Skip to main content
Download PDF

The Farsi version of Caregiver Preparedness Scale in Iranian family caregivers of the older adults undergoing hemodialysis: a psychometric study

BMC Geriatrics volume 24, Article number: 512 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Enhancing preparedness of family caregivers and support for caregiving is essential for the mutual benefit of both caregivers and the well-being of those under their care. This study aimed to translate and evaluate psychometric properties of the Caregiver Preparedness Scale among family caregivers of older adults undergoing hemodialysis.

Methods

In this methodological study, 400 family caregivers of older adult patients undergoing hemodialysis enrolled to the study via convenience sampling method. The study was conducted in two stages: translation and psychometric evaluation. At first, the translation of the scale was done using Beaton et al. method. In the psychometric evaluation stage, quantitative face validity, content validity, item analysis and construct validity of the scale were evaluated. The internal consistency of the scale was assessed through the calculation of Cronbach’s alpha, McDonald’s omega, and average inter-item correlation coefficients.

Results

All items had an impact score greater than 1.5. The content validity ratio and the kappa coefficient for all items were above 0.75. In the item analysis, item 2, which had a correlation with the total score of less than 0.3, was removed. Following exploratory factor analysis, only one factor composed of all items (7 items) was extracted, explaining 75.7% of the total variance. This model had acceptable fit indices in confirmatory factor analysis. Cronbach’s alpha and omega of 0.95 and an average inter-item correlation of 0.75 were obtained.

Conclusions

The study results demonstrated that the Caregiver Preparedness Scale exhibits appropriate psychometric properties. Geriatric nurses can utilize this Scale for assessment of caregivers. This assessment can aid in decision-making regarding educational programs aimed at enhancing family caregiver preparedness.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Chronic kidney disease is one of the prevalent chronic diseases in the older adults. Research results indicate that the age pattern of chronic kidney disease is trending towards the older adults, and over the past two decades, the number of older adult patients with this disease has been on the rise in most countries [1]. In 2017, the global prevalence of Chronic kidney disease was 9.1%, which is approximately 700 million cases [2].Chronic kidney disease progresses through a five-stage path towards end-stage kidney disease, which is referred to as the end stage of chronic kidney disease. In this stage, patients require kidney replacement therapies such as dialysis (hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis) or kidney transplantation [3]. By the end of 2020, the number of individuals worldwide undergoing kidney replacement therapies had reached over 5.2 million patients, and it is projected that this will increase to 4.5 million by the year 2030 [4, 5]. Hemodialysis is the most common treatment method for patients with end-stage kidney disease [6]. In Iran, by 2015, over 27,000 patients received treatment in 500 hemodialysis centers [7]. According to the United States Renal Data System, the prevalence and incidence of this disease have increased in individuals over 65 years old, with the average age typically ranging from 60 to 70 years in all countries [8]. In Iran, the average age of this disease is also increasing, with some studies reporting an average age of 57–60 years [9] and others reporting 60–70 years [10].Therefore, the older adults are the largest and fastest-growing group of patients with chronic kidney disease [11].

Patients undergoing hemodialysis require caregiver support in various aspects, including transportation, shopping for appropriate food, preparing meals, adhering to a specific dietary regimen, attending medical visits, organizing necessary equipment and facilities, and managing disease symptoms [3,4,5, 7, 12]. Most hemodialysis patients rely on their family members for assistance in daily activities and medical care, and the role of family caregivers is significant and extensive. Additionally, providing psychological and social support to patients in dealing with the stresses associated with dialysis is often the responsibility of family caregivers [13]. Family caregivers currently play a crucial and long-term role in the care system [14]. A family caregiver is someone who provides support to a family member who is sick, older adults, or disabled, without receiving payment, and assists them with personal care, medical care, and coping with the disease [15]. Supporting a family member in need of home care is a vital and complex role that comes with new responsibilities, often leaving family caregivers ill prepared. This lack of preparedness often leads to negative effects on the caregiver’s health and well-being, such as stress, anxiety, fear, guilt, and sleep disturbances [16]. Caregivers of patients undergoing hemodialysis experience lower quality of life compared to similar age and gender groups in society [17,18,19] and experience high levels of caregiver burden and social isolation [3]. Therefore, considering that family caregivers are a vulnerable group, both physically, mentally, and financially, and are exposed to significant pressure, supporting and enhancing their preparedness for caregiving is essential for the mutual benefit of caregivers and the well-being of those under their care [20, 21]. Studies have shown that a sense of preparedness can affect the caregiving experience and protect family caregivers from negative consequences of caregiving [16]. Preparedness, in this context, is understood as readiness in multiple areas of caregiving, including providing physical care, offering emotional support, establishing home support services, and coping with caregiving stress [22]. It is also seen as a state or capability of predicting potential problems and finding potential solutions, requiring the development of skills and abilities [16]. Preparedness is recognized as an important factor in improving caregiver resilience, and increasing caregivers’ preparedness is crucial due to its positive impact on resilience [23]. Furthermore, recent studies suggest that preparedness for caregiving should be assessed as a continuous and ongoing process since caregivers need to be prepared for potential issues and challenges as the patient’s condition changes [24, 25]. To assess preparedness, there is a need for precise assessment tools.

