IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0154331.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Psychometric Evaluation of 5- and 4-Item Versions of the LATCH Breastfeeding Assessment Tool during the Initial Postpartum Period among a Multiethnic Population

Author

Listed:
  • Ying Lau
  • Tha Pyai Htun
  • Peng Im Lim
  • Sarah Ho-Lim
  • Piyanee Klainin-Yobas

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the internal consistency, structural validity, sensitivity and specificity of the 5- and 4-item versions of the LATCH assessment tool among a multiethnic population in Singapore. Methods: The study was a secondary analysis of a subset of data (n = 907) from our previous breastfeeding survey from 2013 to 2014. The internal consistency of the LATCH was examined using Cronbach’s alpha. The structural validity was assessed using an exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and the proposed factors were confirmed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using separate samples. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the LATCH score thresholds for predicting non-exclusive breastfeeding. Results: The Cronbach’s alpha values of the 5- and 4-item LATCH assessments were 0.70 and 0.74, respectively. The EFA demonstrated a one-factor structure for the 5- and 4-item LATCH assessments among a randomized split of 334 vaginally delivered women. Two CFA of the 4-item LATCH demonstrated better fit indices of the models compared to the two CFA of the 5-item LATCH among another randomized split of 335 vaginally delivered women and 238 cesarean delivered women. Using cutoffs of 5.5 and 3.5 were recommended when predicting non-exclusive breastfeeding for 5- and 4-item versions of the LATCH assessment among vaginally delivered women (n = 669), with satisfactory sensitivities (94% and 95%), low specificities (0% and 2%), low positive predictive values (25%) and negative predictive values (20% and 47%). A cutoff of 5.5 was recommended to predict non-exclusive breastfeeding for 5- and 4-item versions among cesarean delivered women (n = 238) with satisfactory sensitivities (93% and 98%), low specificities (4% and 9%), low positive predictive values (41%) and negative predictive values (65% and 75%). Therefore, the tool has good sensitivity but poor specificity, positive and negative predictive values. Conclusions: We found that the 4-item version demonstrated sound psychometric properties compared to the 5-item version. Health professionals can use the 4-item LATCH as a clinical tool because it is a concise, easy-to-use and valid tool for assessing breastfeeding techniques among a multiethnic population.

Suggested Citation

  • Ying Lau & Tha Pyai Htun & Peng Im Lim & Sarah Ho-Lim & Piyanee Klainin-Yobas, 2016. "Psychometric Evaluation of 5- and 4-Item Versions of the LATCH Breastfeeding Assessment Tool during the Initial Postpartum Period among a Multiethnic Population," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(5), pages 1-15, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0154331
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154331
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0154331
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0154331&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0154331?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0154331. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.