Development and validation of the gynecologic examination anxiety scale ( GEAS ): A 20‐item patient‐reported measure

Abstract Objective Gynecologic examinations often provoke anxiety, embarrassment, and a perceived loss of control. Valid, patient‐focused tools that specifically quantify examination‐related anxiety remain limited. This study developed and validated the gynecologic examination anxiety scale (GEAS). Methods In a methodological study conducted in Turkey (October 1, 2023–April 1, 2024), women aged 18–65 years with prior gynecologic examination experience completed an online survey disseminated via social networks. Item generation yielded 44 candidates. Content validity was assessed by 17 experts using the Lawshe approach; four items were removed and minor edits followed a 10‐person cognitive pretest, producing a 40‐item draft. Psychometric evaluation comprised exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis, plus reliability testing. Results Data from 400 participants were analyzed. Sampling adequacy was acceptable (Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) = 0.835; Bartlett's test of sphericity p < 0.001). Iterative refinement produced a 20‐item, five‐factor solution‐healthcare personnel approach (4 items), healthcare personnel experience (5), negative experiences (5), hygiene concerns (3), and individual attitudes (3) explaining 60.18% of variance. Model fit was acceptable (chi‐square/degrees of freedom [χ 2 /df] = 2.722; goodness of fit index [GFI] = 0.903; adjusted goodness of fit index [AGFI] = 0.872; comparative fit index [CFI] = 0.905; Tucker‐Lewis index [TLI] = 0.908; root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.066; standardized root mean square residual [SRMR] = 0.080). Internal consistency was good for the total scale ( α = 0.867) and adequate across subscales ( α = 0.685–0.818). Temporal stability was excellent (ICC = 0.897; n = 105 retested ≥2 weeks). Conclusion The GEAS is a brief, valid, and reliable instrument that captures anxiety specific to gynecologic examination and is suitable for clinic‐level screening/triage, tailoring of trauma‐informed care, and quality‐improvement efforts.