Abstract
This study aimed to investigate whether endorsement of “difficulty coping” questions on two self-report measures would be affected by whether or not women had to put their name on the questionnaires. In addition, a small survey of mental health professionals was conducted to see what they thought the study would find. Women (n = 211) attending maternal and child health clinics completed two self-report measures of mood and experience of motherhood. Women were either asked to write their name on the forms and were told that the project officer would check their forms once completed (“named” condition) or asked not to put their name on the forms and that the forms would not be looked at (“anonymous” condition). Perinatal mental health professionals (n = 44) completed an anonymous survey asking them what they considered the study would find. Most health professionals (77.3%) expected that the anonymous condition would result in more “honest” responding by women—that is, there would be a higher rate of women admitting to not coping in the anonymous condition. To the contrary, however, this was not found. There were no differences between the rates of endorsement of “not currently coping” by women in the two conditions, a finding only expected by 13.6% of the professionals. There was a small, but statistically significant, difference in women reporting whether they had a prior history of difficulty coping, with more women in the named condition endorsing this. Rates of postnatal distress or depression, based upon responses to self-report mood or similar questionnaires, are unlikely to be affected by whether participants are required to put their name on the measures or not or whether they anticipate that their responses will be scrutinized. This is an unexpected finding by a sample of mental health professionals interested in the perinatal mental health field, and thus, the study has “new knowledge” significance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Appolonio KK, Fingerhut R (2008) Postpartum depression in a military sample. Mil Med 173:1085–1091
Backstrom M, Bjorklund F, Larsson MR (2009) Five-factor inventories have a major general factor related to social desirability which can be reduced by framing items neutrally. J Res Pers 43:335–344
Campbell TC (2005) An introduction to clinical significance: an alternative index of intervention effect for group experimental designs. J Early Interv 27:210–227
Cox J, Holden J, Sagovsky R (1987) Detection of postnatal depression: development of the 10 item Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. Brit J Psychiatry 150:782–786
Crowne DP, Marlowe D (1960) A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. J Consult Psychol 24:349–354
Cubison J, Munro J (2005) Acceptability of using a postnatal questionnaire derived from the EPDS as a screening tool for postnatal depression. In: Henshaw C, Elliott S (eds) Screening for perinatal depression. Ch. 15. Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London, pp 152–161
Curtis R, Robertson P, Forst A, Bradford C (2007) Postpartum mood disorders: results of an online survey. Counsel Psychother Res 7:203–210
Eysenck HJ, Eysenck SBG (1975) Manual of the eysenck personality questionnaire. Hodder and Stoughton, London
Field T, Morrow C, Healy B, Foster T, Adlestein D, Goldstein S (1991) Mothers with zero Beck Depression scores act more ‘depressed’ with their infants. Develop Psychopathol 3:253–262
Hall P (2006) Mothers’ experiences of postnatal depression: an interpretative phenomenological analysis. Comm Practitioner 79:256–260
Hathaway SR, McKinley JC (1951) Revised manual for the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. The Psychological Corporation, New York
Holmes JD (2009) Transparency of self-report racial attitude scales. Basic Appl Social Psychol 31:95–101
Jaccard J, Becker MA (1997) Statistics for the behavioral sciences, 3rd edn. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, Pacific Grove
Kline RB (2004) Beyond significance testing: reforming data analysis methods in behavioral research. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC
Leigh B, Milgrom J (2007) Acceptability of antenatal screening for depression in routine antenatal care. Aust J Adv Nurs 24:14–18
Lipsey MW (1990) Design sensitivity. Sage Publications, Newbury Park
Lykken DT (1991) What’s wrong with psychology anyway? In: Cicchetti D, Grove W (eds) Thinking clearly about psychology: personality and psychopathology, Chap. 1. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp 3–39
Massoudi P, Wickberg B, Hwang P (2007) Screening for postnatal depression in Swedish child health care. Acta Paediatr 96:897–901
Matthey S (1998) p < .05—but is it clinically significant? Practical examples for clinicians. Behav Change 15:140–146
Matthey S (2009) Women’s perceptions of the causes of their postnatal distress: development of the reasons for postnatal distress checklist. Depress Anxiety 26:938–948
Matthey S (2010) Are we overpathologising motherhood? J Affect Disord 120:263–266
Matthey S, Speyer J (2008) Changes in unsettled infant sleep and maternal mood following admission to a parentcraft residential unit. Early Hum Dev 84:623–629
Matthey S, White T, Phillips J, Taouk R, Chee TT, Barnett B (2005) Acceptability of routine antenatal psychosocial assessments to women from English and non-English speaking backgrounds. Arch Womens Ment Health 8:171–180
O'Hara MW, Swain AM (1996) Rates and risk of postpartum depression—a meta-analysis. Int Rev Psychiatry 8:37–54
Quigley J, Myer M, Howland K (2006) Evaluating the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. Aust Nurs J 13:23–26
Russell S (2006) Barriers to care in postnatal depression. Comm Practitioner 79:110–111
Tourangeau R, Yan T (2007) Sensitive questions in surveys. Psycholog Bulletin 133:859–883
Conflict of interest statement
There was no external funding source for this study. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Matthey, S., White, T. & Rice, S. Women’s responses to postnatal self-report mood and experience measures: does anonymity make a difference?. Arch Womens Ment Health 13, 477–484 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00737-010-0159-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00737-010-0159-1