Persian version of the Barkin Index of Maternal Functioning (BIMF): a cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation

Abstract

Background Postpartum maternal functioning has the potential to affect the quality of interaction between mother and child. A proper assessment of maternal functioning requires a comprehensive and accurate tool. The objective of this study was to prepare a Persian version of the Barkin Index of Maternal Functioning (BIMF) and evaluate its psychometric properties in order to determine its applicability in Iranian mothers. Methods The BIMF was translated into Persian and then culturally adapted for Iranian women. After evaluating face and content validity, to perform factor analysis, a cross-sectional study was conducted using the Persian version of BIMF. The data was collected from two unique groups of 250 mothers (in all 500 mothers) who had infants 2 to 12-months old and who were selected using a two-stage cluster sampling method. Factor analysis, Pearson’s correlation, intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC), composite reliability (CR) and Cronbach’s alpha were employed in order to evaluate structural validity and reliability. Results Exploratory factor analysis resulted in a five-factor structure consisting of 20 items. Subsequently, confirmatory factor analysis (X 2/ df = 1.61, RMSEA = 0.050, GFI = 0.91, CFI = 0.91) confirmed that the Persian version had satisfactory goodness of fit. Reliability and internal consistency were confirmed with a CR of 0.77, an ICC of 0.87 and a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.81. Conclusions The findings indicated that the Persian version of the BIMF is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing maternal functioning among Iranian mothers.

Patient-reported outcome measures evaluating postpartum maternal health and well-being: a systematic review and evaluation of measurement properties

“…The Edinburgh postnatal depression scale (EPDS) had the most number of validation studies included (4) with a total number of 1,755 patients. 16,17,20,32 This was followed by City Birth trauma scale (CBTS) (3) with a total number of 1,648 patients, [45][46][47] Barkin Scale with 3 studies (N=831) 19,21,22 and Postnatal Bonding Questionnaire (PBQ) (N=466) [24][25][26]51 . There were 17 studies that examined the domain of mental health, six that evaluated role transition to motherhood, five that examined HRQoL.…”

Psychometric properties of the Barkin Index of Maternal Functioning with Ethiopian mothers

“…Consonant with the practice of several other researchers [11, 13, 14], we calculated a score for each subscale by adding responses on their respective items, and we calculated a composite total by adding responses to all 20 items. In order to confer meaning to participants’ responses in relation to the range of response options, we also divided these totals by the number of items on which each score was based.…”

“…Whether that is an accurate indication would require independent assessment, which was not conducted in this research. However, some reassurance might be taken from the mean of 91 on the 20 BIMF items in this research being similar to the mean of the 20 items in research where samples were composed solely of mothers who were not depressed [13, 17]. Furthermore, in samples that include a large proportion of mothers diagnosed with depression and who could therefore be expected to have lower 20-item BIMF scores, the mean based on those items has indeed been lower, for example, ranging from 81 down to 63 [7, 11, 17, 18].…”

“…Because previous research with the BIMF had revealed marked inconsistency regarding number and composition of factors in the scale [11][12][13][14], we did not conduct confirmatory factor analysis as a means of identifying the structure of the data. Instead, we conducted a series of exploratory factor analyses (EFAs).…”

“…Items 13, 14, and 17 loaded on a factor that we labeled Decision Making and Practicalities, and Items 5, 16, 18, and 20 loaded on the other factor, which we labeled Confidence, Enjoyment, and Satisfaction. Consonant with the practice of several other researchers [11,13,14], we calculated a score for each subscale by adding responses on their respective items, and we calculated a composite total by adding responses to all 20 items. In order to confer meaning to participants' responses in relation to the range of response options, we also divided these totals by the number of items on which each score was based.…”