Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften E-learning Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
UITGEBREID ZOEKEN
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 6/2014

01-08-2014

An investigation into the construct validity of the Carer Experience Scale (CES)

Auteurs: Ilias Goranitis, Joanna Coast, Hareth Al-Janabi

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 6/2014

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Purpose

The Carer Experience Scale (CES) is an index measure of the caring experience, focusing on six domains: activities outside caring, support from family and friends, assistance from the government and other organizations, fulfilment from caring, control over caring and getting on with the care recipient. This is an initial study of the construct validity of the CES focusing on validity in a heterogeneous group of carers in the UK.

Methods

The CES was included in a cross-sectional quality of life survey conducted in a UK city in 2010. The survey included a number of questions about the characteristics of the carer, care recipient, caring situation and motivation for caring. Hypotheses regarding the anticipated associations between these contextual variables and the caring experience were developed and statistically tested.

Results

Seven hundred and thirty carers fully completed the CES questionnaire. Associations between variables hypothesised to relate to the caring experience (such as recipient health and intensity of caring) and the CES were largely as expected, providing evidence that the CES captures the caring experience in a valid way. Most hypothesised associations were statistically significant in both carers of older and younger adults.

Conclusions

This study provides early encouraging evidence for the construct validity of the CES instrument. Further investigation is required to examine the validity of the CES in specific clinical subgroups and to examine the responsiveness of the CES in detecting changes in the carer’s outcomes over time.
vorige artikel Dutch–Flemish translation of 17 item banks from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)
volgende artikel An evaluation of the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire using Rasch analysis
Literatuur
1.
Pickard, L., Wittenberg, R., Comas-Herrera, A., Davies, B., & Darton, R. (2000). Relying on informal care in the new century? Informal care for elderly people in England to 2031. Ageing & Society, 20(6), 745–772.CrossRef
2.
Stone, P. W., Chapman, R. H., Sandberg, E. A., Liljas, B., & Neumann, P. J. (2000). Measuring costs in cost-utility analyses. Variations in the literature. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 16(1), 111–124.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Brouwer, W. B. (2006). Too important to ignore: Informal caregivers and other significant others. Pharmacoeconomics, 24(1), 39–41.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Goodrich, K., Kaambwa, B., & Al-Janabi, H. (2012). The inclusion of informal care in applied economic evaluation: A review. Value in Health, 15, 975–981.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Al-Janabi, H., Flynn, T. N., & Coast, J. (2011). QALYs and carers. Pharmacoeconomics, 29(12), 1015–1023.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Al-Janabi, H., Coast, J., & Flynn, T. N. (2008). What do people value when they provide unpaid care to an older person? A meta-ethnography with interview follow-up. Social Science and Medicine, 67(1), 111–121.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Al-Janabi, H., Flynn, T. N., & Coast, J. (2011). Estimation of a preference-based Carer Experience Scale. Medical Decision Making, 31(3), 458–468.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Brouwer, W. B., van Exel, N. J., van Gorp, B., & Redekop, W. K. (2006). The CarerQol instrument: A new instrument to measure care-related quality of life of informal caregivers for use in economic evaluations. Quality of Life Research, 15(6), 1005–1021.PubMedCrossRef
9.
10.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psycological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Kane, M. T. (2001). Current concerns in validity theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38(4), 319–342.CrossRef
12.
Al-Janabi, H., Frew, E., Brouwer, W. B., Rappange, D., & Van Exel, J. (2010). The inclusion of positive aspects of caring in the Caregiver Strain Index: Tests of feasibility and validity. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47(8), 984–993.PubMedCrossRef
13.
van Exel, N. J., Brouwer, W. B., van den Berg, B., Koopmanschap, M., & van den Bos, G. (2004). What really matters: An inquiry into the relative importance of dimensions of informal caregiver burden. Clinical Rehabilitation, 18(6), 683–693.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Hoefman, R. J., van Exel, N. J., Looren de Jong, S., Redekop, K., & Brouwer, W. B. (2011). A new test of the construct validity of the CarerQol instrument: Measuring the impact of informal care giving. Quality of Life Research, 20(6), 875–887.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
15.
Hoefman, R. J., van Exel, N. J., Foets, M., & Brouwer, W. B. (2011). Sustained informal care: The feasibility, construct validity and test–retest reliability of the CarerQol-instrument to measure the impact of informal care in long-term care. Aging & Mental Health, 15(8), 1018–1027.CrossRef
