Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Aug 14;17(1):123.
doi: 10.1186/s12978-020-00976-x.

Validation of family planning tool in the pastoralist community

Mussie Alemayehu  1 , Araya Abrha Medhanyie  2 , Elizabeth Reed  3 , Afework Mulugeta Bezabih  2
Affiliations

Validation of family planning tool in the pastoralist community

Mussie Alemayehu et al. Reprod Health. .

Abstract

Background: Pastoralist community, Afar, women felt that they are embedded in strong cultural and religious perspectives which promotes a high number of children, and discourages family planning (FP) use. They are multifaced factors which hinder women not to use FP and it is time to develop a context-based tool to understand the situation at the ground. However, we have a dearth of evidence on a reliable and valid tool. Therefore, this study aims in developing a reliable and valid tool that considers the women's knowledge, male involvement, attitude, and belief about whether most people approve or disapprove of the behavior to use or not use of FP.

Methods: A total of 891 married women participated in the study. Reviewing the literature, piloting, pretesting, and collecting the actual data were the steps we used to develop a reliable and valid tool. We used the integrated behavioral model (IBM) as a conceptual framework for developing the tool. The developing tool consists of 1) knowledge 2) perceived male involvement and 3) constructs of integrated behavioral model (IBM); expressional and instrumental attitude, subjective norm, self-efficacy, perceived control and intention to use of FP. The IBM items composed of direct and indirect measurement. In the analysis of the data, exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis was done. Independent t. test with cohen's d was used to calculate the effect size. The correlation coefficient was carried between the direct and indirect measurements of the items of the integrated behavioral model (IBM).

Results: A total of 891 pastoralist married women were included in the analysis of the reliability and validity of the tool. The mean age of the participants was 26.74(±6.45). The KMO value for all items was greater than 0.83 with a Bartlett test of sphericity of (p < 0.00). Thirteen items were used to measure the knowledge of the respondent towards FP use. The tool had 64.92 variances explained and Cronbach alpha of 0.85. Acceptable values of the fitness indices were obtained in the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) The items of knowledge towards FP had normed chi-square of 4.5, RMSEA with 90% CI of 0.064(0.056,.0.071), SRMR of 0.039, CFI of 0.969 and TLI of 0961. All the developed items had a Cohen's d ranges from 0.5 to 2. Moreover, the correlation test of the IBM ranges from 0.6 to 0.7 which shows a higher correlation between the measurement direct and indirect items.

Conclusion: The pastoralist community version of the FP questionnaire is a valid and reliable tool and can be used to measure future family planning use. The indirect measurement of the IBM constructs was a good item to measure FP. However, as a limitation of the study respondents may face difficulty in realizing the difference one item to another especially when items on the scale look so similar to her.

Keywords: Afar; Attitudes; Confirmatory; Contraceptive; Exploratory; Family planning; Married women; Pastoralist; Reliability; Validation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they don’t have a competing interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Parallel analysis scree plot of intention to use of FP
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
CFA factor loading
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. World Health Organization Department of Reproductive Health and Research (WHO/RHR) and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health/Center for Communication Programs (CCP). Family Planning. Global Handbook for Providers Updated 3Rd Edition. Knowledge fo [Internet]. 3rd ed. Geneva: Switzerland; 2018. Available from: https://www.fphandbook.org/sites/default/files/global-handbook-2018-full....
    1. Project P. Futures Group in collaboration with the Centre for Development and Population Activities (CEDPA) and research Triangle Institute (RTI). Strengthening Family Planning Policies And Programs In Developing Countries:An advocacy toolkit. Washington DCDecember 2005.
    1. Baschieri A, Cleland J, Floyd SA, Dube A, Msona A, Molesworth A, et al. Reproductive preference and contraceptive use: A comparison of monogamous and polygamous couples in Northern Malawi. J Biosoc Sci. 2013;45(145):22. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sharan M, Valente T. Spousal communication and family planning adoption: effects of a radio drama serial in Nepal. Int Fam Plan Perspec. 2002;28(1):16–25. doi: 10.2307/3088271. - DOI
    1. Shaikh BT, Mazhar SKA. Family planning and contraception in Islamic countries: an annotated bibliography. Germany: LAP Lambert Acadamic Publishing; 2012.