Validation of the Care-Related Quality of Life Instrument in different study settings: findings from The Older Persons and Informal Caregivers Survey Minimum DataSet (TOPICS-MDS)
- First Online:
- 392 Downloads
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).
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsCarerQol-7D Caregivers Quality of life Geriatric health services Visual analogue scale
- 8.Joling, K. J., van Hout, H. P., Schellevis, F. G., van der Horst, H. E., Scheltens, P., Knol, D. L., et al. (2010). Incidence of depression and anxiety in the spouses of patients with dementia: A naturalistic cohort study of recorded morbidity with a 6-year follow-up. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 18(2), 146–153.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.Mestheneos, E., & Triantafillou, J. (Eds.). (2005). Supporting family carers of older people in Europe: The Pan-European background report. Empirical evidence, policy trends and future perspectives. Hamburg: Lit Verlag.Google Scholar
- 11.Lutomski, J. E., Baars, M. A., Schalk, B. W., Boter, H., Buurman, B. M., den Elzen, W. P., et al. (2013). The development of the older persons and informal caregivers survey minimum dataset (TOPICS-MDS): A large-scale data sharing initiative. PLoS ONE, 8(12), e81673.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Martin, P., & Lynn, P. (2011). The effects of mixed mode survey designs on simple and complex analyses. Centre for comparative social surveys working paper series: Paper no. 04: Centre for comparative social surveys, City University London.Google Scholar
- 16.Hoefman, R. J., van Exel, N. J., Foets, M., & Brouwer, W. B. (2011). Sustained informal care: The feasibility, construct validity and test–retest reliability of the CarerQol-instrument to measure the impact of informal care in long-term care. Aging & Mental Health, 15(8), 1018–1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.van Exel, N. J., Scholte op Reimer, W. J., Brouwer, W. B., van den Berg, B., Koopmanschap, M. A., & van den Bos, G. A. (2004). Instruments for assessing the burden of informal caregiving for stroke patients in clinical practice: A comparison of CSI, CRA, SCQ and self-rated burden. Clinical Rehabilitation, 18(2), 203–214.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.Lutomski, J. E., Baars, M. A., van Kempen, J. A., Buurman, B. M., den Elzen, W. P., Jansen, A. P., et al. (2013). Validation of a frailty index from the older persons and informal caregivers survey minimum data set. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 61(9), 1625–1627.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 26.Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., et al. (2010). The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(7), 737–745.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 27.Schwarzer, G. (2013). meta: Meta-analysis with R. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/meta/meta.pdf. Version = 3.1-2.
- 28.Hopkins, W. G. (2002). A new view of statistics: Effect magnitudes. Retrieved from http://www.sportsci.org/resource/stats/effectmag.html on 27 February 2014.
- 30.De Leeuw, E. D. (2005). To mix or not to mix data collection modes in surveys. Journal of Official Statistics, 21, 233–255.Google Scholar
- 34.Hoefman, R. J., Van Exel, N. J. A., & Brouwer, W. B. F. (2011) iMTA Valuation of Informal Care Questionnaire (iVICQ). Version 1.0 (December 2011). Rotterdam: iBMG/iMTA, 2011. Retrieved from www.bmg.eur.nl/english/imta/publications/manuals_questionnaires/ on 25 September 2013.
- 36.Higgins, J. P. T., & Green, S. (eds) (2009). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0.2 [updated September 2009]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2009. www.cochrane-handbook.org.