Reliability and validity of the original and brief German version of the Maternal Antenatal Attachment Scale (MAAS): Longitudinal study findings
2024

Reliability and Validity of the Maternal Antenatal Attachment Scale

Sample size: 184 publication Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): Lehnig Franziska, Linde Katja, Schmidt Viktoria, Nagl Michaela, Martini Julia, Stepan Holger, Kersting Anette

Primary Institution: Leipzig University Medical Center, Leipzig, Germany

Hypothesis

The study aimed to investigate the reliability and validity of both the original and the brief German version of the Maternal Antenatal Attachment Scale (MAAS).

Conclusion

The brief German version of the MAAS is a reliable and valid measurement tool for maternal-fetal attachment in clinical practice.

Supporting Evidence

  • The brief German MAAS showed better psychometric properties than the original version.
  • Internal consistency and test-retest reliability were acceptable to good for both MAAS versions.
  • Correlations with maternal mental health variables supported the construct validity of the brief German MAAS.

Takeaway

This study looked at how well a questionnaire measures the bond between mothers and their unborn babies, finding that a shorter version of the questionnaire works just as well.

Methodology

Data from 184 pregnant women were collected through questionnaires measuring maternal mental health, self-esteem, and social support, and analyzed for the MAAS.

Potential Biases

Potential selection bias due to recruitment from a university hospital and the requirement of fluent German language skills.

Limitations

The sample may not be representative of the general population due to selection bias, and the study's cross-sectional design limits causal interpretations.

Participant Demographics

Participants were primarily German women aged 21 to 45, mostly in partnerships, with a high level of education and income.

Statistical Information

Statistical Significance

p<0.05

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1371/journal.pone.0316374

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication