MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Psychometric evaluation of a Spanish Language Version of the Screen for Caregiver Burden (SCB) in caregivers of patients with mixed, vascular and Alzheimer’s dementia

2011· article· en· W1960621473 on OpenAlexaff
María G Guerra‐Silla, Luis Miguel Gutiérrez‐Robledo, Juan Manuel Villalpando‐Berumen, Mario Ulises Pérez‐Zepeda, Mariano Montaña‐Álvarez, Jorge Reyes‐Guerrero, Óscar Rosas‐Carrasco

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Nursing · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaCronbach's alphaCaregiver burdenVascular dementiaMedicinePsychologySevere dementiaClinical psychologyPsychometricsGerontologyPsychiatryDiseaseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To validate a Spanish language version of the Screen for Caregiver Burden, the full-length or long (25-item) and short (seven-item) versions in Mexican caregivers of patients with mixed, vascular and Alzheimer's dementia. BACKGROUND: Patients with dementia display impaired executive function and neuropsychiatric symptoms such as behavioural changes and sleep disturbances. These symptoms can make patients become more dependent. The experience of caregiving for patients under these conditions is burdensome. It is important to detect this burden to protect both the caregiver and the patient from negative outcomes. DESIGN: Survey. METHODS: Participants were 143 primary caregivers of patients with dementia and 30 caregivers of older adults without dementia in two hospitals in Mexico City. RESULTS: The internal reliability was Cronbach's α=0·89 and 0·82 for the 25-item and the seven-item versions, respectively. The item-total correlations for two Screen for Caregiver Burden versions were significant from r=0·26 to r=0·77 p<0·001. The test-retest was ICC=0·78 p<0·001; CI 95% (0·55-0·89) and ICC=0·72 p<0·001; CI 95% (0·41-0·86) for the 25-item and the seven-item, respectively. We found from non-significant to highly significant correlations between two Screen for Caregiver Burden versions and other measures ranged. Validity of known groups showed that the caregivers of demented patients experienced more burden than those caring for non-demented patients. CONCLUSIONS: Given these psychometric properties, both versions of the Screen for Caregiver Burden are valid tools and can be reliably used to assess the presence and level of caregiver burden in caregivers of demented patients. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The Screen for Caregiver Burden in the Spanish Language can be used in clinical practice to detect caregiver burden in family members. We recommend using the long or full-length version when the objective is to assess the caregiver burden carefully and the short version (seven-item) as a screening method of caregiver burden that requires attention.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.172

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.329 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical NursingSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207