Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

The Birth Satisfaction Scale-Revised Indicator (BSS-RI)

Authors: Colin R. Martin, Caroline Hollins Martin, Maggie Redshaw

Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The current study sought to develop a short birth satisfaction indicator utilising items from the Birth Satisfaction Scale-Revised (BSS-R) for use as a brief measure of birth satisfaction and as a possible key performance indicator for perinatal service delivery evaluation.
Building on the recently developed BSS-R, the study aimed to develop a simplified version of the instrument to assess birth satisfaction easily that could work as a short evaluative measure of clinical service delivery for labour and birth that is consistent with policy documents, placing women at the centre of the birth experience.

Methods

The six item Birth Satisfaction Scale-Revised Indicator (BSS-RI) was embedded within the 2014 National Maternity Survey for England. A random selection of mothers who had given birth in a two week period in England were surveyed three months after the birth. Using a two-stage design and split-half dataset, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, internal consistency, convergent, divergent and known-groups discriminant validity evaluation were conducted in a secondary analysis of the survey data.

Results

Using this large population based survey of recent mothers the short revised measure was found to comprise two distinct domains of birth satisfaction, ‘stress and emotional response to labour and birth’ and ‘quality of care’. The psychometric qualities of the tool were robust as were the indices of validity and reliability evaluated.

