Adaptation of the “Quality of Prenatal Care Questionnaire” (QPCQ) Into Turkish: A Validity and Reliability Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
İffet Güler Kaya,1 Esra Yılmaz,2 Besey Ãren3 1Department of Midwifery, Istanbul Medipol University College of Health Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey; 2Specialist Midwife, Health Sciences University, Hamidiye Health Sciences Institute, Istanbul, Turkey; 3University of Health Sciences, Hamidiye Faculty of Nursing, Department of Nursing, Division of Internal Medicine Nursing, Istanbul, TurkeyCorrespondence: İffet Güler Kaya, Istanbul Medipol University College of Health Sciences, Midwifery Department, Email iffetkaya@medipol.edu.trBackground: An effectively managed prenatal care process guided by evidence-based information can lead to higher satisfaction, fewer hospital admissions, and reduced pregnancy-related morbidity and mortality rates. This study was conducted within a quantitative methodological paradigm and aimed to adapt the Quality of Prenatal Care Questionnaire (QPCQ) into Turkish and evaluate its psychometric properties in a Turkish sample.Methods: This methodological, cross-sectional study was conducted with 460 postpartum women between January and July 2021. After establishing the linguistic validity of the scale, validity and reliability analyses were conducted. Content validity was evaluated by an expert multidisciplinary panel, and construct validity was tested using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Reliability was assessed using Cronbachâs alpha, itemâtotal correlations, and testâretest stability over a 28-day interval.Results: The Content Validity Index (CVI) of the Turkish version of the QPCQ was 0.945. Cronbachâs alpha for the entire scale was 0.936, while the alpha values for the subdimensions ranged between 0.74 and 0.92. In light of the structural equation analysis and model findings, the six-subscale, 46-item original version of the questionnaire was found to have acceptable construct validity without excluding any items. Fit indices (CMIN/DF=3.316, CFI=0.805, GFI=0.726, RMSA=0.076, SRMR=0.056) indicated an acceptable model fit. These values were comparable to those of previous validations conducted in Canada (α=0.96) and Brazil (α=0.97), supporting the robustness of the Turkish adaptation.Conclusion: The Turkish version of the QPCQ is a valid and reliable instrument for evaluating the quality of prenatal care. This study contributes to the literature by providing the first comprehensive, psychometrically sound tool to measure prenatal care quality in Türkiye, which can be used in both clinical practice and research to improve maternal health outcomes.Keywords: prenatal care, health care quality, validation, translation, adaptation
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".