Skip to main content

Table 4 Methodological quality of studies on the measurement properties of the W-DEQ-PROM

From: The psychometric properties of fear of childbirth instruments: a systematic review

PROM

Authors, year, country

Measurement properties

Structural Validity

Internal consistency

Reliability

Construct validity

W-DEQ-A

K. Wjma', et al. [31], Sweden

NR

V (?)

V ( +)

V (in line with H1,H2 & H3)

Korukcu et al., [47], Turkey

V ( −)

I (?)

NR

A ( +) (in line with hypothesis 2)

A ( −) (in line with hypothesis 3)

A ( +) (in line with hypothesis 3)

Takegata et al., [53], Japan

A (?)

V (?)

A ( +)

V ( +) (in line with hypothesis 1)

A ( +) (in line with hypothesis 2)

V ( +) (in line with hypothesis 3)

Fenaroli & Saita, [63], Italy

V ( +)

V ( +)

NR

V ( +) (in line with hypothesis 2)

V ( −) (in line with hypothesis 2)

Lukasse et al., [48]

A (?)

V (?)

NR

NR

Abedi et al., [44], Iran

A (?)

V (-)

NR

A ( +) (in line with hypothesis 2)

A ( −) (in line with hypothesis 3)

Mortazavi, [66], Iran

V ( +)

V ( +)

NR

V ( +) (in line with hypothesis 1)

V ( +) (in line with hypothesis 2)

Moghaddam Hosseini et al., [49], Hungary

V ( +)

V ( +)

NR

A ( −) (in line with hypothesis 2

A ( +) (in line with hypothesis 2)

A ( +) (in line with hypothesis 3)

Andaroon et al., [67], Iran

A (?)

V ( −)

NR

A ( +) (in line with hypothesis 2)

A ( +) (in line with hypothesis 3)

Khwepeya et al., [55], Malawi

V ( −)

V ( −)

NR

V ( +) (in line with hypothesis 3)

A ( +) (in line with hypothesis 3)

Pitel et al., [50], Slovakia

A (?)

V ( −)

NR

I ( +) (in line with hypothesis 2)

I ( +) (in line with hypothesis 2)

I ( −) (in line with hypothesis 3)

I ( +) (in line with hypothesis 3)

I ( +) (in line with hypothesis 3)

Ortega-Cejas et al., [57], Spain

V ( −)

V (?)

A ( +)

NR

Onchonga et al., [56], Kenya

V ( −)

V (?)

NR

A ( −) (in line with hypothesis 2)

V ( −) (in line with hypothesis 3)

Lai et al., [64], China

A (?)

V (?)

A ( +)

A ( −) (in line with hypothesis 2)

V ( −) (in line with hypothesis 3)

Han et al., [46], China

V ( −)

V (?)

NR

V ( +) (in line with H1)

Massae et al., [65], Tanzania

A (?)

V (-)

NR

NR

Roosevelt et al. [51]

V (?)

I (?)

NR

V ( +) (in line with H1)

V ( +) (in line with H2)

Varela et al. [54], Greece

V ( +)

V ( +)

NR

V ( +) (in line with H2)

Souto et al., [52], Portugal

V ( +)

V ( +)

NR

NR

W-DEQ-B

K. Wjma', et al. [31], Sweden

NR

V (?)

V ( +)

NR

Fenaroli & Saita, [63], Italy

V ( +)

V ( +)

NR

V ( −) (in line with hypothesis 2)

V ( +) (in line with hypothesis 2)

Korukcu et al., [60], Turkey

V (-)

V (?)

NR

A ( −) (in line with hypothesis 2)

Takegata et al., [61], Japan

A (?)

V (?)

NR

A ( +) (in line with hypothesis 2)

Mortazavi, [66], Iran

V ( +)

V ( +)

NR

V ( +) (in line with hypothesis 2 and for factors 1, 2, 3 & 5)

V (-) (in line with hypothesis 2 and for factors 4, 6, 7)

Jha et al., [59], India

A (?)

V (-)

NR

I ( −) (in line with hypothesis 3)

Abbaspoor et al., [58], Iran

A (?)

V (-)

V ( +)

V (-)(in line with hypothesis 2)

Roldán-Merino et al., [62], Spain

V (-)

V (?)

A ( +)

NR

Lai et al., [64], China

V (-)

V (?)

A ( +)

A ( +) (in line with hypothesis 2)

V ( −) (in line with hypothesis 3)

Massae et al., [65], Tanzania

V ( +)

V ( +)

NR

NR

  1. Scores for methodological quality using COSMIN Risk of Bias Checklist: V (Very good), A (Adequate), D (Doubtful), I (Inadequate), NR (Not Reported); Generic hypothesis for Construct validity: H1 (hypothesis 1), H2 (hypothesis 2), H3 (hypothesis 3)