The Reliability and Validity of the Korean Version of Burden Assessment Scale (K-BAS)

Abstract

ObjectivesZZThis study was conducted for evaluation of the reliability and validity of the Korean version of the Burden Assessment Scale (K-BAS).MethodsZZA sample of 256 first-order relatives of schizophrenics completed the K-BAS and the data were analyzed for internal consistency and factor structure. In addition, a subset of participants (n=112) refilled the K-BAS after two weeks for test-retest reliability. To test for validity, the Family Burden Scale (FBS), Korean version of Drug Attitude Inventory-10 (KDAI-10), and Korean version of the Scale to Assess Unawareness of Mental Disorder (SUMD-K) were administered.ResultsZZThe Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the K-BAS was high (0.91), which provided evidence for good internal consistency. The test-retest reliability of K-BAS was 0.86 (correlation coefficient, p<0.001). Convergent validity was examined through correlations between the K-BAS and the FBS (r=0.80, p<0.001). Divergent validity was examined through correlations between the K-BAS and KDAI-10 (r=-0.21, p=0.001), and between the K-BAS and SUMD-K (r=-0.02, p=0.796). Results of the factor analysis revealed a three-factor solution: activity limitation, social strain, and feelings of worry and guilt.ConclusionZZThese results suggest that the K-BAS had good psychometric properties and may be a useful instrument for evaluation of burden of families with schizophrenics.

The Burden Assessment Scale in Spanish family caregivers of people diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder

“…Construct Validity Of The Model Obtained For The Bas expected, the factors in the model for the BAS obtained in this study correlated negatively with quality of life and positively with anxiety, depression, and stress. These results are comparable to those obtained in the study by Kwak et al (2013), and support the construct validity of that scale.…”

“…In our opinion, the lack of methodological rigor in these studies suggested the need for a more rigorous analysis of the structure of this scale. Subsequent studies obtained two-factor (Guada et and Feelings of Worry and Guilt), with a similar distribution of items per factor, but small differences: in contrast to the studies by Ivarsson et al (2011) and Kwak et al (2013), in our study, item 1 was not included in the disrupted or limited activities factor, item 19 was not included in the social factor, and item 18 was not included in the worry-and-guilt factor.…”

“…study, r = .86, p < .001. Likewise, inAydemir et al (2011) andKwak et al (2013) studies, the BAS showed divergent and/or convergent validity. Some of these studies did not meet the requirements for accepting the result of the factor analyses performed Horwitz and Reinhard (1992).…”

“…It was not possible to offer the items included in each factor because that information was not available in the paper (neither in the body of the text nor in the corresponding table is the composition of the factors adequately given) Kwak et al's (2013). study, r = .86, p < .001.…”

Spanish adaptation of the Burden Assessment Scale in family caregivers of people diagnosed with borderline personality disorder

“…Hunger et al [ 22 ] found that the model with the best fit had four correlated factors, and it was obtained from Reinhard et al’s [ 36 ] study. Ivarsson et al [ 23 ] and Kwak et al [ 29 ] obtained a three-factor model, and Guada et al [ 17 ] obtained a two-factor model. Hunger et al [ 22 ] used confirmatory procedures, whereas the other studies used principal component analysis.…”