Childbearing Motivation Scale

📜
Abstract

The Childbearing motivation Scale (C-CMS) is a comprehensive psychometric instrument designed to evaluate the complex, multifaceted reasons why individuals choose to have or not have children. Originally developed by Guedes and colleagues and subsequently adapted into Chinese, this tool addresses a critical need in demographic and psychological research. As global fertility rates continue to decline—shifting from policy-driven constraints to individual autonomy—understanding the intrinsic and extrinsic drivers of reproductive decisions has become paramount.

Grounded in Self-Determination Theory, the C-CMS conceptualizes reproductive motivation along a continuum from autonomous desires to controlled pressures. By capturing both the positive aspirations associated with parenthood and the negative apprehensions, such as financial strain or bodily changes, the scale provides a nuanced psychological profile of modern prospective parents. This dual-valence approach allows researchers to move beyond simple binary measures of fertility intention, offering deeper insights into the socio-cultural and personal factors shaping contemporary family planning.

🏷
Keywords
Childbearing motivation
Fertility intentions
Self-Determination Theory
psychometrics
Reproductive psychology
family planning

📊 Psychometric Scorecard

Items Count
47
Structure
Multidimensional
Cronbach's α
0.85
Validation Country
📍 China

Authors

👤 Jiaxin Cheng
🏛 Jinzhou Medical University

👤 Xiaoting Wang
🏛 Jinzhou Medical University

👤 Jia Liu
🏛 Jinzhou Medical University

👤 Jinrui Fei
🏛 Jinzhou Medical University

👤 Chuang Li
🏛 Jinzhou Medical University

👤 Ge Tian
🏛 Jinzhou Medical University

👤 Hongxia Wang
✉ [email protected]
🏛 Jinzhou Medical University

Purpose

Historically, demographic research has focused heavily on the external parameters of fertility, such as policy restrictions or economic macro-trends. However, as these external barriers have shifted, it has become evident that the core driver of declining birth rates lies in individual psychological motivation. Existing measures often fell short by focusing exclusively on clinical populations, ignoring negative motivations, or lacking a robust theoretical foundation.

The C-CMS fills this critical gap by providing a universally applicable tool for the general reproductive-age population. It equips researchers, sociologists, and policymakers with the means to systematically quantify the psychological barriers and facilitators of childbearing. By identifying specific areas of hesitation—such as ecological worry or marital stress—clinicians and public health officials can better tailor supportive interventions and family planning counseling.

Construct

The psychological construct of Childbearing motivation within the C-CMS is deeply rooted in Self-Determination Theory (SDT). Rather than viewing motivation as a simple quantitative variable, the scale treats it as a qualitative continuum ranging from controlled to autonomous regulation. Autonomous motivations reflect deeply internalized values and genuine desires for parenthood, such as the pursuit of emotional fulfillment or family continuity.

Conversely, controlled motivations encompass behaviors driven by external pressures, societal expectations, or the avoidance of negative outcomes. The C-CMS operationalizes this framework through a multidimensional structure divided into Positive Childbearing motivation (PCM) and Negative Childbearing motivation (NCM). The negative dimensions capture specific modern anxieties, including the burden of childrearing, financial constraints, marital strain, ecological concerns, and body image worries, providing a holistic view of the reproductive decision-making process.

Validity

Psychometric evaluation of the C-CMS demonstrates robust validity across multiple domains. Content validity was initially established through extensive literature reviews, in-depth interviews, and expert panel reviews, ensuring the items accurately reflect contemporary reproductive concerns. Furthermore, the scale exhibits strong structural validity, confirming that the theoretical division between positive and negative motivations holds up empirically.

Convergent validity testing indicates that the scale's dimensions correlate appropriately with established measures of psychological well-being, relationship satisfaction, and economic anxiety. By successfully differentiating between various motivational profiles within the General population, the C-CMS proves to be a highly valid indicator of the complex psychological landscape underlying modern Fertility intentions.

Reliability

The C-CMS demonstrates excellent internal consistency, making it a highly reliable tool for both research and clinical applications. Psychometric analyses of the instrument reveal overall Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranging from 0.85 to 0.89 across its primary domains.

Crucially, all individual sub-dimensions within the scale maintain alpha values exceeding the standard acceptable threshold of 0.70. This high degree of inter-item correlation indicates that the questions within each specific factor—whether measuring financial anxiety or the desire for family expansion—are consistently capturing the same underlying psychological constructs without excessive redundancy.

