THE TURKISH VERSION OF THE CARER’S ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION INDEX (CASI-TR): ITS VALIDATION AND RELIABILITY

Güler Duru Aşiret; Gülcan Bağcıvan; Cemile Kütmeç Yılmaz

doi:10.21653/tfrd.416013

THE TURKISH VERSION OF THE CARER’S ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION INDEX (CASI-TR): ITS VALIDATION AND RELIABILITY

Öz

Purpose: Caregivers of patients with chronic diseases could experience positive as well as negative feelings as a result of caregiving. Although there are assessment tools in the literature that are used to measure the satisfaction received from caregiving, which is one of the positive feelings experienced by caregivers, there was no tool that assessed caregiver satisfaction in Turkey. This study aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Carer’s Assessment of Satisfaction Index (CASI).

Methods: The sample included 300 caregivers. Data were collected using a demographic questionnaire and the CASI. The Cronbach's alpha value was calculated and a corrected item-total correlation and a test-retest reliability analysis were performed for reliability. Descriptive factor analyses were used to evaluate the construct validity. The forward and back-translation method was used for the linguistic validity. The retest was performed with 60 caregiving individuals.

Results: The caregivers’ mean age was 49.23±13.71 years, and 76.7% were females. Their duration of caregiving was 51.99±6.33 months. The Cronbach’s alpha value calculated for the CASI was 0.949. Factor analysis revealed that three factors accounted for 57.67% of the total variance, with an Eigenvalue above 1.

Conclusion: The Turkish version of CASI is found to be reliable and valid for assessing caregiver satisfaction. We find the CASI to be a useful tool that could be utilized readily by all healthcare personnel to assess caregiver satisfaction.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Caregiver; Reliability; Satisfaction; Validity

Kaynakça

1. Chang HY, Chiou CJ, Chen NS. Impact of mental health and caregiver burden on family caregivers’ physical health. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2010;50(3):267-71.
2. Kim H, Chang M, Rose K, Rose S. Predictors of caregiver burden in caregivers of individuals with dementia. J Adv Nursing. 2012;68(4):846-55.
3. Fekete M, Szabo A, Stephens C, Alpass F. Older New Zealanders in caregiving roles: Psychological functioning of caregivers of people living with dementia. Dementia (London). 2017; doi: 1471301217725897.
4. Janssen EP, de Vugt M, Köhler S, Wolfs C, Kerpershoek L, Handels RL, et al. Caregiver profiles in dementia related to quality of life, depression and perseverance time in the European Actifcare study: The importance of social health. Aging Ment Health.2017;21(1):49-57.
5. Yıldırım S, Akyüz Ö, Engin E, Gültekin K. The relationship between psychiatric patients' caregivers burden and anger expression styles. J Clin Nurs.2018;27(3-4): 725-31.
6. Fonareva I, Oken BS. Physiological and functional consequences of caregiving for relatives with dementia. Int Psychogeriatr.2014;26(5):725-47.
7. Balducci C, Mnich E, McKee KJ, Lamura G, Beckmann A, Krevers B, et al. Negative impact and positive value in caregiving: validation of the COPE index in a six-country sample of carers. Gerontologist.2008;48(3):276-86.
8. Vellone E, Fida R, Cocchieri A, Sili A, Piras G, Alvaro R. Positive and negative impact of caregiving to older adults: a structural equation model. Prof Inferm. 2011;64(4):237-48.

