DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.23615649.v1
title: Predictors [M1] <strong>[2t2]</strong> of Consanguinity Marriage Decision in Saudi Arabia: A Pilot Study [M1] [M1]The Article Title is different from the one submitted online at susy.mdpi.com., Please confirm the correct title [2t2]Based on the reviewer recommendation the title was changed for the online submitted version to : <strong>Predictors of Consanguinity Marriage Decision in Saudi </strong> <strong> Arabia: A Pilot Study</strong>.xlsx

description: 2.1. Study Design A pilot study was conducted among university students in Saudi Arabia to gather information over a three-month period, from January 22, 2022, to April 22, 2022. The data was collected through an online questionnaire that participants completed on their own. 2.2. Population and Inclusion Criteria The study focused on unmarried Saudi university students. 2.3. Research Instruments and Tools of the Study The research utilized a questionnaire consisting of 60 questions. Questionnaires were chosen as they are a cost-effective and efficient method for collecting data from a large number of participants, allowing for standardized data collection. The knowledge and perceived threat questions were based on two previous tools, with nine questions adapted from Miri-Moghaddam et al. [17] and three questions from Al-ghubishi et al. [18]. The researchers modified and added questions to tailor them to the target population. The questionnaire comprised five sections: Section 1: This section included ten sociodemographic questions covering nationality, age, gender, marital status, academic status, academic level, type of university, specialty, type of residence, and residential area. Section 2: This section contained 32 questions assessing knowledge about genetic blood disorders. Correct answers were assigned a value of 1, while incorrect answers were assigned a value of 0. The maximum possible score was 32. The median score, 9, was used as the cutoff point. Scores of 9 or higher were considered indicative of good knowledge, while scores below 9 indicated poor knowledge. Section 3: This section comprised six questions examining perceived threats associated with genetic blood disorders. Participants responded to the questions using a 3-point Likert scale, resulting in a maximum score of 18. The cutoff points for scoring were determined at the first and third quartiles. Scores equal to or below 10 were categorized as low perceived threats, scores of 11–14 indicated moderate perceived threats, and scores of 15 or above suggested high perceived threats. Section 4: This section consisted of two questions measuring attitudes using a 3-point Likert scale. The total possible score was 6. The cutoff points were determined at the first and third quartiles. Attitudes were classified as poor (score of 4 or below), moderate (score of 5), or good (score of 6). Poor attitudes represented participants who supported or preferred consanguineous marriage, while good attitudes indicated participants who opposed consanguineous marriage and did not support it. Section 5: This section included two questions evaluating norms using a 3-point Likert scale. The total possible score was 6. The cutoff points were determined at the first and third quartiles. A total norm score of 4 or below was considered poor, 5 indicated moderate norms, and 6 represented good norms. Poor norms referred to participants who supported or preferred consanguineous marriage, while good norms indicated participants who opposed consanguineous marriage and did not support it. Additionally, poor indicated a participant's perception of their family's attitude supporting consanguineous marriage, while good indicated a participant's perception of their family's attitude opposing consanguineous marriage and not supporting it. Lastly, a multiple-choice question was included regarding participants' intended marriage decision when a couple's premarital examination did not match. The available answer choices were categorized as follows: 3 for a good decision, 2 for neutrality, and 1 for a poor decision. Participants who chose 'poor' indicated a willingness to continue the marriage regardless of the premarital screening result, while those who selected 'good' indicated an intention to seek genetic counseling to make an informed decision. 'Neutral' represented participants who were undecided about their future