Cited by 1Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumPsychometric Methodologies and TestingHealth Education and Validation

Psychometric properties of the Decisional Conflict Scale in a sample of perinatal women with depressive symptoms: A study in Portugal and Norway

Open access
Lupattelli, Angela, Branquinho, Mariana, Cardoso, Catarina, Tauqeer, Fatima, Bjørndal, Ludvig D., Fonseca, Ana·2024·Patient Education and Counseling

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the psychometric properties, i.e., reliability and construct validity of the 16-item Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) and sub-scales in women with perinatal depressive symptoms in Norway and Portugal. METHODS: We included 415 women in Portugal and 163 in Norway (≥18 years) who were pregnant or had given birth in the last 12 months and presenting with active depressive symptoms. Women replied to the original DCS items. We conducted confirmatory factor analysis, estimated internal consistency reliability, and examined factorial invariance across country, perinatal status, and treatment uptake. RESULTS: The DCS factor model had good fit to the data, with all items loading significantly on their respective factor (.585 to .958). There was configural invariance of the DCS across countries, treatment, and perinatal status. The internal consistency of the total DCS (Cronbach's alpha) was .958, and for the subscales it ranged from .798 to .947. CONCLUSIONS: The DCS is a valid and reliable measure of the decisional conflict in women with perinatal depressive symptoms in Portugal and Norway. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Measuring the extent of decisional conflict regarding treatment and the effect of multiple interventions towards its reduction, is critical to facilitate the decision-making process of women with perinatal mental illness.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pec.2024.108337

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 36 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lupattelli, A., Branquinho, M., Cardoso, C., Tauqeer, F., Bjørndal, L. D., & Fonseca, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Oslo (NO)
  • University of Coimbra (PT)
Corresponding author
Lupattelli, Angela
Venue
Patient Education and Counseling
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-10
Volume
127
Pages
108337
ISSN
0738-3991 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4399040969
Cited by
1
References
36
Citations by year
2025: 1
FWCI
0.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Patient Education and Counseling (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • FCT (SFRH/BD/145563/2019)
  • Norges forskningsråd (288696)
  • European Environment Agency
  • EEA Grants and Norway Grants (FBR_0c1_70)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
Decisional Conflict Scale, perinatal depression, decisional conflict, psychometric properties, construct validity, measurement invariance, internal consistency, perinatal mental disorders, treatment decision-making, pregnant and postpartum women
MeSH terms
Adult, Conflict, Psychological, Decision Making, Depression, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Norway, Portugal, Pregnancy, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results, Pregnant Women, Pregnant People

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review