Childbearing Motivation Scale

1. Abstract

The Childbearing Motivation Scale (C-CMS) is a multidimensional psychometric instrument developed to systematically evaluate the complex psychological determinants, desires, and hesitations underlying individuals’ reproductive decision-making. Adapted and validated within contemporary demographic contexts by Cheng et al. based on the foundational operationalization by Guedes and colleagues, the scale addresses an urgent imperative within reproductive psychology, public health, and social demography. As global total fertility rates undergo unprecedented contractions, reproductive decisions have largely shifted from external normative mandates to individual autonomous choices. Grounded firmly in Self-Determination Theory (SDT), the C-CMS conceptualizes childbearing desires not as a monolithic binary impulse, but along an organismic continuum spanning autonomous, internalized motivations and controlled, externally imposed pressures.

Comprising 47 self-report items administered across a 5-point Likert response format (ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree), the C-CMS utilizes a dual-valence structural architecture consisting of two overarching, higher-order domains: Positive Childbearing Motivation (PCM) and Negative Childbearing Motivation (NCM). These higher-order domains encompass a refined 9-factor model, capturing five distinct dimensions of reproductive apprehension—including childrearing burden and developmental immaturity, social and ecological worry, marital stress, financial constraints, and physical suffering or body image anxiety—alongside four robust dimensions of generative and emotional aspirations. Psychometric evaluations demonstrate superior reliability, with internal consistency coefficients yielding overall Cronbach’s alpha values between 0.85 and 0.89, and all subscales exceeding the standard 0.70 threshold. Structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analyses affirm strong construct, convergent, and discriminant validity. The C-CMS furnishes researchers, clinicians, and demographic policymakers with an indispensable, empirically validated diagnostic instrument to delineate the psychological architecture driving contemporary family formation.

2. Keywords

childbearing motivation, fertility intentions, self-determination theory, reproductive psychology, family planning, psychometrics, procreative decision-making, fertility decline, parenthood motives, scale validation

3. Authors

The adaptation, psychometric operationalization, and empirical validation of the Chinese Childbearing Motivation Scale (C-CMS) were conducted by a specialized multidisciplinary research collaborative based at Jinzhou Medical University:

• Jiaxin Cheng — Department of Nursing / Public Health, Jinzhou Medical University, Jinzhou, Liaoning, People’s Republic of China.
• Xiaoting Wang — Jinzhou Medical University, Jinzhou, Liaoning, People’s Republic of China.
• Jia Liu — Jinzhou Medical University, Jinzhou, Liaoning, People’s Republic of China.
• Jinrui Fei — Jinzhou Medical University, Jinzhou, Liaoning, People’s Republic of China.
• Chuang Li — Jinzhou Medical University, Jinzhou, Liaoning, People’s Republic of China.
• Ge Tian — Jinzhou Medical University, Jinzhou, Liaoning, People’s Republic of China.
• Hongxia Wang (Corresponding Author) — Jinzhou Medical University, Jinzhou, Liaoning, People’s Republic of China. Email: [email protected].

The instrument’s cross-cultural foundation draws directly upon the earlier conceptualization and psychometric construction executed by Margarida Guedes, Maria Cristina Canavarro, and colleagues at the University of Coimbra, Portugal.

4. Purpose

Historically, epidemiological and demographic investigations into fertility dynamics have prioritized macroeconomic, legislative, and biological indicators, such as gross domestic product, state welfare provisions, labor force participation, and clinical fecundity markers. While macroeconomic paradigms elucidate structural population trends, they systematically fail to capture the proximal cognitive, emotional, and relational calculations that dictate an individual’s or couple’s decision to conceive. As societal transitions have decoupled biological reproduction from marriage and institutional coercion, reproductive choices have become expressions of subjective agency. Consequently, the core driver of modern fertility postponement and declining birth rates resides within individual psychological motivation.

Prior measurement attempts in reproductive psychology frequently suffered from notable methodological limitations: they either relied on oversimplified single-item indicators of “intended family size,” restricted their samples to clinical populations undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART), or focused exclusively on pronatalist aspirations while ignoring active procreative deterrents. The Childbearing Motivation Scale was engineered to resolve these deficiencies by providing a theoretically integrated, dual-valence diagnostic tool calibrated for the general adult population of reproductive age (19 to 49 years).

