Introduction and Psychometric Validation of the Resilience and Strain Questionnaire (ResQ-Care)- A Scale on the Ratio of Informal Caregivers' Resilience and Stress Factors.

Alexandra Wuttke-Linnemann, Svenja Palm, Lea Scholz, Katharina Geschke, Andreas Fellgiebel
Author Information
  1. Alexandra Wuttke-Linnemann: Center for Mental Health in Old Age, Landeskrankenhaus (AöR), Mainz, Germany.
  2. Svenja Palm: Center for Mental Health in Old Age, Landeskrankenhaus (AöR), Mainz, Germany.
  3. Lea Scholz: Center for Mental Health in Old Age, Landeskrankenhaus (AöR), Mainz, Germany.
  4. Katharina Geschke: Center for Mental Health in Old Age, Landeskrankenhaus (AöR), Mainz, Germany.
  5. Andreas Fellgiebel: Center for Mental Health in Old Age, Landeskrankenhaus (AöR), Mainz, Germany.

Abstract

Informal caregivers are a particularly vulnerable population at risk for adverse health outcomes. Likewise, there are many scales available assessing individual caregiver burden and stress. Recently, resilience in caregivers gained increasing interest and scales started to assess resilience factors as well. Drawing on a homeostatic model, we developed a scale assessing both caregivers' stress and resilience factors. We propose four scales, two covering stress and two covering resilience factors, in addition to a sociodemographic basic scale. Based on the stress:resilience ratio, the individual risk of adverse health outcomes and suggestions for interventions can be derived. A total of 291 informal caregivers filled in the ResQ-Care as part of a survey study conducted during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. Exploratory factor analysis was performed. Validity analyses were examined by correlations with the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS), the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-4) and the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15). The data fitted our proposed four-factor solution well, explaining 43.3% of the variance. Reliability of each scale was at least acceptable with Cronbach's α ≥0.67 and MacDonald's ω ≥0.68 for all scales. The two strain scales weighed more than the resilience scales and explained 65.6% of the variance. Convergent and discriminant validity was confirmed for the BRS and PSS-4, whereas the GDS-15 correlation pattern was counterintuitive. The factor structure of the ResQ-Care scale was confirmed, with good indications of reliability and validity. Inconsistent correlations of the scales with the GDS-15 might be due to a reduced validity of GDS-15 assessment during the COVID-19 lockdown.

Keywords

References

  1. Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol. 2018 Jan;68(1):10-21 [PMID: 29294504]
  2. Trends Cogn Sci. 2005 Oct;9(10):496-502 [PMID: 16154382]
  3. Int Psychogeriatr. 2015 Jun;27(6):927-36 [PMID: 25566686]
  4. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2005 Jun;20(6):537-46 [PMID: 15920707]
  5. Int J Behav Med. 2008;15(3):194-200 [PMID: 18696313]
  6. Transl Psychiatry. 2021 Jan 21;11(1):67 [PMID: 33479211]
  7. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1998 May 1;840:33-44 [PMID: 9629234]
  8. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2006 Mar;2(1):105-10 [PMID: 19412452]
  9. PLoS One. 2018 Feb 13;13(2):e0192761 [PMID: 29438435]
  10. J Am Acad Nurse Pract. 2008 Aug;20(8):423-8 [PMID: 18786017]
  11. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2014 Aug;22(8):756-65 [PMID: 24012226]
  12. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2021 Jan;29(1):27-34 [PMID: 33153872]
  13. J Alzheimers Dis. 2019;68(4):1325-1337 [PMID: 30909228]
  14. BMC Geriatr. 2016 Sep 23;16(1):164 [PMID: 27662829]
  15. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2020 Aug;37(8):648-658 [PMID: 31830813]
  16. Psychother Psychosom. 2021;90(1):11-27 [PMID: 32799204]
  17. J Psychiatr Res. 2018 Jan;96:115-123 [PMID: 29031131]
  18. Trends Psychiatry Psychother. 2015 Jan-Mar;37(1):12-9 [PMID: 25860562]
  19. J Clin Psychol. 1994 Mar;50(2):256-60 [PMID: 8014251]
  20. Palliat Support Care. 2020 Apr;18(2):220-240 [PMID: 31588882]
  21. BMC Psychiatry. 2015 Feb 15;15:23 [PMID: 25884352]
  22. J Appl Gerontol. 2021 Oct;40(10):1377-1388 [PMID: 32500766]
  23. Asian Nurs Res (Korean Soc Nurs Sci). 2012 Dec;6(4):121-7 [PMID: 25031113]
  24. J Health Soc Behav. 1983 Dec;24(4):385-96 [PMID: 6668417]
  25. JAMA. 2014 Mar 12;311(10):1052-60 [PMID: 24618967]
  26. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Aug 23;16(1):423 [PMID: 27550084]
  27. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2009;11(2):217-28 [PMID: 19585957]
  28. Aging Ment Health. 2017 May;21(5):509-517 [PMID: 26689489]
  29. Clin Interv Aging. 2015 Jul 01;10:1085-90 [PMID: 26170648]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0scalesresiliencestressscaleScaleGDS-15caregivershealthfactorstwoResQ-CareResiliencevalidityInformalriskadverseoutcomesassessingindividualwellcoveringCOVID-19factorcorrelationsBRSStressPSS-4variance≥0confirmedparticularlyvulnerablepopulationLikewisemanyavailablecaregiverburdenRecentlygainedincreasingintereststartedassessDrawinghomeostaticmodeldevelopedcaregivers'proposefouradditionsociodemographicbasicBasedstress:resilienceratiosuggestionsinterventionscanderivedtotal291informalfilledpartsurveystudyconductedsecondwavepandemicGermanyExploratoryanalysisperformedValidityanalysesexaminedBriefPerceivedGeriatricDepressiondatafittedproposedfour-factorsolutionexplaining433%ReliabilityleastacceptableCronbach'sα67MacDonald'sω68strainweighedexplained656%ConvergentdiscriminantwhereascorrelationpatterncounterintuitivestructuregoodindicationsreliabilityInconsistentmightduereducedassessmentlockdownIntroductionPsychometricValidationStrainQuestionnaire-RatioCaregivers'Factorscounselingdiagnosticshomeostasispreventionawareness

Similar Articles

Cited By