Factor Analysis

The structural integrity of the C-CMS is supported by rigorous factor analytic techniques. The instrument is built upon a distinct 9-factor model that neatly categorizes into two higher-order domains: five factors dedicated to negative childbearing motivations and four factors capturing positive motivations.

This multidimensional factor structure aligns perfectly with the theoretical underpinnings of Self-Determination Theory. Items mapping onto factors like social and ecological worry or physical suffering load cleanly onto their respective constructs, demonstrating that individuals can distinctly categorize their various anxieties and desires. The clear delineation of these factors confirms that Childbearing motivation is not a monolithic concept, but rather a complex matrix of competing psychological drives.

Subscales

Subscale Items Description
Childrearing burden and immaturity (F1) 1, 2, 8, 10, 15, 18 Measures fears and worries about the long-term responsibilities, patience required, and emotional toll of raising a child.
Social and ecological worry (F2) 6, 9, 13, 19 Measures concerns regarding the impact of external societal and environmental risks on a child's future.
Marital stress (F3) 4, 12, 14, 21 Measures apprehension about how a child might negatively impact partner intimacy, autonomous life, and relationship stability.
Financial problems and economic constraints (F4) 5, 7, 17, 20 Measures anxiety related to the economic burden of childbearing amidst job insecurity and living costs.
Physical suffering and body image worry (F5) 3, 11, 16 Measures concerns about the physical toll of pregnancy and childbirth on health and appearance.

Instrument

Test Type Self-report questionnaire
Format 47 items, 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree)
Scoring Mean scores are calculated for each subscale, ranging from 1 to 5.
Language Chinese
Population General population, Adults
Age Group 19-49 years
Administration Self-administered

Childbearing Motivation Scale Items

📋 Items are currently not available

The individual items of this scale are not publicly available. Researchers interested in using this instrument should contact the original authors directly to request the scale materials.

Sample

The source scale validation utilized a sample of 614 participants drawn from the General population, aged 19 to 49 years.

📄
Cite This Paper

Jiaxin Cheng, Xiaoting Wang, Jia Liu, Jinrui Fei, Chuang Li, Ge Tian, Hongxia Wang (2015). Childbearing motivation Scale. BMC psychology. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-03843-1

