Psychometric testing of the Care Dependency Scale in patients with heart failure and their caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This study aims to (i) test the validity and reliability of the Care Dependency Scale (CDS) for patients with heart failure (HF) and (ii) test the validity and reliability of the proxy version of the CDS assessing informal caregivers' perception of the dependency level of individuals with HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Secondary data analysis was conducted of transnational multicentre cross-sectional design study. A convenience sample comprised of HF patients-informal caregivers' dyads in three European countries. The CDS was administered to patients and the proxy version to informal caregivers. Factorial validity was tested for each scale using confirmatory factor analysis. Reliability was evaluated with the composite coefficient and Cronbach's alpha. Construct validity was tested via known group differences. Measurement error was tested to assess responsiveness to changes. A total of 229 patients and 208 caregivers were recruited. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the two-factor structure (Physical Care Dependency and Psychosocial Care Dependency) of the CDS in both HF patients and their caregiver. Reliability estimates were adequate for all reliability coefficients. Construct validity was supported. The measurement error was adequate. CONCLUSION: The scale shows acceptable validity and reliability and can be useful for care dependency assessment of patients with HF and their informal caregivers. Further research is needed for assessing the validity and reliability in other cross-cultural settings. The use of the CDS has the potential to effectively enable the development of pertinent care plans, taking dependency into consideration including the perspective of both members of the dyad as a whole.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".