Cited by 101Nursing care and researchIntergenerational Family Dynamics and CaregivingFamily Caregiving in Mental Illness

Measuring the impact of caregiving on informal carers: a construct validation study of the CarerQol instrument

Open access
Hoefman, Renske J, van Exel, Job, Brouwer, Werner BF·2013·Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Informal caregivers provide a significant part of the total care needed by ill or disabled persons. Although informal care is often the preferred option of those who provide and those who receive informal care, caring can nevertheless be very straining. This study investigates construct validation of an instrument of the impact of caregiving, the CarerQol. METHODS: Data was collected among adult caregivers (n = 1,244) selected from the general population using an online questionnaire in October 2010, in the Netherlands. The CarerQol measures and values the impact of informal care. The CarerQol measures subjective burden (CarerQol-7D) and well-being (CarerQol-VAS). Construct validation comprised clinical, convergent and discriminative validity tests. RESULTS: Clinical validity was supported by statistically significant associations of CarerQol-VAS and caregivers' health, income and employment status, care recipients' health, and the relationship between caregiver and care recipient. Convergent validity was supported by positive associations of CarerQol-VAS with the two positive CarerQol-7D dimensions (fulfillment and support) and negative associations with the five negative CarerQol-7D dimensions (relational problems, mental health problems, problems combining daily activities, financial problems and physical health problems). Moreover, CarerQol-VAS was negatively associated with other instruments measuring caregiving burden. CONCLUSIONS: Construct validity tests in a large, heterogeneous sample of caregivers show that the CarerQol validly measures the impact of caregiving. The CarerQol can be used in informal care research and economic evaluations of health care interventions. Hence, its use can facilitate informed decision making in health care.

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 · 10.1186/1477-7525-11-173

Cites

61 of 61 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?

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

1 of the 62 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hoefman, R. J., van Exel, J., & Brouwer, W. B.
Affiliations
Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Hoefman, Renske J
Venue
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
Published
2013
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
173
ISSN
1477-7525 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2169882001
Cited by
101
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2
FWCI
6.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Health and Quality of Life Outcomes (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • 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)
  • Open Scholarship Institutional Repository (Washington University in St. Louis) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Nursing care and research
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Intergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Family Caregiving in Mental Illness
Keywords
informal caregivers, caregiver burden, caregiver well-being, construct validity, subjective burden, quality of life, caregiver-care recipient relationship, financial stress, mental illness
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Netherlands, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Caregivers

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