ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Psychiatry

Sec. Perinatal Psychiatry

Volume 16 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1488966

Cross-cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Evaluation of the Chinese Version of Childbirth Experience Questionnaire 2.0

Provisionally accepted
Jiahui  WuJiahui Wu1Yan  HongYan Hong2Huici  GuanHuici Guan2Mulan  HuangMulan Huang2Jieqiong  LiangJieqiong Liang2Zhimin  WenZhimin Wen2Yulin  GaoYulin Gao3*Xiangang  FengXiangang Feng4*
  • 1The Fourth People's Hospital of Shunde (Shunde WuZhongpei Memorial Hospital), Foshan, China
  • 2Jiangmen Maternity and Child Health Care Hospital, Jiangmen, Guangdong Province, China
  • 3School of Nursing, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, China
  • 4School of Public Health, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Background: Childbirth experience is a key determinant of maternal psychological well-being, and WHO emphasize promoting positive birth experiences. The Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) is a widely used measure of women's perceptions of labor and delivery. An improved version of this instrument, the CEQ 2.0, has not yet been adapted or psychometrically validated for use in mainland China. This study aimed to validate a Mainland version of CEQ 2.0 (CEQ 2.0-M) among Chinese postpartum women.Methods: A three-stage cross-sectional psychometric study was conducted among 700 postpartum women recruited from a tertiary hospital in mainland China (350 for EFA, 350 for CFA). Item analysis and dimensional refinement were applied to revise the original 25-item Chinese CEQ 2.0 before factor analyses. Structural validity was evaluated using parallel analysis, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Reliability was assessed via Cronbach's α and McDonald's ω, and validity evidence included convergent, discriminant, concurrent, and known-group analyses.In Stage 1, item analysis and theoretical review led to the refinement of the original Chinese CEQ 2.0, resulting in a four-factor version with improved conceptual clarity. In Stage 2, exploratory factor analysis supported this four-factor structure, explaining 53.2% of the total variance. Confirmatory factor analysis in Stage 3 indicated acceptable model fit (χ 2 /df = 2.590; AGFI = 0.892; GFI = 0.927; CFI = 0.949; TLI = 0.934 and RMSEA = 0.068). Internal consistency was satisfactory, with Cronbach's α = 0.65-0.91 and McDonald's ω = 0.65-0.91 across subscales, and 0.84 and 0.80 respectively for the total scale. Evidence of convergent, discriminant, concurrent, and known-group validity further supported the scale's psychometric robustness.The CEQ 2.0-M shows satisfactory psychometric properties and offers a valid, reliable instrument for assessing childbirth experiences among Chinese postpartum women. Its concise structure and established construct validity support its use in both clinical practice and research, particularly in developing countries seeking culturally appropriate tools for perinatal care evaluation.

Keywords: birth experience1, Childbirth Experience Questionnaire2, puerperal women3, psychometric evaluation4, reliability5, validity6

Received: 31 Aug 2024; Accepted: 30 May 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Wu, Hong, Guan, Huang, Liang, Wen, Gao and Feng. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence:
Yulin Gao, School of Nursing, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, China
Xiangang Feng, School of Public Health, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, 510515, China

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.