PURPOSE: Validity is a contextual aspect of a scale which may differ across sample populations and study protocols. The objective of our study was to validate the Care-Related Quality of Life Instrument (CarerQol) across two different study design features, sampling framework (general population vs. different care settings) and survey mode (interview vs. written questionnaire). METHODS: Data were extracted from The Older Persons and Informal Caregivers Minimum DataSet (TOPICS-MDS, www.topics-mds.eu ), a pooled public-access data set with information on >3,000 informal caregivers throughout the Netherlands. Meta-correlations and linear mixed models between the CarerQol's seven dimensions (CarerQol-7D) and caregiver's level of happiness (CarerQol-VAS) and self-rated burden (SRB) were performed. RESULTS: The CarerQol-7D dimensions were correlated to the CarerQol-VAS and SRB in the pooled data set and the subgroups. The strength of correlations between CarerQol-7D dimensions and SRB was weaker among caregivers who were interviewed versus those who completed a written questionnaire. The directionality of associations between the CarerQol-VAS, SRB and the CarerQol-7D dimensions in the multivariate model supported the construct validity of the CarerQol in the pooled population. Significant interaction terms were observed in several dimensions of the CarerQol-7D across sampling frame and survey mode, suggesting meaningful differences in reporting levels. CONCLUSIONS: Although good scientific practice emphasises the importance of re-evaluating instrument properties in individual research studies, our findings support the validity and applicability of the CarerQol instrument in a variety of settings. Due to minor differential reporting, pooling CarerQol data collected using mixed administration modes should be interpreted with caution; for TOPICS-MDS, meta-analytic techniques may be warranted.
PURPOSE: Validity is a contextual aspect of a scale which may differ across sample populations and study protocols. The objective of our study was to validate the Care-Related Quality of Life Instrument (CarerQol) across two different study design features, sampling framework (general population vs. different care settings) and survey mode (interview vs. written questionnaire). METHODS: Data were extracted from The Older Persons and Informal Caregivers Minimum DataSet (TOPICS-MDS, www.topics-mds.eu ), a pooled public-access data set with information on >3,000 informal caregivers throughout the Netherlands. Meta-correlations and linear mixed models between the CarerQol's seven dimensions (CarerQol-7D) and caregiver's level of happiness (CarerQol-VAS) and self-rated burden (SRB) were performed. RESULTS: The CarerQol-7D dimensions were correlated to the CarerQol-VAS and SRB in the pooled data set and the subgroups. The strength of correlations between CarerQol-7D dimensions and SRB was weaker among caregivers who were interviewed versus those who completed a written questionnaire. The directionality of associations between the CarerQol-VAS, SRB and the CarerQol-7D dimensions in the multivariate model supported the construct validity of the CarerQol in the pooled population. Significant interaction terms were observed in several dimensions of the CarerQol-7D across sampling frame and survey mode, suggesting meaningful differences in reporting levels. CONCLUSIONS: Although good scientific practice emphasises the importance of re-evaluating instrument properties in individual research studies, our findings support the validity and applicability of the CarerQol instrument in a variety of settings. Due to minor differential reporting, pooling CarerQol data collected using mixed administration modes should be interpreted with caution; for TOPICS-MDS, meta-analytic techniques may be warranted.
Authors: Renske J Hoefman; N Job A van Exel; Sandra Looren de Jong; W Ken Redekop; Werner B F Brouwer Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2011-01-01 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Paul Hanly; Rebecca Maguire; Myles Balfe; Philip Hyland; Aileen Timmons; Eleanor O'Sullivan; Phyllis Butow; Linda Sharp Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-05-16 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Catherine Reed; Annabel Barrett; Jeremie Lebrec; Richard Dodel; Roy W Jones; Bruno Vellas; Anders Wimo; Josep Maria Argimon; Giuseppe Bruno; Josep Maria Haro Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2017-01-21 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Cynthia S Hofman; Jennifer E Lutomski; Han Boter; Bianca M Buurman; Anton J M de Craen; Rogier Donders; Marcel G M Olde Rikkert; Peter Makai; René J F Melis Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-03-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Silke F Metzelthin; Ellen Verbakel; Marja Y Veenstra; Job van Exel; Antonius W Ambergen; Gertrudis I J M Kempen Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2017-10-10 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Cornelis L P van de Ree; Kari Ploegsma; Tim A Kanters; Jan A Roukema; Mariska A C De Jongh; Taco Gosens Journal: J Patient Rep Outcomes Date: 2018-05-03