Development and psychometric properties of the maternal ambivalence scale in spanish women.

Magdalena Belén Martín-Sánchez, Verónica Martínez-Borba, Patricia Catalá, Jorge Osma, Cecilia Peñacoba-Puente, Carlos Suso-Ribera

Journal: BMC pregnancy and childbirth 2022;22(1):625

PMID: 35933351

Abstract

BACKGROUND

maternal ambivalence, which refers to experiencing mixed emotions about motherhood, like happiness and sadness, is frequent during the perinatal period.

AIM

Due to the relevance of this topic and the lack of psychometrically-sound instruments to measure it, this study aims to develop and test a measure of maternal ambivalence called the Maternal Ambivalence Scale (MAS).

METHODS

in this cross-sectional, observational study, participants were 1424 Spanish women recruited online who were either pregnant (33%) or recent mothers of children under 2 years (67%). They responded to the MAS and measures of anxiety and depressive symptoms and life satisfaction. Analyses included exploratory and confirmatory factor solutions for the MAS, internal consistency estimates (Cronbach's α) for all scales, as well as bivariate correlations to investigate sources of validity evidence. Comparisons between pregnant and postpartum women were also examined.

RESULTS

The assumptions for factor analysis about the relationship between items were met (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin's [KMO] test = 0.90; Barlett's Chi-square sphericity test = 5853.89, p < .001). A three-factor solution (Doubts, Rejection, and Suppression) for the MAS showed a good model fit both in exploratory (Chi-square = 274.6, p < .001, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] = 0.059, RMSEA 90% Confidence Interval [CI]=[0.052, 0.066], Comparative Fit Index [CFI] = 0.985, Tucker Lewis Index [TLI] = 0.974) and confirmatory analyses (Chi-square = 428.0, p < .001, RMSEA = 0.062, RMSEA 90% CI=[0.056, 0.068], CFI = 0.977, TLI = 0.971). Doubts (α = 0.83), Rejection (α = 0.70), and Suppression (α = 80) were associated with higher anxiety and depressive symptoms, as well as lower life satisfaction (all p < .001). Pregnant women presented greater Rejection (mean difference = 0.30, p = .037, 95% CI=[0.02, 0.58]) and less Suppression (mean difference=-0.47, p = .002, 95% CI=[-0.77,-0.17]) than mothers.

CONCLUSION

with this study, we provide clinicians and researchers with a novel tool that successfully captures the complex nature of maternal ambivalence. Given the associations of maternal ambivalence with important outcomes in perinatal women, this tool could be important for the prevention of distress associated with chronic ambivalence and to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions addressing ambivalence.

© 2022. The Author(s).

Address: Department of Basic and Clinical Psychology and Psychobiology, Jaume I University, Castellón, Spain.; Clínica Gaitán. El Puerto de Santa María, Cadiz, Spain.; Department of Psychology, Rey Juan Carlos University, Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain.; Departament of Psychology and Sociology, Universidad de Zaragoza, Teruel, Spain.; Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Aragón, Zaragoza, Spain.; Department of Basic and Clinical Psychology and Psychobiology, Jaume I University, Castellón, Spain. [email protected].; CIBER of Physiopathology of Obesity and Nutrition CIBERobn, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, CB06/03, Spain. [email protected].
Bant logo

© Copyright 2026, Nutrition Evidence

NED wishes to thank the following organisations for their support:

We use cookies to improve your experience and analyze site traffic with Google Analytics. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more.