Based on existing studies, one of the scales introduced for assessing the needs and preparedness of caregivers, as well as evaluating interventions to meet these needs, is the Caregiver Preparedness Scale. This self-assessment scale consists of eight items designed to measure the level of family caregiver preparedness for providing care. The preparedness assessed by this scale is defined as readiness in multiple areas of caregiving, such as providing physical care, offering emotional support, establishing home support services, and coping with caregiving stress. This scale was developed by Archbold et al., (1990) in the United States to assess the preparedness of family caregivers of frail older adults living at home, and its initial validity and reliability have been examined [16, 22]. Based on research findings, there is currently no Farsi-language version of this scale in Iran, and a similar tool in Farsi is not available for assessing the preparedness of family caregivers, who are the primary caregivers for older adults with end-stage chronic kidney disease undergoing hemodialysis. The lack of such tools in the Farsi language equates to the inability to assess caregivers’ preparedness to care for their older adults. As noted, this issue may results in increased caregiver burden and psychologic issues among caregivers. This study aims to translate and psychometrically evaluate the Caregiver Preparedness Scale to provide a suitable tool for future research on the assessment and education of preparedness among caregivers of these patients.

Methods

Study design

The present research is a methodological study conducted from September 2022 to Jun 2023. The study consisted of two phases (translation of the scale and psychometric evaluation of it) during which the “Caregiver Preparedness Scale” was translated, and its psychometric properties were evaluated in family caregivers of older adult patients undergoing hemodialysis in Ardabil City, Iran.

Participants and sampling

The research population were family caregivers of older adult patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing hemodialysis in Ardabil City, Iran. Inclusion criteria included having the primary responsibility for the care of an older adult patient with chronic kidney disease undergoing hemodialysis, the patient receiving ongoing hemodialysis treatment, the patient’s age being over 60 years, and proficiency in the Farsi language.

In the pre-test phase of translation and item analysis, a sample of 30 family caregivers of old individuals undergoing hemodialysis was selected through convenience sampling. Samples from each of these stages were independent of each other. In the structural validity assessment section, according to the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist, a sample size seven times the number of items and more than 100 for conducting factor analysis is considered appropriate [26]. In this study, using a combination of available criteria, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was performed with 200 samples, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted with an additional 200 samples independent of EFA, selected via convenience sampling method from caregivers of old individuals undergoing hemodialysis referring to Ardabil City dialysis centers (two centers out of a total of three centers in the city). In these centers, 250 and 78 patients were above 60 years old, respectively. One of these centers was located in a private facility. Some patients had more than one (two or more) primary family caregiver. Therefore, a total of 400 primary family caregivers were enrolled in the study. For the assessment of internal consistency, samples from the exploratory factor analysis were utilized. The researcher, at each stage, obtained consent and conducted sampling by visiting the hemodialysis units based on inclusion criteria and after obtaining informed written consent.

Caregiver preparedness scale

This scale is a self-assessment scale consisting of eight items (questions) designed to assess the family caregiver’s preparedness to provide care. The scale was originally developed by Archbold et al., (1990) in the United States and was initially validated in family caregivers of frail older adult living at home. Preparedness, as assessed by this scale, is defined as the perceived preparedness for various caregiving roles, such as providing physical care, providing emotional support, setting up supportive services at home, and coping with caregiving stress. Responses are rated on a 5-point scale ranging from zero (not at all prepared) to four (very well prepared). Lower scores indicating lower caregiver preparedness [22, 27,28,29,30,31].

Data Analysis

  • Translation

The Caregiver Preparedness Scale was translated using the “Cross-cultural Adaptation of Self-report Measures” guideline introduced by Beaton et al., (2000) in the following stages:

Preparation

Obtaining permission from the original scale developer and obtaining ethical approval for the research.

