personality Traits and Education. The European Journal of Population, 575-597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-016-9393-1
Timmerman, M. E. & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2011). Dimensionality Assessment of Ordered Polytomous Items with Parallel Analysis. Psychological Methods, 16, 209-220. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023353
Van Egeren, L. A. (2003). Prebirth predictors of coparenting experiences in early infancy. Infant Mental Health Journal: Official Publication of The World Association for Infant Mental Health, 24(3), 278-295. https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.10056
Varas, G. V. & Borsa, J. C. (2019). Revisión sistemática del estudio de las motivaciones para la parentalidad. Estudos e Pesquisas em Psicologia, 19(1), 261-283. https://doi.org/10.12957/epp.2019.43019
Zinbarg, R. E., Yovel, I., Revelle, W., & McDonald, R. P. (2006). Estimating generalizability to a latent variable common to all of a scale’s indicators: A comparison of estimators for ωh. Applied Psychological Measurement, 30(2), 121-144.
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2021 Psico
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Direitos Autorais
A submissão de originais para a Psico implica na transferência, pelos autores, dos direitos de publicação. Os direitos autorais para os artigos publicados nesta revista são do autor, com direitos da revista sobre a primeira publicação. Os autores somente poderão utilizar os mesmos resultados em outras publicações indicando claramente a Psico como o meio da publicação original.
Licença Creative Commons
Exceto onde especificado diferentemente, aplicam-se à matéria publicada neste periódico os termos de uma licença Creative Commons Atribuição 4.0 Internacional, que permite o uso irrestrito, a distribuição e a reprodução em qualquer meio desde que a publicação original seja corretamente citada.
