RNOtherJournal of human lactation : official journal of International Lactation Consultant Association2026

Measurement Properties and Quality of Maternal Breastfeeding Instruments: A Scoping Review.

Seyedeh Samira Mokhlesi, Vidanka Vasilevski, Kolsoom Safari and 1 others

PMID 42035321

WHAT IT FOUND

Six breastfeeding questionnaires were recommended for use.

The rest were not recommended or need more testing. None were checked across different groups, for errors in scores, or for detecting change.

Key findings

01Six breastfeeding instruments were recommended for use under COSMIN category A.

02The Gender-Role Attitudes instrument was not recommended because its content validity was rated insufficient.

03No instrument reported cross-cultural validity, measurement error, or responsiveness.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The search was limited to English publications, so breastfeeding instruments developed or validated in other languages may have been missed. Only original versions of instruments were reviewed, so later adaptations, translations, and refinements were not assessed. Interpretability and feasibility were not evaluated. Nearly all instruments had inadequate development quality, often because the sample did not represent the target population or item development methods were poor. Content validity was often unclear because studies did not describe how relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility were assessed. No instrument was tested for cross-cultural validity, measurement error, or responsiveness. Test-retest reliability was assessed in six instruments, and none reported intraclass correlation or weighted Kappa.

Declared interests

This review was undertaken as part of a PhD scholarship funded by Deakin University. The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, or publication of the article.

The easy way to misread this

Do not treat the six recommended instruments as suitable for all groups or for detecting change. The review found no instrument tested across different groups, for score errors, or for responsiveness.

Read it on PubMed →