From a research perspective, the C-CMS enables empirical investigators to model how motivational profiles moderate the translation of abstract fertility desires into concrete reproductive behaviors. The instrument systematically captures both the psychological facilitators (e.g., identity fulfillment, relational deepening) and psychological inhibitions (e.g., ecological anxiety, economic precarity, somatic fear) that characterize contemporary adult life. In clinical and counseling settings—such as preconception counseling, couples psychotherapy, and reproductive health clinics—the scale supplies mental health practitioners with granular profiles of ambivalence. Clinicians can identify specific psychological stumbling blocks, differentiating between realistic structural challenges (e.g., economic constraints) and internalized anxieties (e.g., fear of bodily deterioration or perceived maternal inadequacy). At a policy level, public health authorities and social planners can utilize data derived from the C-CMS to design tailored family-supportive interventions that directly address the specific psychological hesitations discouraging prospective parents.

5. Psychological Construct

The core psychological construct operationalized by the Childbearing Motivation Scale is childbearing motivation, conceptualized as a dynamic, multidimensional matrix of conscious and semi-conscious drives, values, expectations, and apprehensions that govern an individual’s reproductive preferences. Rejecting unipolar models that view the absence of positive motivation as merely neutral, the C-CMS recognizes that positive and negative motivations operate as partially independent, co-occurring cognitive-affective systems. An individual can concurrently experience deep aspirations for generative parenting while maintaining severe anxieties regarding socioeconomic or physical burdens.

Positive Childbearing Motivation (PCM)

The positive motivational construct reflects perceived emotional, personal, interpersonal, and sociocultural benefits that incentivize parenthood. Drawing upon generative psychology and self-actualization, PCM encompasses four core dimensions:

• Personal and Emotional Fulfillment: The expectation that raising a child will provide intrinsic joy, existential meaning, psychological maturity, and deep personal happiness. Individuals endorse parenthood as a conduit for unconditional love and self-transcendence.
• Family and Relational Continuity: The aspiration to consolidate the marital bond, foster intergenerational unity, perpetuate family traditions, and ensure genetic and symbolic continuity across time.
• Social Identity and Normative Belonging: Motives linked to adult identity acquisition, social recognition, and fulfillment of familial expectations, reflecting the perceived social status accompanying parenthood.
• Caregiving and Generative Desires: The intrinsic drive to nurture, teach, and shepherd a new human being toward developmental maturity, rooted in Eriksonian concepts of generativity versus stagnation.

Negative Childbearing Motivation (NCM)

The negative motivational domain measures perceived psychological, physiological, economic, and interpersonal costs associated with reproduction. The C-CMS maps this domain across five empirically defined subscales:

• Childrearing Burden and Immaturity (F1): Assesses psychological apprehension regarding personal inadequacy, fear of losing behavioral autonomy, the exhausting temporal and emotional demands of sustained caretaking, and doubts concerning one’s emotional readiness or patience to manage parental responsibilities.
• Social and Ecological Worry (F2): Reflects contemporary macro-level apprehensions, including climate change anxieties, environmental degradation, sociopolitical instability, and institutional competitiveness. It captures moral and existential concerns regarding bringing a child into an uncertain or hostile world.
• Marital Stress (F3): Evaluates anticipation of relational disruption, loss of romantic and sexual intimacy, escalation of domestic conflict over parenting duties, and erosion of egalitarian partner dynamics.
• Financial Problems and Economic Constraints (F4): Quantifies subjective financial distress, housing instability, escalating education costs, employment insecurity, and the perceived incompatibility between career progression and parenthood.
• Physical Suffering and Body Image Worry (F5): Captures somatic anxieties specifically linked to pregnancy and childbirth, encompassing fear of labor pain, medical complications, permanent bodily changes, loss of physical attractiveness, and somatic postpartum recovery.

6. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the Childbearing Motivation Scale is rooted in Self-Determination Theory (SDT), formulated by Richard Ryan and Edward Deci, and integrates the Traits-Desires-Intentions-Behavior (TDIB) model articulated by Warren B. Miller.

SDT postulates that human behavior is guided by the fulfillment of three basic psychological needs: autonomy (the experience of volition and self-endorsement), competence (feeling effective in interacting with the social environment), and relatedness (feeling connected and significant to others). In the context of procreative choices, childbearing can be governed either by autonomous motivation—wherein parenthood aligns with deeply felt personal values, emotional growth, and nurturing connection—or by controlled motivation, wherein reproduction is driven by external pressures, financial obligations, gendered role conformity, or guilt avoidance.

When individuals contemplate childbearing from an autonomous locus, parenting is anticipated as a source of self-actualization. Conversely, when controlled forces dominate, prospective parents experience conflict and heightened vulnerability to stress. Crucially, the C-CMS operationalizes negative motivations through this self-determinative lens: barriers like body image disruptions, economic limitations, or marital strains represent threats to basic psychological needs. For example, fear of losing autonomy manifests in the “Childrearing Burden and Immaturity” subscale, whereas threats to relatedness emerge within the “Marital Stress” dimension.

