ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the maternity-monitoring scale by parents.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPostpartum depression (PPD) affects women globally, yet self-report tools like the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) face cultural and reporting biases. The parent-rated Maternity-monitoring Scale by Parents (MMSP), developed to address these gaps, was culturally adapted for China. This study validated the Chinese MMSP, offering a complementary tool to enhance PPD detection through familial observations.
methodsMMSP was translated and back translated using the modified Brislin translation model, and the Chinese test version of MMSP was formed after expert discussion, cultural debugging, and pre-investigation. From September to October 2024, convenience sampling was used to select 282 pregnant women and their parents from a Class A tertiary hospital in Henan Province to investigate the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of MMSP.
resultsThe Chinese version of MMSP consists of 15 items. The correlation coefficients between the scores of each item and the total score of the scale range from 0.873 to 0.935 (P < 0.05), and the critical ratios of each item range from 12.363 to 14.758 (P < 0.05). Exploratory factor analysis extracted one common factor with a cumulative variance contribution rate of 82.007%. The scale's item-level content validity index (I-CVI) ranges from 0.83 to 1, and the scale's average content validity index (S-CVI/Ave) is 0.93. Using the Chinese version of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale as the criterion, the criterion-related validity of MMSP is 0.972 (P < 0.05). The Cronbach's α coefficient of the Chinese version of MMSP is 0.984, and the split-half reliability is 0.988.
conclusionThe Chinese version of MMSP has good reliability and validity, which can be used to effectively evaluate the depression status of postpartum women in clinical practice and help medical staff identify and intervene in potential depressive symptoms early.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.