Cited by 86Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeNursing care and researchHealth Education and Validation

A new test of the construct validity of the CarerQol instrument: measuring the impact of informal care giving

Open access
Hoefman, Renske J., van Exel, N. Job A., Looren de Jong, Sandra, Redekop, W. Ken, Brouwer, Werner B. F.·2011·Quality of Life Research

Abstract

PURPOSE: Most economic evaluations of health care programmes do not consider the effects of informal care, while this could lead to suboptimal policy decisions. This study investigates the construct validity of the CarerQol instrument, which measures and values carer effects, in a new population of informal caregivers. METHODS: A questionnaire was distributed by mail (n = 1,100, net response rate = 21%) to regional informal care support centers throughout the Netherlands. Two types of construct validity, i.e., convergent and clinical validity, have been analyzed. Convergent validity was assessed with Spearman's correlation coefficients and multivariate correlation between the burden dimensions (CarerQol-7D) and the valuation component (CarerQol-VAS) of the CarerQol. Additionally, convergent validity was analyzed with Spearman's correlation coefficients between the CarerQol and other measures of subjective caregiver burden (SRB, PU). Clinical validity was evaluated with multivariate correlation between CarerQol-VAS and CarerQol-7D, characteristics of caregivers, care recipients and care situation among the whole sample of caregivers and subgroups. RESULTS: The positive (negative) dimensions of CarerQol-7D were positively (negatively) related to CarerQol-VAS, and almost all had moderate strength of convergent validity. CarerQol-VAS was positively associated with PU and negatively with SRB. The CarerQol-VAS reflects differences in important background characteristics of informal care: type of relationship, age of the care recipient and duration of care giving were associated with higher CarerQol-VAS scores. These results confirmed earlier tests of the construct validity of the CarerQol. Furthermore, the dimensions of CarerQol-7D significantly explained differences in CarerQol-VAS scores among subgroups of carers. CONCLUSION: Notwithstanding the limitations of our study, such as the low response rate, this study shows that the CarerQol provides a valid means to measure carer effects for use in economic evaluations. Future research should derive a valuation set for the CarerQol and further address the instrument's content validity, sensitivity and reliability.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11136-010-9829-8

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The psychometric properties of the CarerQoL were shown to be satisfactory.

    “The psychometric properties of the CarerQol were shown to be satisfactory [48–50].”

    From A blended psychosocial support program for partners of patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and progressive muscular atrophy: Protocol of a randomized controlled trial (2018) · cites this paper as [49]

    The Conclusion says the study confirmed the CarerQol’s convergent and clinical validity, and the Discussion describes its convergent validity as moderate but not unsatisfactory. The broader claim that its psychometric properties were satisfactory omits an important limit: the Introduction says reliability and sensitivity to change had not yet been established, and the Conclusion calls for further research on them. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 40 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [13]National Institute for Clinical Excellence Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2008 London NICE 27905712
  2. [14]National Institute for Clinical Excellence. (2009). NICE technology appraisal guidance 111. Donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine (review) and memantine for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease (amended). London: NICE.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hoefman, R. J., van Exel, N. J. A., Looren de Jong, S., Redekop, W. K., & Brouwer, W. B. F.
Affiliations
Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Hoefman, Renske J.
Venue
Quality of Life Research
Published
2011-01-01
Volume
20
Issue
6
Pages
875-887
ISSN
  • 0962-9343 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2649
OpenAlex
W2155355750
Cited by
86
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 2
FWCI
8.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Quality of Life Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
Funders
ZonMw
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Nursing care and research
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
informal caregivers, construct validity, convergent validity, clinical validity, caregiver burden, economic evaluation, health-related quality of life, informal care
MeSH terms
Female, Happiness, Health Status Indicators, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Netherlands, Psychometrics, Quality of Life, Reproducibility of Results, Multivariate Analysis, Caregivers, Statistics, Nonparametric

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review