ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2026
Validity and reliability of the Chinese version of the Barriers to Physical Activity during Pregnancy Scale (BPAPS) in pregnant women.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite regular physical activity (PA) is beneficial to maternal health and her fetus, engagement in PA among pregnant women is inactive. It is essential to assess barriers to PA in this population to increase pregnant women's PA level. However, there is a lack of reliable and valid tools to evaluate barriers to PA during pregnancy in China. Therefore, the study aimed to translate and validate the Barriers to Physical Activity during Pregnancy Scale (BPAPS) in Chinese pregnant women.
methodsA study of 448 pregnant women was conducted in China from November to December 2023. After obtaining the author's permission, the translation of the BPAPS was carried out with a standardized procedure. The validity of the BPAPS was measured by the content validity, construct validity, and criterion validity in this study. The reliability of the BPAPS was evaluated using internal consistency and test-retest.
resultsThe final Chinese version of the BPAPS had four domains with 28 items. The content validity index of all items ranged from 0.875 to 1.000. Exploratory factor analysis extracted four factors, explaining 62.332% of the total variance. The four-factor model was confirmed. The initial model did not fit well. After modification, the final model had a reasonable fit to the data: the chi-square to degrees of freedom ratio was 2.439, the root mean-square-error of approximation was 0.068, the comparative fit index was 0.913, the incremental fit index was 0.913, and the tusker-lewis index was 0.903. This scale also had good criterion validity (r = 0.605, P<0.001). The Cronbach's alpha and intraclass correlation coefficient of the total scale were 0.942 and 0.860, indicating good reliability.
conclusionThe Chinese version of the BPAPS has good reliability and validity. It can be used as an effective tool to assess barriers to PA in Chinese pregnant women.
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.