Initial translation

Translation of the tool by two independent translators, resulting in two Farsi versions of the instrument (T1 and T2).

Synthesis of translations

Synthesis of translations by a group consisting of the two translators from the previous stage and a researcher, leading to a final Farsi translation (T-1, 2).

Back-translation

Two other blinded translators back translated the scale to the original language (English), and the scale developer approved the back-translated version.

Expert Committee Review

In this stage, an expert panel comprising a methodologist, experts in the fields of gerontology and nursing, linguists, translators, and the scale developer reviewed and integrated all translated versions of the scale to prepare a final pre-test version for field-testing.

Pretesting

Cognitive interviews and pilot testing of the final pre-test translated version were conducted with a group of 30 family caregivers of older adult patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing hemodialysis treatment in Ardabil City, Iran. This stage ensured the accuracy of interpretation and comprehension of the items and response options by caregivers.

Final Version Development

In the final stage, the researcher, in collaboration with the expert panel, reviewed all reports and forms related to the adaptation process and developed a final translated version for psychometric evaluation of the Farsi version of the scale [32].

Psychometric evaluation of the Caregiver Readiness Scale

The psychometric properties of the scale were evaluated as follows:

  • Face Validity

To assess quantitative face validity, the method of calculating the item impact score was used. In this method, the opinions of 10 family caregivers of older adult patients undergoing hemodialysis, who were responsible for the direct care of the patient, were gathered. The impact score of each item was calculated, and items with an impact score less than 1.5 were decided to be retained [33, 34].

  • Content Validity

In assessing content validity, both qualitative and quantitative approaches were used:

  • Qualitative Content Validity

In the qualitative approach, a group of 10 experts evaluated the appropriateness of language, the placement of items, and the appropriateness of scoring for each item. The suggested modifications by the experts in the research team were reviewed and applied.

  • Quantitative Content Validity

For quantitative content validity assessment, the Content Validity Ratio (CVR) and Content Validity Index (CVI) for individual items were calculated [33]:

Content Validity Ratio (CVR):

The scale was provided to eight experts, and they were asked to rate each item as essential, useful but not essential, or not essential. Then, the CVR was calculated. A CVR value greater than 0.75 for 8 experts indicated the necessity and importance of the item in the scale [33].

Content Validity Index (CVI):

The scale was provided to 10 experts, and they were asked to rate the relevance of each item on a four-point scale (one = not relevant, two = somewhat relevant, three = relevant, 4 = very relevant). The CVI was calculated by dividing the number of experts who rated an item as 3 or 4 by the total number of experts. Then the modified kappa were calculated. Kappa greater than 0.75 were considered excellent [35].

  • Item Analysis

In this study, correlation between each item and the total score of the scale was calculated for a sample of 30 family caregivers of older adult patients undergoing hemodialysis. Items with a correlation coefficient less than 0.30 with the total score of the test were considered for elimination [36].

  • Structural Validity

To assess the structural validity, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were employed. Four hundred older adult patient caregivers undergoing hemodialysis completed the scale. The sample was randomly split into two samples of 200 each for EFA and CFA.

  • EFA

EFA was performed using the maximum likelihood method by SPSS version 24. Factor retention was determined based on eigenvalues greater than 1 and scree plot [37]. Only factors with eigenvalues equal to or greater than 1 were considered significant [33, 36, 38]. The critical value for factor retention was set at 0.3 [39]. Before conducting EFA, skewness less than ± 3 and kurtosis less than ± 7, the absence of outliers based on the box plot, and the presence of correlations between 0.30 and 0.70 among the items were checked. The factor recommended a minimum of three items. The Bartlett’s test (should be significant) and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) (greater than 0.70) were used to assess the adequacy of the sample. Additionally, items with communalities of less than 0.20 were removed [40, 41].

  • CFA

CFA was conducted with the second sample of 200 participants using the AMOS software version 26. Fit indices including CFI, GFI and TLI (> 0.9), PCFI and PNFI (> 0.5), RMSEA (< 0.08), and CMIN/DF were examined to assess model fit [33].

  • Reliability

The internal consistency of the Caregiver Preparedness Scale was evaluated by computing Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega coefficient (both should be at least 0.70), as well as the Average Inter-item Correlation (AIC) which should fall between 0.2 and 0.4 [39, 42, 43].

