Skip to main content

Table 1 Shortened versions of the IIFAS-scale

From: Psychometric properties of the original and short Hungarian version of the Iowa infant feeding attitude scale

Research

Study design

Cronbach’s alpha of the 17-item scale

Mean

Number of items

Left out items’ numbers

Cronbach’s alpha of the shortened scale

Tomás-Almarcha 2016, Spain

IIFAS-S9 [33]

Convenience sample 1354 pregnant women, prospective

0.72

66.12

9 items

1, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 16, 17

0.79

AlKusayer 2018, Canada IIFAS-C13 [34]

Cross-sectional, 1238 pregnant women

0.87

 

13 items

4, 11, 16, 17

0.86

Nanishi 2014, Japan IIFAS-J16 [20]

Longitudinal, 781 pregnant women

0.46 (citing Inoue [19])

61.04

16 items

17

0.66

Ghasemi 2018, Iran

IIFAS-I11 [35]

Cross-sectional, 280 breastfeeding mothers

not reported

neutral (49–69)

11 items

1, 4, 5, 8, 10, 17

0.85

Ying Lau Singapore 2016 [23]

Cross-sectional, 417 multi-ethnic, English speaking pregnant women

not reported

different between ethnic groups, 62–57

5, 17

 

0.79

Further research results indicating low CITC for certain items:

Abdulahi 2020, Ethiopia [22]

Cross-sectional, 468 pregnant women

0.72

65.7

 

4, 11

 

Charafeddine 2016 IIFAS-A

Lebanon [18]

Cross-sectional, convenience sample, 196 Arab women, pregnant or peer counselors

0.64

37–85, 72.4% neutral (60–75) attitude

 

8, 17

0.693

Dai 2013, China [21]

Convenience sample of 660 postpartum women, prospective

0.623

59.82

 

6, 10, 17

0.76