16.
Scholte op Reimer, W. J. M., de Haan, R. J., Rijnders, P. T., Limburg, M., & van den Bos, G. A. M. (1998). The burden of caregiving in partners of long-term stroke survivors. Stroke, 29, 1605–1611.PubMedCrossRef
17.
van Exel, N. J., Scholte op Reimer, W., Brouwer, W. B., van den Berg, B., Koopmanschap, M., & van den Bos, G. (2004). Instruments for assessing the burden of informal caregiving for stroke patients in clinical practice: A comparison of CSI, CRA, SCQ and self-rated burden. Clinical Rehabilitation, 18(2), 203–214.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Bobinac, A., van Exel, N. J., Rutten, F., & Brouwer, W. B. (2010). Caring for and caring about: Disentangling the caregiver effect and the family effect. Journal of Health Economics, 29(4), 549–556.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Almberg, B., Grafstrom, M., & Winblad, B. (1997). Caring for a demented elderly person—burden and burnout among caregiving relatives. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25(1), 109–116.PubMedCrossRef
20.
van den Heuvel, E. T., deWitte, L. P., Schure, L. M., Sanderman, R., & Meyboom de Jong, B. (2001). Risk factors for burn-out in caregivers of stroke patients, and possibilities for intervention. Clinical Rehabilitation, 15(6), 669–677.PubMedCrossRef
21.
van Exel, N. J., Koopmanschap, M. A., van den Berg, B., Brouwer, W. B., & van den Bos, G. A. (2005). Burden of informal caregiving for stroke patients. Cerebrovascular Diseases, 19(1), 11–17.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Peters, M., Fitzpatrick, R., Doll, H., Playford, D., & Jenkinson, C. (2011). Does self-reported well-being of patients with Parkinson’s disease influence caregiver strain and quality of life? Parkinsonism and Related Disorders, 17(5), 348–352.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Choi-Kwon, S., Kim, H. S., Kwon, S. U., & Kim, J. S. (2005). Factors affecting the burden on caregivers of stroke survivors in South Korea. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 86(5), 1043–1048.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Bugge, C., Alexander, H., & Hagen, S. (1999). Stroke patients’ informal caregivers. Patient, caregiver, and service factors that affect caregiver strain. Stroke, 30(8), 1517–1523.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Tooth, L., McKenna, K., Barnett, A., Prescott, C., & Murphy, S. (2005). Caregiver burden, time spent caring and health status in the first 12 months following stroke. Brain Injury, 19(12), 963–974.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Brouwer, W. B., van Exel, N. J., van den Berg, B., van den Bos, G., & Koopmanschap, M. (2005). Process utility from providing informal care: The benefit of caring. Health Policy, 74(1), 85–99.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Grant, J., Bartolucci, A., Elliot, T., & Newman Giger, J. (2000). Sociodemographic, physical, and psychosocial characteristics of depressed and non-depressed family caregivers of stroke survivors. Brain Injury, 14(12), 1089–1100.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Montgomery, R., Gonyea, J., & Hooyman, N. (1985). Caregiving and the experience of subjective and objective burden. Family Relations, 34, 19–26.CrossRef
29.
Pozzilli, C., Palmisano, L., Mainero, C., Tomassini, V., Marinelli, F., et al. (2004). Relationship between emotional distress in caregivers and health status in persons with multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis, 10(4), 442–446.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Orbell, S., Hopkins, N., & Gillies, B. (1993). Measuring the impact of informal caring. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 3, 149–163.CrossRef
31.
Jones, D. A., & Vetter, N. J. (1985). Formal and informal support received by carers of elderly dependants. British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Edition), 291, 643–645.CrossRef
32.
Zarit, S. H., Reever, K. E., & Bach-Peterson, J. (1980). Relatives of the impaired elderly: Correlates of feelings of burden. The gerontologist, 20(6), 649–655.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Metagegevens
Titel
An investigation into the construct validity of the Carer Experience Scale (CES)
Auteurs
Ilias Goranitis
Joanna Coast
Hareth Al-Janabi
Publicatiedatum
01-08-2014
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 6/2014
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0616-1

Andere artikelen Uitgave 6/2014

Quality of Life Research 6/2014 Naar de uitgave

OriginalPaper

Conceptualizing and prioritizing clinical trial outcomes from the perspectives of people with Parkinson’s disease versus health care professionals: a concept mapping study

OriginalPaper

Dutch–Flemish translation of 17 item banks from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)

Erratum

Erratum to: Development and validation of the functional assessment of chronic illness therapy treatment satisfaction (FACIT TS) measures

OriginalPaper

Use of cognitive interviews in the development of the PLUS-M item bank

OriginalPaper

Anchoring vignettes for health comparisons: an analysis of response consistency

OriginalPaper

Concept Analysis of the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) and the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)