Safer Conception Methods and Counseling

Psychometric Evaluation of New Measures of Attitudes and Beliefs Among HIV Clients and Providers

Published in: AIDS and Behavior, 2015

Posted on RAND.org on November 20, 2015

by Mahlet Atakilt Woldetsadik, Kathy Goggin, Vincent S. Staggs, Rhoda K Wanyenze, Jolly Beyeza-Kashesya, Deborah Mindry, Sarah Finocchario-Kessler, Sarah Khanakwa, Glenn Wagner

Read More

Access further information on this document at AIDS and Behavior

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

With data from 400 HIV clients with fertility intentions and 57 HIV providers in Uganda, we evaluated the psychometrics of new client and provider scales measuring constructs related to safer conception methods (SCM) and safer conception counselling (SCC). Several forms of validity (i.e., content, face, and construct validity) were examined using standard methods including exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Internal consistency was established using Cronbach's alpha correlation coefficient. The final scales consisted of measures of attitudes towards use of SCM and delivery of SCC, including measures of self-efficacy and motivation to use SCM, and perceived community stigma towards childbearing. Most client and all provider measures had moderate to high internal consistency (alphas 0.60–0.94), most had convergent validity (associations with other SCM or SCC-related measures), and client measures had divergent validity (poor associations with depression). These findings establish preliminary psychometric properties of these scales and should facilitate future studies of SCM and SCC.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation external publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.