Tayebeh Mokhtari Sorkhani1 
, Seyed Saeed Mazloomy Mahmoodabad1 , Mahshid Bokaie2 , Manoj Sharma3 , Farzan Madadizadeh4
, Seyed Saeed Mazloomy Mahmoodabad1 , Mahshid Bokaie2 , Manoj Sharma3 , Farzan Madadizadeh4
1- Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Non-Communicable Diseases Research Institute, Department of Health Education and Health Promotion, School of Public Health, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran
2- Research Center for Nursing and Midwifery Care, Comprehensive Research Institute for Maternal and Child Health, Department of Midwifery, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran
3- Department of Social and Behavioral Health, School of Public Health, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, United States of America; Department of Internal Medicine, Kirk Kerkorian School of Medicine at UNLV, Las Vegas, United States of America
4- Medical Informatics Research Center, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran ,statlearningeasy@gmail.com
2- Research Center for Nursing and Midwifery Care, Comprehensive Research Institute for Maternal and Child Health, Department of Midwifery, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran
3- Department of Social and Behavioral Health, School of Public Health, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, United States of America; Department of Internal Medicine, Kirk Kerkorian School of Medicine at UNLV, Las Vegas, United States of America
4- Medical Informatics Research Center, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran ,
Abstract: (22 Views)
Background: Declining fertility and childbearing are significant public health concerns. The Multi-Theory Model (MTM), which addresses both the initiation and maintenance of behavior, may provide a useful framework for promoting childbearing intentions.However, no validated theory based instrument currently exists to measure MTM constructs in this context. Therefore, this study aimed to develop and validate a Persian questionnaire based on MTM to assess childbearing intentions among women of reproductive age.
Methods: A cross-sectional descriptive survey was conducted in 2025 with 275 married women recruited from comprehensive health centers in Yazd, Iran. Women with only one child and willing to participate from the selected health centers were included in this study. An initial 37-item researcher-developed instrument based on MTM was refined through expert evaluation (CVR, CVI) and quantitative face validity (impact score). Construct validity was assessed via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and reliability evaluated usingvia Cronbach’s alpha and test–retest ICC analyzed with SPSS 22 and AMOS21.
Results: During the psychometric validation process, four items were removed. The final questionnaire with 33-items demonstrated high reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.93; construct-level α = 0.71–0.92; test–retest ICC =0.81 (95% CI: 0.68–0.90)) and acceptable construct validity (CFA: CFI =0.932, TLI =0.921, RMSEA = 0.06, χ²/df =1.97). Content validity was strong, with CVR ranging from 0.62–1, S-CVI/Ave =0.929, and overall CVI =0.91. All items also showed acceptable face validity (impact score >1.5).
Conclusion: The validated MTM-based Persian childbearing intention questionnaire is a reliable and valid tool for assessing childbearing intentions among women with only one child. It can guide public health research, educational interventions, and policy planning to support informed reproductive decisions.
Methods: A cross-sectional descriptive survey was conducted in 2025 with 275 married women recruited from comprehensive health centers in Yazd, Iran. Women with only one child and willing to participate from the selected health centers were included in this study. An initial 37-item researcher-developed instrument based on MTM was refined through expert evaluation (CVR, CVI) and quantitative face validity (impact score). Construct validity was assessed via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and reliability evaluated usingvia Cronbach’s alpha and test–retest ICC analyzed with SPSS 22 and AMOS21.
Results: During the psychometric validation process, four items were removed. The final questionnaire with 33-items demonstrated high reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.93; construct-level α = 0.71–0.92; test–retest ICC =0.81 (95% CI: 0.68–0.90)) and acceptable construct validity (CFA: CFI =0.932, TLI =0.921, RMSEA = 0.06, χ²/df =1.97). Content validity was strong, with CVR ranging from 0.62–1, S-CVI/Ave =0.929, and overall CVI =0.91. All items also showed acceptable face validity (impact score >1.5).
Conclusion: The validated MTM-based Persian childbearing intention questionnaire is a reliable and valid tool for assessing childbearing intentions among women with only one child. It can guide public health research, educational interventions, and policy planning to support informed reproductive decisions.