Findings

Demographics

Out of the 400 caregivers who participated in the study, 202 (50.5%) were female. The mean and standard deviation of age of the samples was 40.93 ± 12. Additional demographic findings are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Demographic characteristics of family caregivers of the older adults undergoing hemodialysis (N = 400)
Full size table

Translation

During the translation and cultural adaptation process, the term “your family member” was replaced with “your patient,” according to the translators, expert panel, the scale designer, and the research team. In items 1, 2, and 6, the phrase “how much” was removed from the beginning of the sentence and placed before the verb at the end of the sentence to match the semantic meaning with the questioning style in Iranian culture. Furthermore, to eliminate ambiguity in item 3, the word “centers” was added to “service providers,” resulting in “service providers and centers.” In item 4, the word “coping with stress” was used instead of “tolerating stress.”

Psychometric evaluation of the caregiver readiness scale

Quantitative Face Validity:

All items had an impact score greater than 1.5. Therefore, no items were deleted.

Content Validity:

Experts provided feedback on language, appropriate wording, proper placement of items, and appropriate scoring. The CVR and Kappa coefficient of all items were higher than 0.75. Therefore, no items were deleted. The scale content validity index was calculated using the average method and resulted in a score of 1, which is above 0.90 and considered acceptable.

Item Analysis:

Cronbach’s alpha and standardized Cronbach’s alpha were equal 0.95 and 0.95, respectively. One item (item #2) had a correlation of less than 0.30 with the total score and was deleted based on the research team’s decision (Table 2).

Table 2 Results of the caregiver preparedness scale item analysis
Full size table

Structural Validity:

The KMO was 0.914, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant at p < 0.001. No items were missing data, and there were no outliers based on the box plot. All items had skewness less than 3 and kurtosis less than 7, confirming the absence of significant deviations from normality. Items had correlations 0.30 to 0.70 with each other.

The scale with seven items underwent EFA, and based on the results, only one factor composed of all the items was extracted, explaining 75.7% of the total variance (Table 3). CFA was performed after confirming the assumptions, and model fit indices were examined. With model modification (three measurement error covariance between items 5 and 7, 4 and 7, 1 and 4), model fit indices were calculated, indicating an acceptable fit for a single-factor structure (Table 4) (Fig. 1).

Table 3 Results of exploratory factor analysis of the caregiver preparedness scale (N = 200)
Full size table
Table 4 The fit model indices of confirmatory factor analysis of the caregiver preparedness scale
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

The final structure model of the caregiver preparedness scale

Full size image

Reliability:

The Cronbach’s alpha and Omega coefficients of 0.956 were obtained. The AIC was 0.756. The final Farsi-version of the caregiver preparedness scale is shown in Table 5.

Table 5 The final Farsi-version of the Caregiver Preparedness Scale
Full size table

Discussion

Preparedness to predict potential problems and find possible solutions for them has been proposed as an ability, which requires the development of capabilities and skills. Measuring preparedness provides valuable information about individuals’ ability to behave appropriately in different situations. The Caregiver Preparedness Scale has been translated and validated in various languages and cultures globally, but it has not been translated and validated in Farsi language so far. Therefore, this study aimed to translate and validate this scale for family caregivers in Iranian communities. The study results showed that the Farsi version of this scale has good validity and reliability.

In this study, some modifications were done especially on items number 3 and 4. In this context, the study by Gutierrez-Baena and Romero‐Grimaldi in (2021) states that in the field-test of the Spanish version of the scale, caregivers did not have a correct understanding of item 5. They also concluded that items 3 and 5 have similar meanings and that a social aspect should be added to item 7, rather than just asking about the healthcare system. Furthermore, based on qualitative study results, they believed that spiritual needs of the patient should also be questioned. Therefore, instead of removing item 3, they added a new item to the scale. They also made some modifications to item 5 [27].

In the item analysis phase, item 2, titled “How prepared do you think to meet your patient’s emotional needs?” was removed according to the research team’s opinion. It appears that in this study, the concept of preparedness from the perspective of caregivers of hemodialysis patients was primarily related to physical aspects of care. Moreover, the complex physical challenges faced by patients undergoing hemodialysis, coupled with the multitude of physical care tasks that caregivers must be prepared for, may have overshadowed the importance of preparedness to address the emotional needs of the patient among these caregivers. Therefore, based on the caregivers’ responses in the present study, they did not perceive preparedness for psychological care as distinct from preparedness for caregiving.

