Sheeder Jeanelle, Teal Stephanie B, Crane Lori A, Stevens-Simon Catherine
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, Colorado 80045, USA.
J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2010 Apr;23(2):86-92. doi: 10.1016/j.jpag.2009.06.002. Epub 2009 Sep 5.
This study was conducted to compare the utility of methods of assessing ambivalent attitudes about childbearing that require deductive reasoning by the subject to methods that do not. The goal was to predict the intent to use a noncoital method of contraception during adolescence.
Participants (N=340) in a racially and ethnically diverse population (white 20%, black 25%, Hispanic 55%) completed two scales concerning attitudes toward childbearing-a traditional Likert scale and a scale with positive, negative, and "I go back and forth" response choices. The indication of ambivalence according to these two scales was determined by two methods-averaging item responses and counting the number of midscale responses. Logistic regression was used to study the relationship between ambivalence (by each method) and contraceptive plans.
Regardless of the scale's format (Likert or back-and-forth) and the scoring method used (averaging or counting), ambivalent adolescents were less apt to plan on using noncoital contraceptives than were nonambivalent adolescents. However, many of the adolescents who were classified as ambivalent by the averaging method chose no midscale responses (26.3% for the Likert scale and 40.5% for the back-and-forth scale), hence they were not classified as ambivalent by the counting method. These adolescents were younger and had lower average scores than adolescents who were classified as ambivalent by both scoring methods. Moreover, adolescents who were classified as ambivalent by both scoring methods were less likely to intend to use noncoital contraceptives than were nonambivalent adolescents, but adolescents who were classified ambivalent by only the averaging method were not.
Childbearing ambivalence predicts contraceptive plans. However, congruent with theories of cognitive development, methods of assessing childbearing ambivalence that require deductive reasoning on the part of the adolescent tend to overclassify adolescents with discordant attitudes as being ambivalent. Avenues of further study are discussed.
本研究旨在比较需要受试者进行演绎推理的生育矛盾态度评估方法与无需演绎推理的评估方法的效用。目标是预测青少年使用非性交避孕方法的意图。
来自种族和民族多样化人群(白人20%,黑人25%,西班牙裔55%)的340名参与者完成了两个关于生育态度的量表——一个传统的李克特量表和一个有积极、消极和“我摇摆不定”反应选项的量表。根据这两个量表确定矛盾态度的指标有两种方法——平均项目反应和计算量表中间反应的数量。使用逻辑回归研究矛盾态度(通过每种方法)与避孕计划之间的关系。
无论量表的形式(李克特量表或来回量表)以及所使用的评分方法(平均或计数)如何,矛盾的青少年比不矛盾的青少年更不愿意计划使用非性交避孕方法。然而,许多通过平均法被归类为矛盾的青少年没有选择量表中间的反应(李克特量表为26.3%,来回量表为40.5%),因此他们通过计数法未被归类为矛盾。这些青少年比通过两种评分方法都被归类为矛盾的青少年更年轻且平均得分更低。此外,通过两种评分方法都被归类为矛盾的青少年比不矛盾的青少年更不太可能打算使用非性交避孕方法,但仅通过平均法被归类为矛盾的青少年并非如此。
生育矛盾态度可预测避孕计划。然而,与认知发展理论一致,需要青少年进行演绎推理的生育矛盾态度评估方法往往会将态度不一致的青少年过度归类为矛盾。讨论了进一步研究的途径。