MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128766444 · doi:10.1017/s0714980800012484

Reliability, Validity and Reference Values of the Zarit Burden Interview for Assessing Informal Caregivers of Community-Dwelling Older Persons with Dementia

2000· article· en· W2128766444 on OpenAlexaffabout
Réjean Hébert, Gina Bravo, Michel Préville

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsHealth and Social Services Centre University Institute of Geriatrics of Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaCaregiver burdenMarital statusGerontologyPsychologyMoodActivities of daily livingFamily caregiversClinical psychologyCognitionCognitive impairmentPsychiatryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI) is the most widely used instrument for assessing the burden experienced by the caregivers of persons with dementia. As part of the Canadian Study of Health and Aging, the 22-item ZBI was administered to a representative sample of 312 informal caregivers of community-dwelling subjects with dementia. The mean score was 22.4 out of 88 (sd: 16.2) and the median score was 18.5, which is far lower than those reported in previous studies using this instrument with convenience samples. There was no significant difference in the burden score according to the age, gender, living arrangement, marital status or employment status of the caregiver. The ZBI score was more strongly correlated to the depressive mood of the caregivers (r = 0.59) and the behaviour problems of the care recipients (r = 0.64) than their cognitive (r = 0.32) and functional (r = 0.31) status. Following a factor analysis, a 12-item short version of the instrument is proposed with two factors: personal strain (3 items) and role strain (9 items).

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations550
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissementSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207