Conclusion

The BSS-RI represents a short easily administered and scored measure of women’s satisfaction with care and the experience of labour and birth. The instrument is potentially useful for researchers, service evaluation and policy makers.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Department of Health. Changing childbirth: report of the expert maternity group (Cumberlege report). London: HMSO; 1993. Department of Health. Changing childbirth: report of the expert maternity group (Cumberlege report). London: HMSO; 1993.
2.
go back to reference Department of Health. The National Service Framework for children, young people and maternity services. London: Department of Health; 2004. Department of Health. The National Service Framework for children, young people and maternity services. London: Department of Health; 2004.
3.
go back to reference Department of Health. Maternity matters: choice, access and the continuity of Care in a Safe Service. London: Department of Health; 2007. Department of Health. Maternity matters: choice, access and the continuity of Care in a Safe Service. London: Department of Health; 2007.
4.
go back to reference The Care Quality Commission: Towards Better Births. London; 2008. The Care Quality Commission: Towards Better Births. London; 2008.
5.
go back to reference Redshaw M, Heikkila K. Delivered with care: a National Survey of Women’s experience of maternity care. Oxford: National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford; 2010. Redshaw M, Heikkila K. Delivered with care: a National Survey of Women’s experience of maternity care. Oxford: National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford; 2010.
6.
go back to reference The Care Quality Commission. National Findings from the 2013 Survey of Women’s experiences of maternity care. London: Care Quality Commission; 2013. The Care Quality Commission. National Findings from the 2013 Survey of Women’s experiences of maternity care. London: Care Quality Commission; 2013.
7.
go back to reference Redshaw M, Henderson J. Safely delivered: a National Survey of Women’s experience of maternity care. Oxford: National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford; 2015. Redshaw M, Henderson J. Safely delivered: a National Survey of Women’s experience of maternity care. Oxford: National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford; 2015.
8.
go back to reference Declercq ER, Sakala C, Corry MP, Applebaum S. Listening to Mothers II: Report of the Second National U.S. Survey of Women's Childbearing Experiences: Conducted January–February 2006 for Childbirth Connection by Harris Interactive(R) in partnership with Lamaze International. J Perinat Educ. 2007;16:9–17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Declercq ER, Sakala C, Corry MP, Applebaum S. Listening to Mothers II: Report of the Second National U.S. Survey of Women's Childbearing Experiences: Conducted January–February 2006 for Childbirth Connection by Harris Interactive(R) in partnership with Lamaze International. J Perinat Educ. 2007;16:9–17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
go back to reference Dzakpasu S, Kaczorowski J, Chalmers B, Heaman M, Duggan J, Neusy E. The Canadian maternity experiences survey: design and methods. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2008;30:207–16.CrossRefPubMed Dzakpasu S, Kaczorowski J, Chalmers B, Heaman M, Duggan J, Neusy E. The Canadian maternity experiences survey: design and methods. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2008;30:207–16.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Redshaw M, Martin CR. Validation of a perceptions of care adjective checklist. J Eval Clin Pract. 2009;15(2):281–8.CrossRefPubMed Redshaw M, Martin CR. Validation of a perceptions of care adjective checklist. J Eval Clin Pract. 2009;15(2):281–8.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Redshaw M, Martin CR, Rowe R, Hockley C. The Oxford worries about labour scale: Women’s experience and measurement characteristics of a measure of maternal concern about labour and birth. Psychol Health Med. 2009;14:354–66.CrossRefPubMed Redshaw M, Martin CR, Rowe R, Hockley C. The Oxford worries about labour scale: Women’s experience and measurement characteristics of a measure of maternal concern about labour and birth. Psychol Health Med. 2009;14:354–66.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Sawyer A, Ayers S, Abbott J, Gyte G, Rabe H, Duley L. Measures of satisfaction with care during labour and birth: a comparative review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013;13:108.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Sawyer A, Ayers S, Abbott J, Gyte G, Rabe H, Duley L. Measures of satisfaction with care during labour and birth: a comparative review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013;13:108.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
go back to reference Hollins Martin CJ, Fleming V. The birth satisfaction scale. Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2011;24(2):124–35.CrossRef Hollins Martin CJ, Fleming V. The birth satisfaction scale. Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2011;24(2):124–35.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Hollins Martin CJ, Martin CR. Development and psychometric properties of the birth satisfaction scale-revised (BSS-R). Midwifery. 2014;30(6):610–9.CrossRefPubMed Hollins Martin CJ, Martin CR. Development and psychometric properties of the birth satisfaction scale-revised (BSS-R). Midwifery. 2014;30(6):610–9.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Barbosa-Leiker C, Fleming S, Hollins Martin CJ, Martin CR. Psychometric properties of the birth satisfaction scale-revised (BSS-R) for US mothers. J Reprod Infant Psychol. 2015;33(5):504–11.CrossRef Barbosa-Leiker C, Fleming S, Hollins Martin CJ, Martin CR. Psychometric properties of the birth satisfaction scale-revised (BSS-R) for US mothers. J Reprod Infant Psychol. 2015;33(5):504–11.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Vardavaki Z, Hollins Martin CJ, Martin CR. Construct and content validity of the Greek version of the birth satisfaction scale (G-BSS). J Reprod Infant Psychol. 2015;33(5):488–503.CrossRef Vardavaki Z, Hollins Martin CJ, Martin CR. Construct and content validity of the Greek version of the birth satisfaction scale (G-BSS). J Reprod Infant Psychol. 2015;33(5):488–503.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Martin CR, Vardavaki Z, Hollins Martin CJ. Measurement equivalence of the birth satisfaction scale-revised (BSS-R): further evidence of construct validity. J Reprod Infant Psychol. 2016;34(4):394–402.CrossRef Martin CR, Vardavaki Z, Hollins Martin CJ. Measurement equivalence of the birth satisfaction scale-revised (BSS-R): further evidence of construct validity. J Reprod Infant Psychol. 2016;34(4):394–402.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Cetin FC, Sezer A, Merih YD. The birth satisfaction scale: Turkish adaptation, validation and reliability study. North Clin Istanb. 2015;2(2):142–50.PubMedPubMedCentral Cetin FC, Sezer A, Merih YD. The birth satisfaction scale: Turkish adaptation, validation and reliability study. North Clin Istanb. 2015;2(2):142–50.PubMedPubMedCentral
