{"id":154,"date":"2023-06-05T12:02:59","date_gmt":"2023-06-05T10:02:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.caregiver-benefits.de\/?page_id=154"},"modified":"2023-06-05T12:02:59","modified_gmt":"2023-06-05T10:02:59","slug":"interesting-for-scientists","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.caregiver-benefits.de\/en\/interesting-for-scientists\/","title":{"rendered":"Interesting for Scientists"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Here you can find all information on the construction and validation of the scale. For further questions and suggestions, please feel free <a href=\"https:\/\/www.caregiver-benefits.de\/contact\/\">to contact us<\/a>.<\/p>\n<h2>Validation of the Scale<\/h2>\n<p>The validation of the scale was carried out using the data of <span style=\"color: #ff6600\">961 family caregivers<\/span>. <span style=\"color: #ff6600\">Cronbach\u2019s Alpha<\/span> was calculated to assess the items\u2019 internal consistency and a <span style=\"color: #ff6600\">factor analysis<\/span> was conducted to determine the structure of the BBCS. In addition, <span style=\"color: #ff6600\">discriminatory power<\/span> and <span style=\"color: #ff6600\">item difficulty<\/span> were examined, and the construct validity was established by testing four hypotheses. The associated study was recently published in the journal <em>BMC Geriatrics <\/em>(DOI: <a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s12877-022-03650-y\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s12877-022-03650-y<\/a>).<\/p>\n<h3><strong>Validation sample<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>Validation data were collected as part of the study <span style=\"color: #ff6600\">\u201cBenefits of Being a Caregiver\u201d<\/span>. (For this, approval was obtained from the ethics committee of the Friedrich-Alexander-Universit\u00e4t Erlangen-Nuremberg (No.: 220_20 B)). Subsequently, between 10\/2019 and 03\/2020, <span style=\"color: #ff6600\">self-report questionnaires<\/span> were distributed to caregivers who applied for a first-time classification or an increase in <span style=\"color: #ff6600\">care level<\/span> with the Medical Service (MD). The questionnaires were completed by 1082 family caregivers, of which 121 cases had to be excluded due to the care receivers being younger than 65.<\/p>\n<p>The v<span style=\"color: #ff6600\">alidation sample<\/span> included 961 family caregivers, who were on average <span style=\"color: #ff6600\">61 years old<\/span> and more than two thirds of whom were <span style=\"color: #ff6600\">women<\/span> (76.2 %). The majority are partners and adult children (in law) (87.1 %) who supported their relatives. The <span style=\"color: #ff6600\">average age<\/span> of the care receivers is 77 and 64% are women.<\/p>\n<p>All CRs were living at home and 52.8 % were living together with their CG. The <span style=\"color: #ff6600\">average age of the CGs<\/span> was 62.10 years (SD = 12.6), 75.7 % were female, 30.5 % were spouses, 59.5 % were caregiving children (in law) or other CGs (e.g. aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews), and 47.7 % were employed. The <span style=\"color: #ff6600\">mean age of the CRs<\/span> was 82.12 years (SD = 7.0) and 66.9 % were female. The reasons for needing care were for example <span style=\"color: #ff6600\">frailty caused by old age<\/span>, <span style=\"color: #ff6600\">dementia<\/span>, <span style=\"color: #ff6600\">strokes<\/span> and <span style=\"color: #ff6600\">cancer<\/span>. A total of 37.9 % of the CRs received care due to dementia.<\/p>\n<p>For further information on the sample, see Table 3 of the study <a href=\"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1186\/s12877-022-03650-y\">\u201cValidation of the Benefits of Being a Caregiver Scale (BBCS) \u2013 further development of an independent characteristic of informal caregiving\u201d by Pendergrass et al. (2023)<\/a>.<\/p>\n<h3><\/h3>\n<h3><strong>Distribution<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>The possible <span style=\"color: #ff6600\">score-range of 0-60 points<\/span> was completely utilized. The <span style=\"color: #ff6600\">mean score<\/span> was 27.07 (SD = 12.91) and the <span style=\"color: #ff6600\">median<\/span> was 27.00.<\/p>\n<p><strong> <img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone wp-image-70\" src=\"https:\/\/www.caregiver-benefits.de\/files\/2023\/05\/15E92EB1-1844-48B7-9A89-87233C7EE504-300x150.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"590\" height=\"295\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.caregiver-benefits.de\/files\/2023\/05\/15E92EB1-1844-48B7-9A89-87233C7EE504-300x150.jpg 300w, https:\/\/www.caregiver-benefits.de\/files\/2023\/05\/15E92EB1-1844-48B7-9A89-87233C7EE504-768x385.jpg 768w, https:\/\/www.caregiver-benefits.de\/files\/2023\/05\/15E92EB1-1844-48B7-9A89-87233C7EE504-140x70.jpg 140w, https:\/\/www.caregiver-benefits.de\/files\/2023\/05\/15E92EB1-1844-48B7-9A89-87233C7EE504-480x240.jpg 480w, https:\/\/www.caregiver-benefits.de\/files\/2023\/05\/15E92EB1-1844-48B7-9A89-87233C7EE504.jpg 878w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 590px) 100vw, 590px\" \/><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h3><strong>Other constructs surveyed<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>In order to assess the <span style=\"color: #ff6600\">validity of the scale<\/span>, the following <span style=\"color: #ff6600\">constructs<\/span> were additionally surveyed in the same rating.