Heather L McCauley1, Jay G Silverman2, Kelley A Jones3, Daniel J Tancredi4, Michele R Decker5, Marie C McCormick6, S Bryn Austin7, Heather A Anderson3, Elizabeth Miller3. 1. Department of Human Development & Family Studies, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA. Electronic address: mccaul49@hdfs.msu.edu. 2. Division of Global Public Health, Department of Medicine & Center on Gender Equity & Health, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA. 3. Division of Adolescent & Young Adult Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 4. Department of Pediatrics and Center for Healthcare Policy & Research, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA, USA. 5. Department of Population, Family and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. 6. Department of Social & Behavioral Sciences, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 7. Department of Social & Behavioral Sciences, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA; Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Identification and refinement of psychometric properties of the Reproductive Coercion Scale (RCS) for use in survey research and clinical practice. STUDY DESIGN:Young women aged 16-29 years seeking services in 24 Pennsylvania and 5 California family planning clinics completed questionnaires. Data were pooled for analysis (n=4674), and underlying domains were assessed using Horn's Parallel Analysis and Exploratory Factor Analysis. Multidimensional Item Response Theory was used to refine the scale and assess reliability and validity of a short-form RCS. RESULTS: The full, nine-item RCS had two underlying domains: pregnancy coercion and condom manipulation. Five items were retained in the short form: three about pregnancy coercion (e.g., "told you not to use birth control…") and two for condom manipulation (e.g., "taken off the condom while you were having sex…"; one of these items is the combination of two original items on damaging the condom that were combined because of similar statistical properties and face validity and a third item on removing the condom was retained on its own). Recent reproductive coercion was reported by 6.7% and 6.3% of the sample with the full and short-form RCS, respectively. Characteristics of women reporting reproductive coercion were similar with both forms. CONCLUSION: Findings indicate that reproductive coercion includes pregnancy coercion and deliberate manipulation of condoms to promote pregnancy. Moreover, women experience reproductive coercion across a continuum of severity. We selected items that varied in RC severity and discrimination to generate a five-item short-form RCS for survey research and clinical practice. IMPLICATIONS: This study assesses the psychometric properties of the RCS, identifying pregnancy coercion and condom manipulation as underlying domains of reproductive coercion. Recommendations for using the RCS in research and clinical practice are discussed.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Identification and refinement of psychometric properties of the Reproductive Coercion Scale (RCS) for use in survey research and clinical practice. STUDY DESIGN: Young women aged 16-29 years seeking services in 24 Pennsylvania and 5 California family planning clinics completed questionnaires. Data were pooled for analysis (n=4674), and underlying domains were assessed using Horn's Parallel Analysis and Exploratory Factor Analysis. Multidimensional Item Response Theory was used to refine the scale and assess reliability and validity of a short-form RCS. RESULTS: The full, nine-item RCS had two underlying domains: pregnancy coercion and condom manipulation. Five items were retained in the short form: three about pregnancy coercion (e.g., "told you not to use birth control…") and two for condom manipulation (e.g., "taken off the condom while you were having sex…"; one of these items is the combination of two original items on damaging the condom that were combined because of similar statistical properties and face validity and a third item on removing the condom was retained on its own). Recent reproductive coercion was reported by 6.7% and 6.3% of the sample with the full and short-form RCS, respectively. Characteristics of women reporting reproductive coercion were similar with both forms. CONCLUSION: Findings indicate that reproductive coercion includes pregnancy coercion and deliberate manipulation of condoms to promote pregnancy. Moreover, women experience reproductive coercion across a continuum of severity. We selected items that varied in RC severity and discrimination to generate a five-item short-form RCS for survey research and clinical practice. IMPLICATIONS: This study assesses the psychometric properties of the RCS, identifying pregnancy coercion and condom manipulation as underlying domains of reproductive coercion. Recommendations for using the RCS in research and clinical practice are discussed.
Authors: Elizabeth Miller; Heather L McCauley; Daniel J Tancredi; Michele R Decker; Heather Anderson; Jay G Silverman Journal: Contraception Date: 2013-12-10 Impact factor: 3.375
Authors: Charvonne N Holliday; Heather L McCauley; Jay G Silverman; Edmund Ricci; Michele R Decker; Daniel J Tancredi; Jessica G Burke; Patricia Documét; Sonya Borrero; Elizabeth Miller Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2017-04-12 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Elizabeth Miller; Heather L McCauley; Michele R Decker; Rebecca Levenson; Sarah Zelazny; Kelley A Jones; Heather Anderson; Jay G Silverman Journal: Perspect Sex Reprod Health Date: 2017-03-08
Authors: Amber L Hill; Hadas Zachor; Elizabeth Miller; Janine Talis; Sarah Zelazny; Kelley A Jones Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2020-11-18 Impact factor: 2.681