Adaptation of Caregivers' Task Scale for Multiple Sclerosis to Turkish Society: Validity and Reliability Study

Abstract

Objectives: This study was planned and carried out methodologically to adapt the Caregiving Tasks in Multiple Sclerosis Scale (CTiMSS) to Turkish society. Methods: A methodological research.The study was conducted with caregivers of individuals with multiple sclerosis who presented to the neurology clinic of a university hospital between June 2019 and September 2020. The validity and reliability study of the Caregiving Tasks in Multiple Sclerosis Scale (CTiMSS) was performed with a total of 142 individuals, which is more than 5 times the number of items on the scale (24 items). Results: The validity of the CTiMSS was evaluated with language validity, construct validity (CFA), and content validity. The reliability coefficient of the internal consistency analysis (Cronbach's Alpha) was found to be extremely high (0.97). Item-total correlation of the scale was examined, and accordingly, no items were removed from the scale. The scale was administered to 30 patients at a two-week interval to analyze test-retest reliability and time-dependent invariance. Conclusion: The CTiMSS, which was adapted to Turkish society to evaluate the tasks of individuals providing care for individuals with multiple sclerosis, is a valid and reliable tool. We recommend that it should be administered to different groups and cultures to increase its evidence value. CTiMSS is an appropriate measurement tool to determine the duties of caregivers of individuals with multiple sclerosis.

Keywords

• multiple sclerosis
• caregiver
• task
• validity
• reliablity

References

1. Aymerich M, Guillamón I, Jovell AJ. Health-related quality of life assessment ın people with multiple sclerosis and their family caregivers:A multicenter study ın catalonia. Patient Preference and Adherence. 2009; 3:311-32. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S6217
2. Dunn J. Impact of mobility impairment on the burden of caregiving ın ındividuals with multiple sclerosis. Expert Rev, Pharmaco Economics Outcomes Res. 2014; 10(4):433-440. doi: 10.1586/erp.10.34
3. Gupta S, Goren A, Phillips AL, Stewart M. Self-reported burden among caregivers of patients with multiple sclerosis. J MS Care. 2012; 14(4):179-187. doi: 10.7224/1537-2073-14.4.179
4. Lorefice L, Mura G, Coni G, Fenu G, Sardu C, Frau J. What do multiple sclerosis patients and their caregivers perceive as unmet needs. BMC Neurology. 2013; 1(13):177. doi: 10.1186/1471-2377-13-177.
5. Bassi M, Falautanob M, Cilia S, Goretti B, Grobberio M, Pattini M. The coexistence of well- and ıll-being ın persons with multiple sclerosi: their caregivers and health professionals. Journal of the Neurological Sciences. 2014; 337(12):67–73. doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2013.11.018. Epub 2013 Nov 19.
6. Pakenham KI. The nature of caregiving in multiple sclerosis: development of the caregiving tasks in multiple sclerosis scale. Multiple Sclerosis. 2007; 13:929-938. doi: 10.1177/1352458507076973.
7. Benito-Leo´n J, Rivera-Navarro J, Guerrero AL, Heras V, Balseiro J, Rodrı´guez E. On behalf of the caregiver quality of life ın multiple sclerosis (careqol-ms) study group: the careqol-MS was a useful instrument to measure caregiver quality of life in multiple sclerosis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2011; 64(6):675-686. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.08.003
8. Buchanan RJ, Huang, C. The need for mental health care among ınformal caregivers assisting people with multiple sclerosis. Int J MS Care. 2013; 15(2):56-64. doi: 10.7224/1537-2073.2012-030

9. Opara J, Jaracz K, Brola W. Burden and quality of life in caregivers of persons with multiple sclerosis. Neurol Neurochir Pol. 2012; 46(5):472-9. doi: 10.5114/ninp.2012.31358.
10. Buchanan RJ, Radin D, Huang C. Caregiver burden among ınformal caregivers assisting people with multiple sclerosis. Int J MS Care. 2011; 13(2):76–83. doi: 10.7224/1537-2073-13.2.76.
11. Güzüm S, Aksayan S. Kültürlerarası ölçek uyarlaması için rehber II: Psikometrik özellikler ve kültürlerarası karşılaştırma. Hemşirelik Araştırma ve Geliştirme Dergisi. 2003; 1:3-14
12. Yeşilyurt S, Çapraz C. Ölçek geliştirme çalışmalarında kullanılan kapsam geçerliği için bir yol haritası. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 2018; 20:251- 264. . doi: 10.17556/erziefd.297741
13. Brown TA. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. The Gu ilford Press. New York. 2006; USA.
14. Karakoç FY, Dönmez L. Ölçek gelı̇ştı̇rme çalışmalarında temel ilkeler. Tıp Eğitimi Dünyası. 2014; 40:39-49. doi: 10.25282/ted.228738
15. Türkmen E, Badır A, Balcı S, Akkuş Topçu S. Hemşirelik iş indeksi hemşirelik çalışma ortamını değerlendirme ölçeği'nin Türkçe'ye uyarlanması: güvenilirlik ve geçerlilik çalışması. Hemşirelikte Araştırma Geliştirme Dergisi. 2011; 2:5-20.
16. Büyüköztürk Ş. Sosyal Bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegema Yayıncılık. Özdamar, K. Paket Programlar ile İstatistiksel Veri Analizi. Eskişehir, 2004; Kaan Kitabevi.
17. Özdamar, K. (2004). Paket programlar ile istatistiksel veri analizi. Eskişehir, Kaan Kitabevi.
18. Aslan A, Kırık AM. Sosyal paylaşım ağlarında konum belirleme ölçeğinin geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Öneri Dergisi, 2013; 10(40):223-231.
19. Tekeş B., Hasta D. Özgecilik ölçeği: geçerlik ve güvenilirlik çalışması. Nesne Psikoloji Dergisi (NPD). 2015; 3(6):3-6. doi: 10.7816/nesne-03-06-03