2012
DOI: 10.1080/13607863.2012.702728
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Validity and reliability of the Caregiver Reaction Assessment scale among primary informal caregivers for older persons in Singapore

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
58
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

4
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 50 publications
(60 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
2
58
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Studies about the validity and/or reliability of the CRA in other countries show inconsistencies with regard to relevance of items and psychometrics (Malhotra et al . ). Moderate to adequate levels of internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha's varying between 0·62–0·83) have been reported for the CRA subscales (Nijboer et al .…”
Section: The Studymentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Studies about the validity and/or reliability of the CRA in other countries show inconsistencies with regard to relevance of items and psychometrics (Malhotra et al . ). Moderate to adequate levels of internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha's varying between 0·62–0·83) have been reported for the CRA subscales (Nijboer et al .…”
Section: The Studymentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Caregiver reaction will be rated with the caregiver reaction scale (CRS) [3840]. This measurement contains 24 items reflecting caregiver self-esteem (7 items, range: 7 to 35), a lack of family support (5 items, range: 5 to 25), the impact of finances (3 items, range: 3 to 15), the impact of the daily schedule (5 items, range 5 to 25), and the impact on health (4 items, range: 4 to 20).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…All respondents were interviewed face-to-face, at home, with informed consent. Further details on the design of the SSIC can be found elsewhere (Malhotra, Chan, Malhotra, & Østbye, 2012). A total of 662 (55.6%) family caregivers who reported working full/part time formed the analytical sample.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%