A systematic review and psychometric evaluation of resilience measurement scales for people living with dementia and their carers

Abstract

Psychometrically sound resilience outcome measures are essential to establish how health and care services or interventions can enhance the resilience of people living with dementia (PLWD) and their carers. This paper systematically reviews the literature to identify studies that administered a resilience measurement scale with PLWD and/or their carers and examines the psychometric properties of these measures. Electronic abstract databases and the internet were searched, and an international network contacted to identify peer-reviewed journal articles. Two authors independently extracted data. They critically reviewed the measurement properties from the available psychometric data in the studies, using a standardised checklist adapted for purpose. Fifty-one studies were included in the final review, which applied nine different resilience measures, eight developed in other populations and one developed for dementia carers in Thailand. None of the measures were developed for use with people living with dementia. The majority of studies (N = 47) focussed on dementia carers, three studies focussed on people living with dementia and one study measured both carers and the person with dementia. All the studies had missing information regarding the psychometric properties of the measures as applied in these two populations. Nineteen studies presented internal consistency data, suggesting seven of the nine measures demonstrate acceptable reliability in these new populations. There was some evidence of construct validity, and twenty-eight studies hypothesised effects a priori (associations with other outcome measure/demographic data/differences in scores between relevant groups) which were partially supported. The other studies were either exploratory or did not specify hypotheses. This limited evidence does not necessarily mean the resilience measure is not suitable, and we encourage future users of resilience measures in these populations to report information to advance knowledge and inform further reviews. All the measures require further psychometric evaluation in both these populations. The conceptual adequacy of the measures as applied in these new populations was questionable. Further research to understand the experience of resilience for people living with dementia and carers could establish the extent current measures -which tend to measure personal strengths -are relevant and comprehensive, or whether further work is required to establish a new resilience outcome measure.

Dynamics of Interaction among Professionals, Informal Supporters, and Family Caregivers of People with Dementia along the Dementia Care Pathway: A Nationwide Survey in Japan

“…This is an indispensable element in the construction of the care pathway [ 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 ]. Although it would be important to consider other factors regarding the well-being of caregivers such as sense of coherence, burnout, resilience, and coping, we did not include such factors in this study [ 66 , 67 , 68 ]. It is important to investigate this in the future.…”

Measuring resilience for Chinese-speaking populations: a systematic review of Chinese resilience scales

“…2 Specifically, Windle et al (2011) identified 19 measures, including 15 original measures and four variations (e.g., CD-RISC-25 vs. CD-RISC-10), and they reported ratings of these measures on their content validity, internal consistency, construct validity, reproducibility/reliability, and interpretability. These criteria offer a useful framework for the current study given its and Terwee et al’s (2007) influence and how they further inform at least two recent systematic reviews on resilience measures ( Zhou et al, 2020 ; Windle et al, 2022 ). 3…”

“…(1) content validity, (2) internal consistency, (3) criterion validity, (4) construct validity, (5) reproducibility (including agreement and reliability), (6) responsiveness, (7) floor and ceiling effects, and (8) interpretability. However, several criteria (i.e., gold standard, reproducibility-agreement, floor and ceiling effects, and responsiveness) are typically meaningful in medical/clinical contexts (e.g., clinical trials, interventions, and changes) but are less relevant to the current stage of resilience research (see Windle et al, 2011;Zhou et al, 2020;Windle et al, 2022) and thus were excluded from this review. study given its and Terwee et al 's (2007) influence and how they further inform at least two recent systematic reviews on resilience measures (Zhou et al, 2020;Windle et al, 2022).…”

“…In so doing, we not only capture research developments that laid the foundation for the current 3 Zhou et al (2020) systematically reviewed family resilience questionnaires in both English and Chinese studies; however, our manuscript focuses on individual-level measurement, given that most Chinese resilience scales are cast at the individual level. Only considering English reports, Windle et al's (2022) review is specific to scales for people (samples from various countries) living with dementia and their caregivers and hence is less relevant to our review, which looks at scales for Chinese-speaking populations who are facing a wide range of disruptive life events. Windle et al, 2011 andTerwee et al, 2007).…”

Bibliometric Mapping of Psychological Flexibility Research: Trends and Future Directions

“…scales and instruments have been used to evaluate individuals' mental health, performance, and personality traits (Linden et al, 2022;Windle et al, 2022). Not only do these evaluations track progress, but they also help tailor interventions to better meet the specific needs of various populations.…”