20.
go back to reference Hinic K. Predictors of breastfeeding confidence in the early postpartum period. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2016;45(5):649–60.CrossRefPubMed Hinic K. Predictors of breastfeeding confidence in the early postpartum period. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2016;45(5):649–60.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Burduli E, Barbosa-Leiker C, Fleming S, Hollins Martin CJ, Martin CR. Cross-cultural invariance of the birth satisfaction scale-revised (BSS-R): comparing UK and US samples. J Reprod Infant Psychol. 2017;35(3):248–60.CrossRef Burduli E, Barbosa-Leiker C, Fleming S, Hollins Martin CJ, Martin CR. Cross-cultural invariance of the birth satisfaction scale-revised (BSS-R): comparing UK and US samples. J Reprod Infant Psychol. 2017;35(3):248–60.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Fleming SE, Donovan-Batson C, Burduli E, Barbosa-Leiker C, Hollins Martin CJ, Martin CR. Birth satisfaction scale/birth satisfaction scale-revised (BSS/BSS-R): a large scale United States planned home birth and birth centre survey. Midwifery. 2016;41:9–15.CrossRefPubMed Fleming SE, Donovan-Batson C, Burduli E, Barbosa-Leiker C, Hollins Martin CJ, Martin CR. Birth satisfaction scale/birth satisfaction scale-revised (BSS/BSS-R): a large scale United States planned home birth and birth centre survey. Midwifery. 2016;41:9–15.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Dillman DA. Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 2007. Dillman DA. Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 2007.
25.
go back to reference Byrne BM. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications and programming. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group; 2010. Byrne BM. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications and programming. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group; 2010.
26.
go back to reference Kline P. A psychometrics primer. London: Free Association Books; 2000. Kline P. A psychometrics primer. London: Free Association Books; 2000.
27.
go back to reference Martin CR, Savage-McGlynn E. A ‘good practice’ guide for the reporting of design and analysis for psychometric evaluation. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology. 2013;31(5):449–55.CrossRef Martin CR, Savage-McGlynn E. A ‘good practice’ guide for the reporting of design and analysis for psychometric evaluation. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology. 2013;31(5):449–55.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2005. Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2005.
29.
go back to reference Shapiro SS, Wilk MB. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika. 1965;52(3–4):591–611.CrossRef Shapiro SS, Wilk MB. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika. 1965;52(3–4):591–611.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Mardia KV. Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika. 1970;57:519–30.CrossRef Mardia KV. Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika. 1970;57:519–30.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Mardia KV. Applications of some measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis in testing normality and robustness studies. Sankhyā: The Indian Journal of Statistics, Series B. 1974;36(2):115–28. Mardia KV. Applications of some measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis in testing normality and robustness studies. Sankhyā: The Indian Journal of Statistics, Series B. 1974;36(2):115–28.
32.
go back to reference Henze N, Zirkler B. A class of invariant consistent tests for multivariate normality. Communications in Statistics – Theory and Methods. 1990;19:3595–617.CrossRef Henze N, Zirkler B. A class of invariant consistent tests for multivariate normality. Communications in Statistics – Theory and Methods. 1990;19:3595–617.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Costello AB, Osborne J. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pract Assess Res Eval. 2005;10(7):1–9. Costello AB, Osborne J. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pract Assess Res Eval. 2005;10(7):1–9.
34.
go back to reference Fabrigar LR, Wegener DT, MacCallum RC, Strahan EJ. Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychol Methods. 1999;4(3):272–99.CrossRef Fabrigar LR, Wegener DT, MacCallum RC, Strahan EJ. Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychol Methods. 1999;4(3):272–99.CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Horn JL. A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika. 1965;30:179–85.CrossRefPubMed Horn JL. A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika. 1965;30:179–85.CrossRefPubMed
36.
go back to reference Kaiser HF. The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1960;20:141–51.CrossRef Kaiser HF. The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1960;20:141–51.CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Cattell RB. The scree test for the number of factors. Multivar Behav Res. 1966;1:245–76.CrossRef Cattell RB. The scree test for the number of factors. Multivar Behav Res. 1966;1:245–76.CrossRef
38.
go back to reference West R. Computing for psychologists. Chur: Harwood; 1991. West R. Computing for psychologists. Chur: Harwood; 1991.
39.
go back to reference Kline P. The handbook of psychological testing. London: Routledge; 1993. Kline P. The handbook of psychological testing. London: Routledge; 1993.
40.