Keywords: Fertility, Intention, Reproductive Behavior, Reproductive Health, Psychometrics, Multi-Theory Model, Validation
Type of study: Original Article |
Subject:
Midwifery
References
1. Khani S, Mohammadzade H, Abbasi-Shavazi MJ. The intergenerational comparison of marriage and childbearing ideals with emphasis on background characteristics in Sanandaj district. Social Problems of Iran. 2019;9(2):49-76. [View at Publisher] [Google Scholar]
2. Dong W-H, Wang X, Yuan F, Wang L, Gu T-M, Zhu B-Q, et al. Will a government subsidy increase couples’ further fertility intentions? A real-world study from a large-scale online survey in Eastern China. Human Reproduction Open. 2024;2024(4):hoae055. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
3. Esmaeili N, Abbasi-Shavazi MJ. Impact of family policies and economic situation on low fertility in Tehran, Iran: A multi-agent-based modeling. Demographic Research. 2024;51:107-54. [View at Publisher] [Google Scholar]
4. Azarbakhsh H, Dehghani SP. The Future of Iran with a Decrease in the Total Fertility Rate. Arch Iran Med. 2025;28(4):255-6. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
5. Hosseini B, Esmaiili M, Farahbakhsh K, Salarifar MH. The pattern of childbearing motivation is based on the lived experiences of families with at least one child. The Women and Families Cultural-Educational. 2023;18(65):45-68. [View at Publisher]
6. Bhattacharjee NV, Schumacher AE, Aali A, Abate YH, Abbasgholizadeh R, Abbasian M, et al. Global fertility in 204 countries and territories, 1950–2021, with forecasts to 2100: a comprehensive demographic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. The lancet. 2024;403(10440):2057-99. [View at Publisher] [Google Scholar]
7. Nejati M, Shakibaei A, Gholami M. Investigating the Relationship between Population Structure and Poverty. Social Welfare. 2023;22(87):35-72. [View at Publisher] [Google Scholar]
8. Alami A, Esmailzade M, Esmaeili R, Matlabi M, Ekrami Noghabi A, Saberi M. Effectiveness of an educational intervention based on the theory of planned behavior on fertility intention of single-child women: A field trial study. Internal Medicine Today. 2020;26(3):212-27. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
9. Simbar M, Ramezani Tehrani F, Hashemi Z. Sexual-reproductive health belief model of college students. Iran South Med J. 2004;7(1):70-8. [View at Publisher] [Google Scholar]
10. Dehkordi ZR, Moghaddam EA, Babaeifar S, Shams-Abadi AD, Sourinejad H. The impact of a theory of planned behavior-based training on the behavioral intention of childless couples in Shahrekord. JMDC. 2023;12(3):143-51. [View at Publisher] [DOI]
11. Abbasi Shavazi M, Sharma M, Mokhtari Sorkhani T. Multi-Theory Model (MTM) and change in childbearing behavior: A perspective. J Res Dev Nurs Midw. 2024;21(3):1-2. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
12. Cook DA, Beckman TJ. Current concepts in validity and reliability for psychometric instruments: theory and application. Am J Med. 2006;119(2):166.e7-16. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
13. DeVon HA, Block ME, Moyle‐Wright P, Ernst DM, Hayden SJ, Lazzara DJ, et al. A psychometric toolbox for testing validity and reliability. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2007;39(2):155-64. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
14. Cook DA, Zendejas B, Hamstra SJ, Hatala R, Brydges R. What counts as validity evidence? Examples and prevalence in a systematic review of simulation-based assessment. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2014;19(2):233-50. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
15. Ardian N, Afshani SA, Morowatisharifabad MA, Mahmoodabad SSM, Vaezi AA, Refahi SAA, et al. Evaluating reliability of theory of planned behaviour questionnaire for withdrawal of divorce petition. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2018;6(8):1512. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
16. Ghazanfarpour M, Sorkhani TM, Tajadiny L, Zeynivandnezhad F, Ahmadi A, Habibzadeh V, et al. Psychometric and clinical assessment of the Persian-SCREENIVF among infertile couples. Heliyon. 2023;9(12):e22950. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
17. Zhu F, Liu C, Qi J, Bian Y, Pang L, Lu Q. Psychometric properties of the Fertility Intention Scale among patients with breast cancer of childbearing age in mainland China. Asia Pac J Oncol Nurs. 2022;9(8):100100. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
18. Moeini B, Erfani A, Barati M, Doosti-Irani A, Hosseini H, Soheylizad M. Development and psychometric properties of an extended theory of planned behavior questionnaire for childbearing intentions and behaviors in Iran. Korean J Fam Med. 2023;44(2):109-16. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
19. Maroufizadeh S, Ghaheri A, Amini P, Samani RO. Psychometric properties of the fertility quality of life instrument in infertile Iranian women. Int J Fertil Steril. 2017;10(4):371-9. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
20. Alaska YA, Alqahtani NM, Al Zahrani AK, Alshahri R, Malyani RZ, Alkutbe RB. Evaluating the content and face validity of Arabic-translated Patient Measures of Safety survey PMOS-30. Plos one. 2024;19(6):e0304151. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
21. Armal A, Mokhtarinia H, Biglarian A, Abdi K. Face and convergent validity of persian version of rapid office strain assessment (ROSA) checklist. jrehab. 2016;16(4):356-65. [View at Publisher] [Google Scholar]
22. Arabi S, Rezaee M, Sahaf R, Rassafiani M, Hosseini H, Mirzakhany N, et al. Validity and reliability of the Persian version of measurement of the quality of life of people with disabilities. pajoohande. 2014;19(2):91-8. [View at Publisher] [Google Scholar]
23. Ebadi A, Sharif Nia H, Zareiyan A, Zarshenas L. Instrument development in health sciences. Tehran: Jame-e-Negar. 2019:282.