📄 Download Full-Text PDF

📚
References
63 references
  1. Hellstrand J, Nisén J, Myrskylä M. Educational field, economic uncertainty, and fertility decline in Finland in 2010–2019. Eur Sociol Rev. 2024;40(5):754–71. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcae001. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcae001
  2. Yang T, Wu Y, Han N, Liu T. Chinese women’s concept of childbirth based on the social media topic what does childbirth mean to a woman: content and thematic analysis. JMIR Pediatr Parent. 2024;7:e50512. https://doi.org/10.2196/50512. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.2196/50512
  3. Tan J. Educational differentials on the transition to first birth in South Korea. Soc Sci Res. 2022;105:102728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2022.102728. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2022.102728
  4. Raymo JM, Park H, Xie Y, Yeung WJ. Marriage and family in East Asia: continuity and change. Ann Rev Sociol. 2015;41:471–92. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-073014-112428. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-073014-112428
  5. Mills M, Rindfuss RR, McDonald P, te Velde E. Why do people postpone parenthood? Reasons and social policy incentives. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17(6):848–60. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmr026. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmr026
  6. Dioikitopoulos E, Varvarigos D. Delay in childbearing and the evolution of fertility rates. J Popul Econ. 2023;36:1545–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-022-00931-z. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-022-00931-z
  7. Temmesen CG, Nielsen HS, Birch Petersen K, Clemensen J. Reflections on timing of motherhood – a qualitative online study with women of reproductive age. BMC Womens Health. 2024;24(1):589. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-024-03409-0. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-024-03409-0
  8. Delbaere I, Pitsillos T, Tydén T, Kerckhof L, Iliadis SI. Fertility awareness and parenthood intentions among medical students in three European countries. Eur J Contracept Reproductive Health Care: Official J Eur Soc Contracept. 2021;26(4):312–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13625187.2021.1901877. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/13625187.2021.1901877
  9. Hartnett CS, Gemmill A. Recent trends in U.S. childbearing intentions. Demography. 2020;57(6):2035–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-020-00929-w. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-020-00929-w
  10. Jones GW. Ultra-low fertility in East asia: policy responses and challenges. Asian Popul Stud. 2019;15(2):131–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441730.2019.1594656. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/17441730.2019.1594656
  11. Hua K, Pan Y, Fang J, Wu H, Hua Y. Integrating social, climate and environmental changes to confront accelerating global aging. BMC Public Health. 2024;24(1):2838. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-20346-7. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-20346-7
  12. Jian S, Chunyun J. Promoting Equilibrium under the Non-balanced Normal State:Population Development in China’s Modernization Process. Journal of Peking University. 2024;61(05):137 – 45. https://doi.org/1000-5919(2024)05-0137-09.
  13. Zhu C, Mei Y, Shu H. Hierarchical linear model analysis on the factors influencing the fertility desire of childbearing-aged people under the background of three-child policy. Acad J Sci Technol. 2023;6(2):92–5. https://doi.org/10.54097/ajst.v6i2.9699. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.54097/ajst.v6i2.9699
  14. Preis H, Tovim S, Mor P, Grisaru-Granovsky S, Samueloff A, Benyamini Y. Fertility intentions and the way they change following birth- a prospective longitudinal study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020;20(1):228. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-020-02922-y. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-020-02922-y
  15. Aghazadeh N, Jabbari Farooji S, Haghani S, Amini L. Effectiveness of multimedia education on the childbearing intention in one-child women: a field trial study. BMC Med Educ. 2024;24(1):921. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05784-6. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05784-6
  16. Shumet T, Geda NR. Impacts of inequalities in utilization of key maternal health service on fertility preference among high parity women in four selected regions of Ethiopia. BMC Womens Health. 2024;24(1):590. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-024-03416-1. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-024-03416-1
  17. Barker R, Buber-Ennser I. Uncertainty and flexibility of Fertility intentions. Adv Life Course Res. 2024;61:100618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2024.100618. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2024.100618
  18. Li Q, Yang R, Zhou Z, Qian W, Zhang J, Wu Z, Jin L, Wu X, Zhang C, Zheng B, et al. Fertility history and intentions of married women, China. Bull World Health Organ. 2024;102(4):244–54. https://doi.org/10.2471/blt.23.289736. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.2471/blt.23.289736
  19. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-Determination Theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol. 2000;55(1):68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.68. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
  20. Rabey GP. Motivation is response. Ind Commer Train. 2001;33(1):26–8. https://doi.org/10.1108/00197850110366931. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1108/00197850110366931
  21. Miller WB, Pasta DJ. A model of fertility motivation, desires, and expectations early in women’s reproductive careers. Soc Biol. 1988;35(3–4):236–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/19485565.1988.9988704. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/19485565.1988.9988704
  22. Shaw J. Procreative responsibilities and the parental obligation objection. Theor Med Bioeth. 2022;43(2):111–. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-022-09570-7. 25. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-022-09570-7
  23. Hsiao Y-J. Parental stress, family resilience, and health-related quality of life: parents of children with autism spectrum disorder. Curr Psychol. 2024;43(39):31019–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-06687-x. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-06687-x
  24. Delbaere I, Michel DV, Sara S, Margherita C, David P, Annick B, et al. Do I want children later in life?’ reproductive intentions of 1700 adolescents. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2024;29(3):85–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/13625187.2024.2335651. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/13625187.2024.2335651
  25. Nachoum R, Moed A, Madjar N, Kanat-Maymon Y. Prenatal childbearing motivations, parenting styles, and child adjustment: a longitudinal study. J Family Psychology: JFP : J Div Family Psychol Am Psychol Association (Division 43). 2021;35(6):715–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000826. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000826
  26. Miller WB. Childbearing motivations, desires, and intentions: a theoretical framework. Genet Soc Gen Psychol Monogr. 1994;120(2):223–58.
  27. Miller WB. Childbearing motivation and its measurement. J Biosoc Sci. 1995;27(4):473–. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0021932000023087. 87. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1017/s0021932000023087
  28. Miller WB. The relationship between childbearing motivations and attitude toward abortion among married men and women. Fam Plan Perspect. 1994;26(4):165–8. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.2307/2136241
  29. Sintrovani TCP. Motives for parenthood, psychosocial factors and health in women undergoing IVF. J Reprod Infant Psychol. 2008;26:14–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/02646830701691392. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/02646830701691392
  30. van Balen F, Trimbos-Kemper TC. Involuntarily childless couples: their desire to have children and their motives. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 1995;16(3):137–44. https://doi.org/10.3109/01674829509024462. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.3109/01674829509024462
  31. Hoffman OW, Thornton A, Manis JD. The value of children to parents in the united States. J Popul. 1978;1(2):91–131. https://doi.org/10.2307/27507564. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.2307/27507564
  32. Lian C. Research on the influence of female reproductive reasons on parenting efficacy — the intermediary effect of internalization degree. Sichuan Normal Univ. 2020. https://doi.org/10.27347/d.cnki.gssdu.2020.000331. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.27347/d.cnki.gssdu.2020.000331