go back to reference Flora DB, Curran PJ. An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychol Methods. 2004;9(4):466–91.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Flora DB, Curran PJ. An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychol Methods. 2004;9(4):466–91.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
go back to reference Lubke GH, Muthén BO. Applying multigroup confirmatory factor models for continuous outcomes to Likert scale data complicates meaningful group comparisons. Struct Equ Model. 2004;11(4):514–34.CrossRef Lubke GH, Muthén BO. Applying multigroup confirmatory factor models for continuous outcomes to Likert scale data complicates meaningful group comparisons. Struct Equ Model. 2004;11(4):514–34.CrossRef
42.
go back to reference Bentler PM, Bonett DG. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the evaluation of covariance structures. Psychol Bull. 1980;88:588–606.CrossRef Bentler PM, Bonett DG. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the evaluation of covariance structures. Psychol Bull. 1980;88:588–606.CrossRef
43.
go back to reference Hu LT, Bentler PM. Evaluating model fit. In: Structural Equation Modelling: Concepts, Issues and Applications. Edn. Edited by Hoyle RH. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1995. Hu LT, Bentler PM. Evaluating model fit. In: Structural Equation Modelling: Concepts, Issues and Applications. Edn. Edited by Hoyle RH. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1995.
44.
go back to reference Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model. 1999;6:1–55.CrossRef Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model. 1999;6:1–55.CrossRef
45.
go back to reference Schumacker RE, Lomax RG. A Beginner's guide to structural equation Modelling. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group; 2010. Schumacker RE, Lomax RG. A Beginner's guide to structural equation Modelling. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group; 2010.
46.
47.
go back to reference Graham JM. Congeneric and (essentially) tau-equivalent estimates of score reliability: what they are and how to use them. Educ Psychol Meas. 2006;66:930–44.CrossRef Graham JM. Congeneric and (essentially) tau-equivalent estimates of score reliability: what they are and how to use them. Educ Psychol Meas. 2006;66:930–44.CrossRef
48.
go back to reference Sijtsma K. On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach's alpha. Psychometrika. 2009;74(1):107–20.CrossRefPubMed Sijtsma K. On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach's alpha. Psychometrika. 2009;74(1):107–20.CrossRefPubMed
49.
go back to reference McDonald RP. The theoretical foundations of principal factor analysis, canonical factor analysis and alpha factor analysis. Br J Math Psychol. 1970;23(1):1–21.CrossRef McDonald RP. The theoretical foundations of principal factor analysis, canonical factor analysis and alpha factor analysis. Br J Math Psychol. 1970;23(1):1–21.CrossRef
50.
go back to reference McDonald RP. Test theory: a unified treatment. Mahwah: Erlbaum; 1999. McDonald RP. Test theory: a unified treatment. Mahwah: Erlbaum; 1999.
51.
go back to reference Zinbarg RE, Revelle W, Yovel I, Li W. Cronbach’s α, Revelle’s β, and McDonald’s ωh : their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika. 2005;70:123–33.CrossRef Zinbarg RE, Revelle W, Yovel I, Li W. Cronbach’s α, Revelle’s β, and McDonald’s ωh : their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika. 2005;70:123–33.CrossRef
52.
go back to reference Schmid J, Leiman JM. The development of hierarchical factor solutions. Psychometrika. 1957;22:53–62.CrossRef Schmid J, Leiman JM. The development of hierarchical factor solutions. Psychometrika. 1957;22:53–62.CrossRef
53.
go back to reference Feldt LS, Woodruff DJ, Salih FA. Statistical inference for coefficient alpha. Appl Psychol Meas. 1987;11:93–103.CrossRef Feldt LS, Woodruff DJ, Salih FA. Statistical inference for coefficient alpha. Appl Psychol Meas. 1987;11:93–103.CrossRef
55.
go back to reference R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2013. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2013.
56.
go back to reference Hollins Martin CJ, Snowden A, Martin CR. Concurrent analysis: validation of the domains within the birth satisfaction scale. J Reprod Infant Psychol. 2012;30:247–60.CrossRef Hollins Martin CJ, Snowden A, Martin CR. Concurrent analysis: validation of the domains within the birth satisfaction scale. J Reprod Infant Psychol. 2012;30:247–60.CrossRef
57.
go back to reference Hodnett ED. Pain and women's satisfaction with the experience of childbirth: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186(5 Suppl Nature):S160–72.PubMed Hodnett ED. Pain and women's satisfaction with the experience of childbirth: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186(5 Suppl Nature):S160–72.PubMed
58.
go back to reference Redshaw M. Women as consumers of maternity care: measuring "satisfaction" or "dissatisfaction"? Birth. 2008;35(1):73–6.CrossRefPubMed Redshaw M. Women as consumers of maternity care: measuring "satisfaction" or "dissatisfaction"? Birth. 2008;35(1):73–6.CrossRefPubMed
59.
go back to reference Waldenström U. Why do some women change their opinion about childbirth over time? Birth. 2004;31(2):102–7.CrossRefPubMed Waldenström U. Why do some women change their opinion about childbirth over time? Birth. 2004;31(2):102–7.CrossRefPubMed
60.
go back to reference Hollins Martin CJ. The birth satisfaction scale (BSS). Midwifery Matters. 2014;141:3–5. Hollins Martin CJ. The birth satisfaction scale (BSS). Midwifery Matters. 2014;141:3–5.
61.
go back to reference Raubenheimer J. An item selection procedure to maximise scale reliability and validity. SA J Ind Psychol. 2004;30(4):59–64.CrossRef Raubenheimer J. An item selection procedure to maximise scale reliability and validity. SA J Ind Psychol. 2004;30(4):59–64.CrossRef
62.
go back to reference Worthington RL, Whittaker TA. Scale development research: a content analysis and recommendations for best practices. Couns Psychol. 2006;34(6):806–38.CrossRef Worthington RL, Whittaker TA. Scale development research: a content analysis and recommendations for best practices. Couns Psychol. 2006;34(6):806–38.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
The Birth Satisfaction Scale-Revised Indicator (BSS-RI)
Authors
Colin R. Martin
Caroline Hollins Martin
Maggie Redshaw
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2393
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-017-1459-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2017 Go to the issue