24. Polit DF, Yang FM. Measurement and the Measurement of Change: A Primer for the Health Professions: Wolters Kluwer; 2016. [View at Publisher] [Google Scholar]
25. Bouih A, Benattabou D, Nadif B, Benhima M, Benfilali I. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis Study. EJPER. 2022;5(2):145-60. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
26. Hu Lt, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal. 1999;6(1):1-55. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
27. Mokkink LB, Boers M, Van Der Vleuten C, Bouter LM, Alonso J, Patrick DL, et al. COSMIN Risk of Bias tool to assess the quality of studies on reliability or measurement error of outcome measurement instruments: a Delphi study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):293. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
28. Avizhgan M, Mirshah Jafari E, Nasr AR, Changiz T. Designing a tool for curriculum leadership development in postgraduate programs. jmed. 2016;11(1):11-26. [View at Publisher] [Google Scholar]
29. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155-63. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
30. Karimi M, Shafiee Motlagh M, Golmohammadi R, Aliabadi M, Farhadian M. Designing and Developing a Questionnaire to Evaluate the Lighting of the Working Environments of Hospitals. Journal of Health. 2023;13(4):590-603. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
31. Mills MA, Rindfuss RR, McDonald PF, te Velde ER. Why do people postpone parenthood? Reasons and social policy incentives. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17(6):848-60. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
32. Seraj Shirvan F, Moradi M, Latifnejad Ruodsari R. A systematic review of the childbearing needs of single-child couples. BMC Women's Health. 2024;24(1):83. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
33. Rahmanian V, Rahmanian K, Rahmanian M, Sharifi N. Exploring Gender Preference, Marriage Age, and Family Size Aspirations among Prospective Spouses in Jahrom, Southern Iran. Journal of Health Sciences & Surveillance System. 2024;12(3):294-301. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
34. Naghibi SA, Khazaee-Pool M, Moosazadeh M. Psychometric properties of fertility desire scale (FDS) developed for Iranian parents. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):1113. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
35. Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen M. Structural Equation Modeling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit. EJBRM. 2008;6(1):53-60. [View at Publisher]
36. Taebi M, Kariman N, Montazeri A, Alavi Majd H, Jahangirifar M. Development and psychometric properties of Female Infertility Stigma Instrument (ISI-F): A sequential mixed method study. BMC Womens Health. 2022;22(1):557. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
37. Reisi M, Kazemi A. Design and psychometric evaluation of the collaborative coping with infertility questionnaire in candidate of assisted reproductive techniques. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):10804. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
38. Romeiro J, Nogueira P, Caldeira S, editors. Validation of the Portuguese version of the Fertility Adjustment Scale. Healthcare. 2022;10(3):563. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
39. Abe K, Nitta M, Chiba K, Tsujita S, Takada Y, Sasaki M, et al. Development and validation of scales measuring individual, nursing unit, hospital, and community factors related to fertility intentions of female Japanese hospital nurses. BMC Womens Health. 2025;25(1):82. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
40. Li J, Zhang K, Jiang X, Chen X, Pan Y, Xie C, et al. Translation and validation of the childbearing questionnaire for the nursing population in the context of China’s three-child policy: a multicenter cross-sectional study. BMC Nurs. 2025;24(1):868. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