Additionally, the C-CMS integrates Warren Miller’s TDIB sequence, which posits that deep-seated personality traits and generalized motivations precede specific childbearing desires, which subsequently coalesce into explicit intentions and overt procreative behaviors. Under this formulation, childbearing motivations serve as the fundamental affective-cognitive substrate upon which concrete family planning decisions are formulated.

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the Childbearing Motivation Scale has been evaluated through multiple empirical procedures confirming content, construct, convergent, and discriminant validity across diverse cohorts.

Content and Face Validity

Initial content validation followed rigorous cross-cultural translation and adaptation protocols based on modified Brislin forward-backward translation models. Expert panels comprising clinical psychologists, obstetricians, sociologists, and psychometricians critically reviewed each item for conceptual equivalence, cultural appropriateness, linguistic clarity, and relevance. Cognitive debriefing interviews conducted with adults across target age brackets confirmed high face validity, verifying that items accurately tapped modern reproductive concerns such as career conflicts and planetary sustainability.

Construct and Structural Validity

Structural validity was corroborated through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) within representative adult samples. The hypothesized 9-factor model organized into two higher-order domains demonstrated superior goodness-of-fit indices compared to alternative unifactorial or simple bi-factor models. Standardized factor loadings across all subscales consistently exceeded the conventional 0.50 cutoff, with the vast majority ranging between 0.62 and 0.88, demonstrating robust structural validity.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Convergent validity was substantiated through statistically significant bivariate correlations with established psychological instruments:

• The Positive Childbearing Motivation dimensions exhibited significant positive correlations with scales evaluating life satisfaction, psychological flourishing, and general relational commitment ($r = 0.38$ to $0.54, p < 0.001$).
• The Negative Childbearing Motivation subscales—most notably Financial Constraints (F4) and Marital Stress (F3)—correlated positively with the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) and generalized anxiety measures ($r = 0.41$ to $0.58, p < 0.001$).
• Discriminant validity was established via average variance extracted (AVE) analyses, where the square root of the AVE for each latent factor surpassed its inter-factor correlation with any other latent construct, confirming that the dimensions measure distinct psychological realities.

8. Reliability

The Childbearing Motivation Scale exhibits high empirical reliability across internal consistency and temporal stability parameters, satisfying psychometric criteria for both academic research and individual-level clinical assessment.

Internal consistency estimates via Cronbach’s alpha range from 0.85 to 0.89 across the primary higher-order domains, with composite reliability (CR) coefficients mirroring these findings ($CR > 0.80$). Test-retest reliability evaluated across a 4-week interval yielded intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) ranging from 0.73 to 0.84, confirming substantial temporal stability while allowing for genuine life-stage shifts in reproductive ambivalence.

9. Factor Analysis

The factorial structure of the C-CMS was established using a split-sample structural equation modeling design, incorporating both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) across a sample of 614 participants aged 19 to 49 years.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Prior to factor extraction, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy yielded 0.884, and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity reached statistical significance ($\chi^2(1081) = 9482.36, p < 0.001$), supporting matrix factorability. Principal axis factoring with oblique (Promax) rotation was employed to allow for correlations among motivational dimensions. Scree plot inspection alongside Kaiser’s eigenvalue criterion ($> 1.0$) identified a distinct 9-factor solution accounting for approximately 62.4% of the total cumulative variance. Standardized factor loadings ranged from 0.52 to 0.87, with cross-loadings remaining below 0.25.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

CFA was conducted utilizing maximum likelihood estimation to test the goodness of fit of the hierarchical 9-factor model structured into two higher-order latent constructs (Positive Childbearing Motivation and Negative Childbearing Motivation). Model fit parameters satisfied standard psychometric criteria:

• Chi-square to degrees of freedom ratio ($\chi^2/df$): $2.14$ (well within the acceptable range of $< 3.0$)
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): $0.048$ ($90% \text{ CI } [0.043, 0.053]$), denoting close approximate fit ($< 0.06$)
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): $0.938$ (surpassing the standard $0.90$ threshold)
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): $0.929$
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): $0.052$ ($< 0.08$)

Multigroup invariance testing established metric and scalar invariance across sex (male vs. female) and marital status (single vs. married), confirming that the instrument evaluates equivalent psychological constructs across diverse demographics without systemic measurement bias.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational specifications of the Childbearing Motivation Scale are structured as follows:

• Test Type: Psychometric self-report questionnaire / psychodiagnostic inventory.
• Construct Assessed: Dual-valence, multidimensional childbearing motivation (Positive Childbearing Motivation vs. Negative Childbearing Motivation).
• Format: 47 items distributed across 9 structural factors.
• Response Scale: Standard 5-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Neutral / Undecided
  • 4 = Agree
  • 5 = Strongly Agree
• Negative Childbearing Motivation Subscales (21 items):
  • F1: Childrearing burden and immaturity (Items: 1, 2, 8, 10, 15, 18) — Evaluates psychological fear regarding parental burdens and perceived emotional unreadiness.
  • F2: Social and ecological worry (Items: 6, 9, 13, 19) — Assesses existential concerns regarding broad environmental, climatic, and societal challenges.
  • F3: Marital stress (Items: 4, 12, 14, 21) — Measures anticipated disruption to marital stability, intimacy, and autonomy.
  • F4: Financial problems and economic constraints (Items: 5, 7, 17, 20) — Assesses perceived economic strain and housing/employment precarity.
  • F5: Physical suffering and body image worry (Items: 3, 11, 16) — Evaluates fears surrounding somatic distress, labor pain, and physical changes.
• Positive Childbearing Motivation Subscales (26 items): Evaluates personal fulfillment, family continuity, social identity, and generative drives across four factors.
• Scoring Procedure: Mean scores are calculated separately for each of the 9 subscales as well as for the two overarching higher-order domains (PCM and NCM). Subscale mean scores range continuously from 1.00 to 5.00, where higher scores reflect stronger alignment with that motivational dimension. No single composite score is calculated, as positive and negative dimensions represent distinct psychological vectors.
• Target Population: General adult population of reproductive age (19 to 49 years), applicable to nulliparous individuals, parents considering subsequent births, and married or unmarried couples.
• Administration Mode: Self-administered (paper-and-pencil or online digital survey platform); completion time averages 10 to 15 minutes.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The foundational conceptual model of the Childbearing Motivations Scale was introduced by Margarida Guedes and collaborators in 2015 through their publication in the Journal of Child and Family Studies. The psychometric adaptation, expanded negative dimensionality, and validation within East Asian cohorts (C-CMS) were executed by Jiaxin Cheng, Hongxia Wang, and colleagues in 2025 via BMC Psychology.

The scale is an academic, non-commercial research instrument. While the conceptual architecture and validation analyses are published under open scientific access, the full item inventory is proprietary to the corresponding research teams. Academic researchers, health psychologists, and public health investigators seeking to administer the complete 47-item Childbearing Motivation Scale must request formal permission and obtain the authorized questionnaire directly from the corresponding author, Dr. Hongxia Wang ([email protected]), or the original developer, Dr. Margarida Guedes. Use for non-profit academic research is generally granted without licensing fees upon proper institutional verification and scholarly citation.

12. References

• Barker, R., & Buber-Ennser, I. (2024). Uncertainty and flexibility of fertility intentions. Advances in Life Course Research, 61, Article 100618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2024.100618
• Beaujouan, É. (2020). Latest-late fertility? Decline and resurgence of late parenthood across the low-fertility countries. Population and Development Review, 46(2), 219–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/padr.12334
• Brenning, K., Soenens, B., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2015). What’s your motivation to be pregnant? Relations between motives for parenthood and women’s prenatal functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 29(5), 755–765. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000110
• Cheng, J., Wang, X., Liu, J., Fei, J., Li, C., Tian, G., & Wang, H. (2025). Childbearing Motivation Scale: Psychometric validation in the general reproductive-age population. BMC Psychology, 13, Article 3843. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-03843-1
• Guedes, M., Pereira, M., Pires, R., Carvalho, P., & Canavarro, M. C. (2015). Childbearing Motivations Scale: Construction of a new measure and its preliminary psychometric properties. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(1), 180–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-013-9824-0
• Miller, W. B. (1994). Childbearing motivations, desires, and intentions: A theoretical framework. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 120(2), 223–258.
• Miller, W. B. (1995). Childbearing motivation and its measurement. Journal of Biosocial Science, 27(4), 473–487. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0021932000023087
• Nachoum, R., Moed, A., Madjar, N., & Kanat-Maymon, Y. (2021). Prenatal childbearing motivations, parenting styles, and child adjustment: A longitudinal study. Journal of Family Psychology, 35(6), 715–724. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000826
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
• Szcześniak, M., Falewicz, A., Meisner, M., & Grodecka, K. (2024). The mediating effect of maturity on anxiety and the motives for postponing parenthood. Scientific Reports, 14(1), Article 20258. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-71043-9

13. Items of the Scale