The DOI matches its Crossref record.
THE CONSISTENCY AND VALIDITY OF REPRODUCTIVE ATTITUDES: EVIDENCE FROM MOROCCO
Abstract
Information on reproductive attitudes is now routinely collected in fertility surveys in developing countries, and has become very important for understanding fertility behaviour. The quality of this information, however, is rarely assessed, partly due to lack of necessary data. In this paper, the recently completed panel survey in Morocco by the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) was used to investigate the consistency of reporting of ideal number of children, reproductive intentions and the planning status of the last birth. The validity of reproductive intentions for subsequent fertility behaviour was also examined. The findings indicate that the three measures of reproductive attitudes are subject to different degrees of measurement error. The measure of reproductive intentions is the most consistent of the three, followed by ideal number of children. The latter is much more consistent at the aggregate level than at the individual level. The reliability of the planning status of the last birth is marred, mainly by an unwanted child being reclassified as 'wanted' with time since the birth of the child. The reproductive intentions of women were also found to be positively related to their subsequent fertility.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Stephenson, J., Heslehurst, N., Hall, J., Schoenaker, D. A. J. M., Hutchinson, J., Cade, J. E., Poston, L., Barrett, G., Crozier, S. R., Barker, M., et al. (2018) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(18)30311-8 · Cited by 1,222
Intended and Unintended Pregnancies Worldwide in 2012 and Recent Trends
Sedgh, G., Singh, S., & Hussain, R. (2014) · Studies in Family Planning · doi:10.1111/j.1728-4465.2014.00393.x · Cited by 1,040
Unintended pregnancy: worldwide levels, trends, and outcomes.
Singh, S., Sedgh, G., & Hussain, R. (2010) · Studies in Family Planning · doi:10.1111/j.1728-4465.2010.00250.x · Cited by 731
Family Planning and the Burden of Unintended Pregnancies
Tsui, A. O., McDonald-Mosley, R., & Burke, A. E. (2010) · Epidemiologic Reviews · doi:10.1093/epirev/mxq012 · Cited by 434
Abortion Worldwide 2017: Uneven Progress and Unequal Access
Singh, S., Remez, L., Sedgh, G., Kwok, L., & Onda, T. (2018) · doi:10.1363/2018.29199 · Cited by 432
Metadata
- Authors
- BANKOLE, A., & WESTOFF, C. F.
- Venue
- Journal of Biosocial Science
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1998-10
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 439-455
- ISSN
- 0021-9320 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-7599
- OpenAlex
- W2005651472
- Cited by
- 223
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: THE CONSISTENCY AND VALIDITY OF REPRODUCTIVE ATTITUDES: EVIDENCE FROM MOROCCO. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0021932098004398
- The paper
- BANKOLE, A., & WESTOFF, C. F. (1998). THE CONSISTENCY AND VALIDITY OF REPRODUCTIVE ATTITUDES: EVIDENCE FROM MOROCCO. Journal of Biosocial Science. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0021932098004398
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.