International Journal of Infertility & Fetal Medicine

Register      Login

VOLUME 13 , ISSUE 2 ( May-August, 2022 ) > List of Articles


Content Validity of a Scale Measuring Psychosocial Stress Factors among Infertile Women in Treatment

Maya Rathnasabapathy, Deviga Subramani

Keywords : Content validity, Infertility, Psychosocial, Stress

Citation Information : Rathnasabapathy M, Subramani D. Content Validity of a Scale Measuring Psychosocial Stress Factors among Infertile Women in Treatment. Int J Infertil Fetal Med 2022; 13 (2):78-81.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10016-1285

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 16-06-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Infertility is highly prevalent in women. While women are focusing on self-development and financial independence before starting a family and the age of marriage is on the rise resulting in infertility. It is vital to understand and explore the emotional difficulties women experience at this stage. Thus, the researcher conducted in-depth interviews with 20 infertile women from infertility clinics and, using related reviews, generated 135 items. On the basis of repetition and representativeness of the construct, the scale was reduced to 95 items which were validated. The content validity using both qualitative and quantitative methods ensured the representativeness and validity of the scale. The researcher procured expert opinions for each item of the scale, and content validity ratio (CVR) and content validity index (CVI) was obtained. The scale was given to 11 experts representing Gynecology and Psychology; and was requested to comment on the items on the basis of “Relevance,” “Clarity,” and “Necessity.” Thus, the experts had to check if the items represented the psychosocial sources of stress infertile women experienced during treatment and they also were pertaining to the dimensions. The CVR, CVI, and Kappa values were calculated. The items with CVR of 0.75 and above were retained, with 0.50 and below eliminated, and between 0.75 and 0.50 were modified and retained. The CVI for Relevance and Clarity indicates that 75 of the items are “appropriate” and five items required revision; 74 of the items are “Clear,” and six items required revision. Thus, the number of items was 80 after content validity. The Fleiss's Kappa value of 1 for “Necessity,” “Relevance,” and “Clarity” indicates that the inter-rater agreement of the scale is “almost perfect agreement.”

  1. Wischmann T, Scherg H, Strowitzki T, et al. Psychosocial characteristics of women and men attending infertility counselling. Hum Reprod 2009;24(2):378–385. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/den401
  2. Boivin J. Guidelines for counselling in infertility: outline version. Hum Reprod 2001;16(6):1301–1304. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/16.6.1301
  3. Haica C. The effect of psychological intervention on infertile couples quality of life during ART medical treatment. 2018;8.
  4. Gameiro S, Boivin J, Dancet E, et al. ESHRE guideline: routine psychosocial care in infertility and medically assisted reproduction—a guide for fertility staff. Hum Reprod 2015;30(11):2476–2485. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dev177
  5. Allen MJ, Yen WM. Introduction to measurement theory. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Inc.[Context Link]. 1979.
  6. Anastasi A, Urbina S. Psychological testing. New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India; 2007.
  7. Nevo B. Face validity revisited. J Educ Meas 1985;22(4):287–293. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1985.tb01065.x
  8. Cronbach LJ. Test validation. In R. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational Measurement (2nd edition) 1971;443.
  9. Carmines EG, Zeller RA. Reliability and validity assessment. SAGE Open Med 1979. DOI: 10.4135/9781412985642
  10. Waltz CF, Strickland O, Lenz ER. Measurement in nursing research. FA Davis 1991;19–41.
  11. Suen HK, Ary D. Analyzing quantitative behavioral observation data. Psychology Press 2014;376. DOI: 10.4324/9781315801827
  12. Murphy KR, Davidshofer C. Psychological testing: principles and applications. Pearson.
  13. Lawshe CH. Inferences from personnel tests and their validity. Am J Appl Psychol 1985;70(1):237. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.70.1.237
  14. Lynn MR. Determination and quantification of content validity. Nurs Res 1986;35(6):382–385.
  15. Safikhani S, Sundaram M, Bao Y, et al. Qualitative assessment of the content validity of the dermatology life quality index in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. J Dermatol Treat 2013;24(1):50–59. DOI: 10.3109/09546634.2011.631980
  16. Lawshe C. A quantitative approach to content validity. Pers Psychol 1975;28(4):563–575.
  17. Davis LL. Instrument review: getting the most from a panel of experts. Appl Nurs Res 1992;5(4):194–197. DOI: 10.1016/s0897-1897(05)80008-4
  18. Grant JS, Davis LL. Selection and use of content experts for instrument development. Res Nurs Health 1997;20(3):269–274.
  19. Waltz CF, Bausell BR. Nursing research: design statistics and computer analysis. FA Davis 1981.
  20. Guion RM. Content validity—The source of my discontent. Appl Psychol Meas 1977;1(1):1–10. DOI: 10.1177/014662167700100103
  21. Hambleton RK, Rogers HJ. Advances in criterion–referenced measurement. Advances in Educational and Psychological Testing 1991:3-43. Springer, Dordrecht.
  22. Tittle CK. Use of judgmental methods in item bias studies. Handbook of methods for detecting test bias 1982;1:31–63.
  23. Wynd CA, Schmidt B, Schaefer MA. Two quantitative approaches for estimating content validity. West J Nurs Res 2003;25(5):508–518. DOI: 10.1177/0193945903252998
  24. Yaghmaie F. Content validity and its estimation. J Med Educ 2003;3(1):25–27.
  25. Gable RK, Wolf MB. Instrument development in the affective domain: measuring attitudes and values in corporate and school settings.
  26. Nunnally JC. Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill 1994;3.
  27. Brennan P, Hays B. Focus on psychometrics the kappa statistic for establishing interrater reliability in the secondary analysis of qualitative clinical data. Res Nurs Health 1992;15(2):153–158. DOI: 10.1002/nur.4770150210
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.