  33. Tianli L, Yixuan D, Ting Y, Zhaohui Y, Fan Y, Yuqi Z, Bowen H, Tingshao Z. Development of the Childbearing motivation Scale andTest of its Reliability and Validity. Population and Development. 2025;31(02):94–104. https://doi.org/1674-1668(2025)02-0094-11.
  34. Fay EE, Sienas L, Napolitano P, Sitcov K, Souter VL. Over 50% of nulliparous Women ≥ 40 years of age will have a Cesarean delivery [31Q]. 2019;133:189S. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.Aog.0000558950.19513.88. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.Aog.0000558950.19513.88
  35. Guedes M, Pereira M, Pires R, Carvalho P, Canavarro MC. Childbearing motivations scale: construction of a new measure and its preliminary psychometric properties. J Child Fam Stud. 2015;24:180–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-013-9824-0. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-013-9824-0
  36. Brenning K, Soenens B, Vansteenkiste M. What’s your motivation to be pregnant? Relations between motives for parenthood and women’s prenatal functioning. J Family Psychology: JFP : J Div Family Psychol Am Psychol Association (Division 43). 2015;29(5):755–65. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000110. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000110
  37. Pezeshki MZ, Zeighami B, Miller WB. Measuring the Childbearing motivation of couples referred to the Shiraz health center for premarital examinations. J Biosoc Sci. 2005;37(1):37–53. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0021932003006485. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1017/s0021932003006485
  38. Mynarska M, Rytel J. Fertility desires of childless poles: which childbearing motives matter for men and women? J Fam Issues. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X19868257. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X19868257
  39. Fiskin G, Sari E. Evaluation of the relationship between youth attitudes towards marriage and motivation for childbearing. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2021;121:105856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105856. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105856
  40. Höglund B, Hildingsson I. Perceptions and imagined performances of pregnancy, birth and parenting among voluntarily child-free individuals in Sweden. Sex Reproductive Healthc. 2022;31:100696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.srhc.2022.100696. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.srhc.2022.100696
  41. Um S. Virtuous procreation and ethical pronatalism. J Med Ethics. 2025;51(6):376–77. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2025-110717. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2025-110717
  42. Szcześniak M, Falewicz A, Meisner M, Grodecka K. The mediating effect of maturity on anxiety and the motives for postponing parenthood. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):20258. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-71043-9. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-71043-9
  43. Schmidt L, Sobotka T, Bentzen JG, Nyboe Andersen A, on behalf of the ER. Society task F. Demographic and medical consequences of the postponement of parenthood. Hum Reprod Update. 2012;18(1):29–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmr040. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmr040
  44. Das K, Saswata G, Shenk MK. Responsibility, social aspirations, and contemporary low fertility: a case study of rural West Bengal, India. Asian Popul Stud. 2024;20(3):308–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441730.2023.2287336. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/17441730.2023.2287336
  45. Lehtoranta L, Klemetti R, Majlander S, Heino A, Gissler M, Lundqvist A. Wishes and obstacles to having children – results from the nationwide Healthy Finland survey. Eur J Public Health. 2023;33(Supplement_2):ckad160.1538. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckad160.1538. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckad160.1538
  46. Mynarska M, Rytel J. Childbearing motivation at the onset of emerging adulthood. J Youth Stud. 2023;26(9):1163–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2022.2080536. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2022.2080536
  47. Tartakovsky E, Mizrahi M. The motivational foundations of childbearing: investigating relationships between childbearing attitudes, value preferences, and parental bonding. PLoS One. 2025;20(5):e0324243. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0324243. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0324243
  48. Sharif-Nia H, Ahmadzadeh Tori N, Behmanesh F, Ghaffari F, Pourreza A. Development and psychometric evaluation of the questionnaire on the contributing factors of tendency towards voluntary single-childedness and childlessness: a mixed method study. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):1305. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-51178-5. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-51178-5
  49. Jones PS, Lee JW, Phillips LR, Zhang XE, Jaceldo KB. An adaptation of brislin’s translation model for Cross-cultural research. Nurs Res. 2001;50(5):300–04. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006. 199- 20010 9000- 00008. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1097/00006
  50. Zhang H, Liu H, Li Z, Li Q, Chu X, Zhou X, et al. Early mobilization implementation for critical ill patients: a cross-sectional multi-center survey about knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of critical care nurses. Int J Nurs Sci. 2022;9(1):49–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnss.2021.10.001. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnss.2021.10.001
  51. liwei F, zuoshan L, qiqi X. Reliability and validity of the questionnaire of fertilitymotivation of young people at childbearing age. China J Health Psychol. 2018;26(1):115–19. https://doi.org/10.13342/j.cnki.cjhp.2018.01.031. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.13342/j.cnki.cjhp.2018.01.031
  52. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
  53. Leppink J, Pérez-Fuster P. We need more replication research – A case for test-retest reliability. Perspect Med Educ. 2017;6(3):158–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-017-0347-z. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-017-0347-z
  54. Downing SM. Validity: on meaningful interpretation of assessment data. Med Educ. 2003;37(9):830–7. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01594.x. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01594.x
  55. Barrett P. Structural equation modelling: adjudging model fit. Pers Indiv Differ. 2007;42(5):815–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.018. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.018
  56. van de Schoot R, Peter L, Hox J. A checklist for testing measurement invariance. Eur J Dev Psychol. 2012;9(4):486–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2012.686740. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2012.686740
  57. Cheung GW, Rensvold RB. Evaluating Goodness-of-Fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct Equation Modeling: Multidisciplinary J. 2002;9(2):233–55. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
  58. Beaujouan E. Latest-Late fertility? Decline and resurgence of late parenthood across the Low-Fertility countries. Popul Dev Rev. 2020;46(2):219–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/padr.12334. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/padr.12334
  59. Roberts E, Metcalfe A, Jack M, Tough SC. Factors that influence the childbearing intentions of Canadian men. Hum Reprod (Oxford England). 2011;26(5):1202–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der007. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der007
  60. Salum GA, Patrick DL, Isolan LR, Manfro GG, Fleck MP. Youth quality of life Instrument-Research version (YQOL-R): psychometric properties in a community sample. Jornal De Pediatria. 2012;88(5):443–8. https://doi.org/10.2223/jped.2193. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.2223/jped.2193
  61. Zimmerman LA, Karp C, Thiongo M, Gichangi P, Guiella G, Gemmill A, et al. Stability and change in Fertility intentions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Kenya. PLoS Glob Public Health. 2022;2(3):e0000147. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0000147. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0000147
  62. Zimmerman LA, Karp C, Komuro N, Akilimali P, Zakirai MS, OlaOlorun F, et al. Change in Fertility intentions in the first year of COVID-19: evidence from four countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Popul Dev Rev. 2024;50(S1):177–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/padr.12543. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/padr.12543
  63. Testa MR. On the positive correlation between education and Fertility intentions in europe: Individual- and country-level evidence. Adv Life Course Res. 2014;21:28–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2014.01.005. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2014.01.005

