Reliability and Validity of the Dutch Translation of the Filial Maturity Measure in Informal Caregivers

Abstract

This study explored the reliability and validity of a Dutch translation of the 10-item Filial Maturity Measure (FMM) in a sample of Dutch informal caregivers. The FMM was translated with a forward–backward method and completed by 93 informal caregivers (62 % response rate) with a need dependent parent. Dimensionality of the Dutch FMM was examined by principal component and internal consistency analyses. Criterion validity was examined by assessing correlations with filial love, filial autonomy and level of closeness between parent and child. Construct validity was tested by examining associations with the traits openness and agreeableness. In addition, the relationship with state and trait affectivity was explored. After removal of the item “I worry about turning out like my parent”, the original dimensional structure, internal consistency, criterion and construct validity were confirmed. Additional exploration of the relation between the FMM subscales and trait and state affectivity scales demonstrated that filial maturity is at most weakly associated with trait affectivity. Both FMM scales showed a positive partial correlation with negative state affectivity. The Dutch FMM appears to be a reliable and valid instrument for measuring filial maturity of informal caregivers who provide care to their need dependent parent. The (non-)functioning of one item pointed to the necessity to validate the FMM, but also questionnaires in general in different populations.

Filial Maturity and Attachment Dimensions as Predictors for Prospective Caregiving Expectations

“…A better operationalisation of the distancing dimension is still needed. While original authors found the subscale to be internally consistent (Stiens et al, 2006), it did not demonstrate the same stability on other samples and language adaptations (Van Bruggen et al, 2015;Mendonca, Fontaine, 2013), including ours. Older age of our participants compared with the samples of Stiens et al (2006), and their experience in parenthood might have affected the difference in the functioning of the scale.…”

“…Internal consistencies for the comprehending subscale α = .785, were acceptable, but poor for the distancing subscale α = .570. Previous adaptations of the scale in Dutch and Portuguese (Van Bruggen et al, 2015;Mendonca, Fontaine, 2013) demonstrated similar shortcomings, yet, unlike in these studies, dismissal of any item from the original distancing scale would not lead to an increase of internal consistency.…”