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