<\/p>\n<table>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"302\"><strong>Construct<\/strong><\/td>\n<td width=\"302\"><strong>Rating instrument<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"302\">Subjective burden of caregiver\/CG<\/td>\n<td width=\"302\">Short version of the Burden-Scale for Family Caregivers (BSFC-s) (Graessel et al., 2014)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"302\">Positive aspects of caregiving<\/td>\n<td width=\"302\">Positive Aspects of Caregiving (PAC)-Skala (Tarlow et al., 2004)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"302\">General coping behavior<\/td>\n<td width=\"302\">COPE 6 Fragebogen (derived from the Brief COPE-Fragebogen) (Carver, 1997)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"302\">Quality of relationship between CG and CR<\/td>\n<td width=\"302\">Rating by CG current and prior to the need for care as \u201epositive\u201c or \u201eneutral\/negative\u201c<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"302\">3 aspects of informal caregiving time: ADLs (activities of daily life), IADLs (instrumental activities of daily life) und supervision<\/td>\n<td width=\"302\">Measurement with one item each according to the Resource Utilisation in Dementia (RUD)-questionaire (Wimo &amp; Winblad, 2003) + average number of hours devoted to it per day<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"302\">Sociodemographic and general characteristics<\/td>\n<td width=\"302\"><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<h3><strong>Validity<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>The <span style=\"color: #ff6600\">convergent validity<\/span> was tested with the hypotheses H1-H3, the <span style=\"color: #ff6600\">discriminant validity<\/span> with H4 (the hypotheses were based on current findings in the literature).<\/p>\n<table>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"85\">Hypothesis<\/td>\n<td width=\"236\">Hypothesis<\/td>\n<td width=\"85\">Hypothesis confirmed<\/td>\n<td width=\"198\">Result<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"85\">H1<\/td>\n<td width=\"236\">Because the PACS (Positive Aspects of Caregiving) and the BBCS measure similar constructs, the two scales are highly positively correlated<\/td>\n<td width=\"85\">\u2713<\/td>\n<td width=\"198\">Sig. positive correlation between PACS and BBCS (<em>r<\/em> = 0.75)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"85\">H2a<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>H2b<\/td>\n<td width=\"236\">The CGs\u2018 Adaptive coping (emotion-focused, problem-focused) tends to Correlates positively with the BBCS sum score<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Maladaptive coping (dysfunctional) is not correlated with the BBCS sum score<\/td>\n<td width=\"85\">\u2713<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>\u2713<\/td>\n<td width=\"198\">Sig. positive correlation between BBCS and emotion-focused coping (<em>r <\/em>= 0.18) and BBCS and problem-focused coping (<em>r <\/em>= 0.23)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>No sig. correlation between BBCS and maladaptive coping (<em>r<\/em> = -0.05)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"85\">H3<\/td>\n<td width=\"236\">A positive current quality of relationship is positively correlated with the BBCS<\/td>\n<td width=\"85\">\u2713<\/td>\n<td width=\"198\">Sig. positive correlation between a current positive relationship and the BBCS (<em>\u03b7<\/em> = 0.20)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"85\">H4<\/td>\n<td width=\"236\">There is no correlation between BSFC-s and BBCS<\/td>\n<td width=\"85\">\u2713<\/td>\n<td width=\"198\">r = -0.07<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>All correlations were <span style=\"color: #ff6600\">hypothesis-compliant<\/span> \u21d2 All hypotheses for convergent and discriminant validity could be accepted<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><\/h3>\n<h3><strong>Special features and strength of validation<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>Particularly <span style=\"color: #ff6600\">large sample<\/span> for the validation: Almost 1000 family caregivers in Bavaria were surveyed<\/li>\n<li>One-factor structure of the BBCS can be <span style=\"color: #ff6600\">clearly demonstrated empirically<\/span> \u21d2 the <span style=\"color: #ff6600\">sum score<\/span> is justified and the score can be interpreted as an expression of the scope of performance<\/li>\n<li>Not only applicable to home care situations with dementia, but to <span style=\"color: #ff6600\">all situations<\/span> that lead to a need for care in older people<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>Limitations of validation<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>The validation sample was based only on family caregivers who provide home care in the sense of <span style=\"color: #ff6600\">caregiving services<\/span> (Relatives with minor needs for support were not included)<\/li>\n<li>The validation sample might not be representative of the <span style=\"color: #ff6600\">overall population<\/span> of informal caregivers (the sample was based on self-selected, German-speaking caregivers)<\/li>\n<li>Study for validation was based on <span style=\"color: #ff6600\">self-assessments<\/span> (associated with various risks)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Here you can find all information on the construction and validation of the scale. For further questions and suggestions, please feel free to contact us. Validation of the Scale The&hellip;<!--&hellip;--> <a class=\"more-link fa fa-angle-double-right\" href=\"https:\/\/www.caregiver-benefits.de\/en\/interesting-for-scientists\/\" title=\"Read more about &quot;Interesting for Scientists&quot;\"><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4313,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_rrze_cache":"enabled","_rrze_multilang_single_locale":"en_US","_rrze_multilang_single_source":"https:\/\/www.caregiver-benefits.de\/?page_id=59","footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-154","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry","en-US"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.caregiver-benefits.de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/154","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.caregiver-benefits.de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.caregiver-benefits.de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.caregiver-benefits.de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4313"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.caregiver-benefits.de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=154"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/www.caregiver-benefits.de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/154\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":173,"href":"https:\/\/www.caregiver-benefits.de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/154\/revisions\/173"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.caregiver-benefits.de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=154"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}