Cite this article

Mohammed looti (2026). Childbearing Motivation Scale. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. Retrieved from https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/childbearing-motivation-scale-chinese-version/

Mohammed looti. "Childbearing Motivation Scale." PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, 12 Aug. 2026, https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/childbearing-motivation-scale-chinese-version/.

Mohammed looti. "Childbearing Motivation Scale." PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, 2026. https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/childbearing-motivation-scale-chinese-version/.

Mohammed looti (2026) 'Childbearing Motivation Scale', PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. Available at: https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/childbearing-motivation-scale-chinese-version/.

[1] Mohammed looti, "Childbearing Motivation Scale," PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, vol. X, no. Y, ص Z-Z, August, 2026.

Mohammed looti. Childbearing Motivation Scale. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. 2026;vol(issue):pages.

Related terms:

  1. Motivation in stroke patients for rehabilitation scale
  2. School Achievement Motivation Rating Scale- Teacher Rating
  3. Self-Control Motivation and Capacity Scale (SCMCS)
  4. Abstinence Motivation Scale-Sex (AMS-Sex)
  5. Martin- Larsen Approval Motivation Scale (MLAMS)
  6. Sport Motivation Scale (SMS)
  7. Martin- Larsen Approval Motivation Scale (MLAMS)
  8. Achievement Motivation Scale
  9. Academic Motivation Scale-German Version (AMS-D)
  10. THE POST-EXPERIMENTAL INTRINSIC MOTIVATION INVENTORY
× Figure
PDF
Scroll to Top