Validation of the Care Partner Stress Scale in the CAN-PROTECT Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Family and friend care partners play a vital role in supporting individuals with neurocognitive disorders, such as Alzheimer disease and related dementias. Care partners are often uncompensated and face unique, multifaceted challenges that contribute to overall stress. The Care Partner Stress Scale (CPSS) was developed to assess caregiver stress across seven domains: cognition, behaviour, function; unmet needs and emotional impact; work and financial strain; family and interpersonal conflict; and situational perception. Objective To evaluate psychometric properties of the CPSS in care partners of individuals with neurocognitive or neurodegenerative diseases of aging. Methods The CPSS was completed by 116 (87.1% female, age=62.11 years) care partner participants in CAN-PROTECT. Participants completed measures of depression, anxiety, quality of life, function, loneliness, and life satisfaction and engagement. We assessed internal consistency, item-total correlations, convergent and discriminant validity, and floor/ceiling effects. Results The CPSS demonstrated excellent internal consistency (α=0.96, 95% CI: 0.94-0.97), with all item-total correlations >0.30. Higher scores were associated with greater depression ( b =2.73, 95%CI [0.82, 4.64], p =0.006), anxiety ( b =5.33, 95%CI [2.53, 8.12], p =0.001), and anxious distress ( b =6.93, 95%CI [3.47, 10.40], p =0.001), and lower life satisfaction ( b =-3.20, 95%CI [-5.68, −0.71], p =0.012) and engagement ( b =3.48, 95%CI [1.40, 5.56], p =0.001). CPSS scores were not associated with loneliness ( b =4.40, 95%CI [-0.51, 9.31], p =0.078), self-care ( b =-1.59, 95%CI [-6.80, 3.62], p =0.547), or social relationships ( b =-2.04, 95%CI [-4.59, −0.51], p =0.117). Floor effects were minimal (0.86%), with no ceiling effects. Conclusions The CPSS is a valid instrument for assessing multidimensional stress among care partners of individuals with neurocognitive disorders.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".