9. Hanyok LA, Mullaney J, Finucane T, Carrese J. Potential caregivers for homebound elderly: more numerous than supposed? J Fam Pract.2009;58(7):E1-6.
10. Kuuppelomäki M, Sasaki A, Yamada K, Asakawa N, Shimanouchi S. Family carers for older relatives: sources of satisfaction and related factors in Finland. Int J Nurs Stud.2004;41(5):497-505.
11. Shirai Y, Silverberg Koerner S, Baete Kenyon D. Reaping caregiver feelings of gain: the roles of socio-emotional support and mastery. Aging Ment Health.2009;13(1): 106-17.
12. Cohen CA, Colantonio A, Vernich L. Positive aspects of caregiving: rounding out the caregiver experience. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry.2002;17(2):184-8. 13. McKee KJ, Philp I, Lamura G, Prouskas C, Oberg B, Krevers B, et al.. The COPE index - a first stage assessment of negative impact, positive value and quality of support of caregiving in informal carers of older people. Aging Ment Health.2003;7(1):39-52.
14. de Labra C, Millán-Calenti JC, Buján A, Núñez-Naveira L, Jensen AM, Peersen MC, et al. Predictors of caregiving satisfaction in informal caregivers of people with dementia. Arch Gerontol Geriatr.2015;60(3):380-8.
15. Strawbridge WJ. The effects of social factors on adult children caring for older parents. Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, Washington, USA, 1991.
16. Orbell S, Hopkins N, Gillies B. Measuring the impact of informal caregiving. J Community Appl Soc Psychol.1993;3(2):149-63.
17. Pound P, Gompertz P, Ebrahim S. Development and results of a questionnaire to measure carer satisfaction after stroke. J Epidemiol Community Health.1993;47(6):500-5.
18. Nolan M, Grant G, Keady J. Assessing the needs of family carers - A guide for family practitioners. Brighton: Pavilion Publishing; 1998.
19. Nolan M, Grant G. Regular respite: an evaluation of a hospital rota bed scheme for elderly people. Research Monograph Series, Age Concern Institute of Gerontology. London: ACE Books; 1992.
20. Akın Korhan E, Hakverdioğlu Yönt G, Ak B, Erdemir F. Analysis of Turkish validity and reliability of perception of nursing diagnosis. Hemşirelikte Araştırma Geliştirme Dergisi.2013;15(3):13-25.
21. Gözüm S, Aksayan S. Kültürlerarası ölçek uyarlaması için rehber II: psikometrik özellikler ve kültürlerarası karşılaştırma. Hemşirelikte Araştırma Geliştirme Dergisi.2003;5(1):3-14.
22. Ekwall AK, Hallberg IR. The association between caregiving satisfaction, difficulties and coping among older family caregivers. J Clin Nurs.2007;16(5):832-44.
23. McKee K, Spazzafumo L, Nolan M. Components of the difficulties, satisfactions and management strategies of carers of older people: a principal component analysis of CADI-CASI-CAMI. Aging Ment Health.2009;13(2):255-64.
24. Mollaoğlu M, Durna Z, Bolayır E. Validity and reliability of the Quality of Life in Epilepsy Inventory (QOLIE-31) for Turkey. Noro Psikiyatr Ars.2015;52(3):289-95.
25. Aras Z, Bayık Temel A. Evaluation of Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of Health Literacy Scale. FN Hem Derg.2017;25(2):85-94.
26. Büyüköztürk Ş. Veri analizi el kitabı. Ankara: Pegema Yayıncılık; 2002.
27. Harrington D. Confirmatory factor analysis. New York: Oxford University Press; 2009.
28. Alpar R. Spor bilimlerinde uygulamalı istatistik. Ankara: Nobel Yayınevi; 2006.
29. Küçükgüçlü Ö, Esen A, Yener G. Bakım Verenlerin Yükü Envanterinin Türk Toplumu için geçerlik ve güvenirliğinin incelenmesi. J Neurol Sci Turk.2009;26(1):60-73.
30. Erkuş A. Psikometri üzerine yazılar. Ankara: Türk Psikologlar Derneği Yayınları; 2003.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil

İngilizce

Konular

Sağlık Kurumları Yönetimi

Bölüm

Araştırma Makalesi

Yazarlar

Güler Duru Aşiret ^*
Türkiye

Gülcan Bağcıvan
Türkiye

Cemile Kütmeç Yılmaz
Türkiye

Yayımlanma Tarihi

16 Nisan 2019

Gönderilme Tarihi

17 Nisan 2018

Kabul Tarihi

22 Ekim 2018

Yayımlandığı Sayı

Yıl 2019 Cilt: 30 Sayı: 1

DOI

https://doi.org/10.21653/tfrd.416013

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA85HA46DN

Kaynak Göster

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Duru Aşiret, G., Bağcıvan, G., & Kütmeç Yılmaz, C. (2019). THE TURKISH VERSION OF THE CARER’S ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION INDEX (CASI-TR): ITS VALIDATION AND RELIABILITY. Fizyoterapi Rehabilitasyon, 30(1), 69-80. https://doi.org/10.21653/tfrd.416013

AMA

1.Duru Aşiret G, Bağcıvan G, Kütmeç Yılmaz C. THE TURKISH VERSION OF THE CARER’S ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION INDEX (CASI-TR): ITS VALIDATION AND RELIABILITY. Fizyoterapi Rehabilitasyon. 2019;30(1):69-80. doi:10.21653/tfrd.416013

Chicago

Duru Aşiret, Güler, Gülcan Bağcıvan, ve Cemile Kütmeç Yılmaz. 2019. “THE TURKISH VERSION OF THE CARER’S ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION INDEX (CASI-TR): ITS VALIDATION AND RELIABILITY”. Fizyoterapi Rehabilitasyon 30 (1): 69-80. https://doi.org/10.21653/tfrd.416013.

EndNote

Duru Aşiret G, Bağcıvan G, Kütmeç Yılmaz C (01 Nisan 2019) THE TURKISH VERSION OF THE CARER’S ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION INDEX (CASI-TR): ITS VALIDATION AND RELIABILITY. Fizyoterapi Rehabilitasyon 30 1 69–80.

IEEE

[1]G. Duru Aşiret, G. Bağcıvan, ve C. Kütmeç Yılmaz, “THE TURKISH VERSION OF THE CARER’S ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION INDEX (CASI-TR): ITS VALIDATION AND RELIABILITY”, Fizyoterapi Rehabilitasyon, c. 30, sy 1, ss. 69–80, Nis. 2019, doi: 10.21653/tfrd.416013.

ISNAD

Duru Aşiret, Güler - Bağcıvan, Gülcan - Kütmeç Yılmaz, Cemile. “THE TURKISH VERSION OF THE CARER’S ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION INDEX (CASI-TR): ITS VALIDATION AND RELIABILITY”. Fizyoterapi Rehabilitasyon 30/1 (01 Nisan 2019): 69-80. https://doi.org/10.21653/tfrd.416013.

JAMA

1.Duru Aşiret G, Bağcıvan G, Kütmeç Yılmaz C. THE TURKISH VERSION OF THE CARER’S ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION INDEX (CASI-TR): ITS VALIDATION AND RELIABILITY. Fizyoterapi Rehabilitasyon. 2019;30:69–80.

MLA

Duru Aşiret, Güler, vd. “THE TURKISH VERSION OF THE CARER’S ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION INDEX (CASI-TR): ITS VALIDATION AND RELIABILITY”. Fizyoterapi Rehabilitasyon, c. 30, sy 1, Nisan 2019, ss. 69-80, doi:10.21653/tfrd.416013.

Vancouver

1.Güler Duru Aşiret, Gülcan Bağcıvan, Cemile Kütmeç Yılmaz. THE TURKISH VERSION OF THE CARER’S ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION INDEX (CASI-TR): ITS VALIDATION AND RELIABILITY. Fizyoterapi Rehabilitasyon. 01 Nisan 2019;30(1):69-80. doi:10.21653/tfrd.416013

Cited By

Investigation of the effects of interventions made according to the Progressively Lowered Stress Threshold Model on the care outcomes of Alzheimer patients and their families: a randomized clinical trial

Psychogeriatrics

https://doi.org/10.1111/psyg.12734

Effects of interventions on the psychosocial health and well-being of informal caregivers of people with dementia in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs): a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Global Health

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2024-016028