Sylvie D Lambert1, Hyojin Yoon2, Katrina R Ellis3, Laurel Northouse4. 1. Ingram School of Nursing, McGill University, Montreal, Canada. Electronic address: sylvie.lambert@mcgill.ca. 2. School of Nursing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA. Electronic address: hyojiny@umich.edu. 3. School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA. Electronic address: kahe@umich.edu. 4. School of Nursing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA. Electronic address: lnortho@umich.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Examine the psychometric properties of the Appraisal of Caregiving Scale (ACS). METHODS: Data were collected as part of the FOCUS Program trial in Michigan (N = 484 caregivers). RESULTS: Exploratory factor analysis found the ACS measured Threat, General Stress, and Benefit appraisals. Cronbach's alphas for all subscales exceeded 0.70. Construct validity analyses indicated the Threat subscale correlated significantly with concepts of avoidant coping, burden, and dyadic support (r > 0.30). General Stress correlated significantly with burden (r = 0.348) and dyadic support (r = -0.373), and the Benefit subscale correlated significantly with active coping (r = 0.444). Known group analyses indicated that depressed caregivers had higher Threat and General Stress scores than non-depressed caregivers. Also, younger caregivers reported significantly higher scores on the General Stress subscale than older caregivers. Predictive validity analyses found appraisal scores at baseline accounted for 33.3% of the variance in hopelessness and 27.8% of the variance in depression at Time 2. CONCLUSION AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The ACS is a reliable measure of Threat, General Stress, and Benefit appraisals, with some support for its validity. Health professionals may find the ACS useful for guiding intervention development. Future research should continue to examine the ACS' validity.
OBJECTIVE: Examine the psychometric properties of the Appraisal of Caregiving Scale (ACS). METHODS: Data were collected as part of the FOCUS Program trial in Michigan (N = 484 caregivers). RESULTS: Exploratory factor analysis found the ACS measured Threat, General Stress, and Benefit appraisals. Cronbach's alphas for all subscales exceeded 0.70. Construct validity analyses indicated the Threat subscale correlated significantly with concepts of avoidant coping, burden, and dyadic support (r > 0.30). General Stress correlated significantly with burden (r = 0.348) and dyadic support (r = -0.373), and the Benefit subscale correlated significantly with active coping (r = 0.444). Known group analyses indicated that depressed caregivers had higher Threat and General Stress scores than non-depressed caregivers. Also, younger caregivers reported significantly higher scores on the General Stress subscale than older caregivers. Predictive validity analyses found appraisal scores at baseline accounted for 33.3% of the variance in hopelessness and 27.8% of the variance in depression at Time 2. CONCLUSION AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The ACS is a reliable measure of Threat, General Stress, and Benefit appraisals, with some support for its validity. Health professionals may find the ACS useful for guiding intervention development. Future research should continue to examine the ACS' validity.
Authors: Janet K Harden; Martin G Sanda; John T Wei; Hossein Yarandi; Larry Hembroff; Jill Hardy; Laurel L Northouse Journal: Cancer Nurs Date: 2013 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.592
Authors: M H Antoni; J M Lehman; K M Kilbourn; A E Boyers; J L Culver; S M Alferi; S E Yount; B A McGregor; P L Arena; S D Harris; A A Price; C S Carver Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2001-01 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Laurel L Northouse; Darlene W Mood; Ann Schafenacker; Gregory Kalemkerian; Mark Zalupski; Patricia LoRusso; Daniel F Hayes; Maha Hussain; John Ruckdeschel; A Mark Fendrick; Peter C Trask; David L Ronis; Trace Kershaw Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2012-01-31 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Katrina R Ellis; Mary R Janevic; Trace Kershaw; Cleopatra H Caldwell; Nancy K Janz; Laurel Northouse Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-09-08 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Sylvie D Lambert; Patrick McElduff; Afaf Girgis; Janelle V Levesque; Tim W Regan; Jane Turner; Hayley Candler; Cathrine Mihalopoulos; Sophy T F Shih; Karen Kayser; Peter Chong Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-07-17 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Katrina R Ellis; Mary R Janevic; Trace Kershaw; Cleopatra H Caldwell; Nancy K Janz; Laurel Northouse Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2016-05-05 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Kelly R Tan; Sheila J Santacroce; William A Wood; Deborah K Mayer; Hudson Santos; Peter J Mucha; Todd A Schwartz; Barbara L Fredrickson Journal: J Adv Nurs Date: 2021-01-18 Impact factor: 3.187
Authors: Janelle V Levesque; Sylvie D Lambert; Afaf Girgis; Jane Turner; Patrick McElduff; Karen Kayser Journal: Asia Pac J Oncol Nurs Date: 2015 Jul-Sep
Authors: Lixin Song; Matthew E Nielsen; Ronald C Chen; Christine Rini; Thomas C Keyserling; Eno Idiagbonya; Gail P Fuller; Laurel Northouse; Mary H Palmer; Xianming Tan Journal: Trials Date: 2022-01-04 Impact factor: 2.279