Evaluation of the Psychometric Properties of a Version of the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy for Women’s Partners

Abstract

<jats:p>BackgroundThe role of women’s partners in pregnancy planning has gained importance with the development of preconception care. The measurement of pregnancy planning/intention has also changed in the last two decades with the development of psychometric measures such as the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy (LMUP). This analysis aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of a version of the LMUP for women’s partners in the UK.&#x0D; MethodsThe LMUP items, adapted for completion by partners, were piloted and included in a survey of (mainly male) partners in three antenatal clinics in London, UK, as part of a study of pre-pregnancy health and care. The psychometric properties of the partner LMUP were assessed according to the principles of Classical Test Theory.&#x0D; ResultsThere were 575 partners of pregnant women in the sample, 573 (99.7%) being men. There were high comple-tion rates for all the LMUP items. The distribution of LMUP scores ranged from 1–12, with a negative skew (biased towards planned/intended pregnancies). In terms of reliability (internal consistency), Cronbach’s alpha was 0.69, item-rest correlations were &gt;0.2 for five items, and all inter-item correlations were positive. In terms of construct validity, principal components analysis showed that measurement was unidimensional, confirmatory factor analysis showed good model fit, and the convergent validity hypothesis of non-perfect, moderate-to-good agreement between couples’ LMUP scores was met.&#x0D; ConclusionsThe partner LMUP performed well in terms of reliability and validity according to internationally-accepted criteria for the performance of psychometric measures and can be used in future research on men and couples. However, we recommend further research relating to the concept of pregnancy planning/inten-tion among partners of all gender identities to understand whether additional content would enhance the measurement of the construct. In particular, we recommend further conceptual exploration with men who have experienced unplanned pregnancies.&#x0D; </jats:p>

Psychometric properties of the Dutch London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy for pregnant people and their partners

“…14 Lastly, our Mokken Scale analyses indicated a strong scale and showed that items correspond to a basic Guttman structure. 21,31 In line with previous validations, we found that item 1 (contraception) and item 6 (preparation) have the lowest contributions to the scale.…”

“…This is contrary to what was found in other validations of the LMUP for partners. 21 We expect that this difference was found as a consequence of selection bias, as we expect that partners with more positive feelings towards the pregnancy may be more likely to participate in our studies. This idea is supported by the fact that there was a significant difference in pregnancy intention for people that were linked to their partner in our dataset compared to people that did not have a linked partner.…”

“…In the development of the original LMUP and in later validation studies, classical test theory was used. 10,21 For the current validation, we applied this theory as well, and additionally, we used elements from modern test theory like several other validation studies have done. 11,13,19,27,28 As we have data from both people who were pregnant and partners, and as we have two slightly different versions for both groups (Table 1), we carried out the following analyses for these versions separately.…”

“…Although we expected a significant correlation between the scores, we did not expect perfect agreement, as a partner may have different pregnancy intentions compared to the pregnant person. 21…”

“…20 Up to now, the LMUP has been adapted several times for the purpose of measuring pregnancy intentions of pregnant people’s partners, and this has been validated in samples from the UK and Malawi. 21,22 Both studies showed promising results with regard to reliability and validity. However, previous studies were done in partners of people who chose to carry the pregnancy to term, mostly with quite intended pregnancies.…”