In this study, following EFA, only one factor composed of all the items was extracted, indicating that the Caregiver Preparedness Scale is a unidimensional measure. In the original study by Archbold et al., (1990), the scale was also introduced as a unidimensional scale [22]. The unidimensionality of the scale in most studies in other populations has been confirmed, too [22, 31, 44,45,46]. Gutierrez-Baena and Romero‐Grimaldi (2020) also obtained a one-factor structure through EFA, explaining 59% of the variance [27]. Ugur et al., (2017) identified one factor using principal component analysis, explaining 56% of the variance [47]. The variance explained by the Farsi version of the scale with 7 items was higher than in other studies [22, 27, 31, 45, 47], which is a strength of this version and the current study.

Also, in line with findings of this study, Kuzmik et al., (2021) [46], Petruzzo et al., (2017) [44], Pucciarelli et al., (2014) [31], and Henriksson et al., (2012) [45], through confirmatory factor analysis, have also confirmed the primary one-factor structure of the scale.

The findings of this study indicated high internal consistency of the scale. Cronbach’s alpha in the psychometric study of the Gutierrez-Baena B, Romero‐Grimaldi., was 0.89 [27], also, in a sample of caregivers of heart failure patients and stroke survivors, it was 0.91 and 0.94, respectively [31, 44].

This research also had its limitations. The study did not assess the test-retest reliability, and other psychometric indices such as standard error of measurement and responsiveness were not investigated.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the findings of the present study demonstrate that the Caregiver Preparedness Scale provides acceptable psychometric. The use of the Caregiver Preparedness Scale may assist healthcare providers in identifying family members with lower preparedness for caregiving and in assessing specific areas that require interventions. Increased support for family caregivers with lower preparedness may help them enhance their readiness for caregiving, allowing caregivers to better align with their caregiving role. Suggestions are made for future research to examine the scale in other psychometric parameters and to evaluate its use and validity in other family caregiver populations.

Data availability

The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

CVR:

Content Validity Ratio

CVI:

Content Validity Index

EFA:

Exploratory Factor Analysis

CFA:

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

KMO:

Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin

CFI:

Comparative Fit Index

PNFI:

Parsimonious Normed Fit Index

GFI:

Goodness-of-Fit Index

PCFI:

Parsimonious Comparative Fit Index

TLI:

Tucker-Lewis Index

RMSEA:

Root Mean Square Error of Approximation

AIC:

average inter-item correlation

References

  1. Iyasere OU, Brown EA, Johansson L, Huson L, Smee J, Maxwell AP, et al. Quality of life and physical function in older patients on dialysis: a comparison of assisted peritoneal dialysis with hemodialysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2016;11(3):423–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Cockwell P, Fisher LA. The global burden of chronic kidney disease. Lancet. 2020;395(10225):662–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hoang VL, Green T, Bonner A. Informal caregivers’ experiences of caring for people receiving dialysis: a mixed-methods systematic review. J Ren care. 2018;44(2):82–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bikbov B, Purcell CA, Levey AS, Smith M, Abdoli A, Abebe M, et al. Global, regional, and national burden of chronic kidney disease, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the global burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet. 2020;395(10225):709–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Liyanage T, Ninomiya T, Jha V, Neal B, Patrice HM, Okpechi I, et al. Worldwide access to treatment for end-stage kidney disease: a systematic review. Lancet. 2015;385(9981):1975–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Brunner LS. Brunner & Suddarth’s textbook of medical-surgical nursing. 10th ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2010.

  7. Salehitali S, Ahmadi F, Dehkordi AH, Noorian K, Fereidooni-Moghadam M, Zarea K. Progressive exhaustion: a qualitative study on the experiences of Iranian family caregivers regarding patients undergoing hemodialysis. Int J Nurs Sci. 2018;5(2):193–200.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Giglio J, Kamimura MA, Lamarca F, Rodrigues J, Santin F, Avesani CM. Association of Sarcopenia with nutritional parameters, quality of life, hospitalization, and mortality rates of elderly patients on hemodialysis. J Ren Nutr. 2018;28(3):197–207.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Nasiri M, Kheirkhah F, Rahimiyan B, Ahmadzadeh B, Hasannejad H, MOHAMAD JR. Stressful factors, coping mechanisms and quality of life in hemodialysis patients. 2013.

  10. Talebi M, Mokhtari Lakeh N, Rezasoltani P. Caregiver Burden in caregivers of RenalF patients under Hemodialysis. J Holist Nurs Midwifery. 2016;26(2):59–68.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Franco MRG, Fernandes NMS. Dialysis in the elderly patient: a challenge of the XXI century-narrative review. Brazilian J Nephrol. 2013;35:132–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Welch JL, Thomas-Hawkins C, Bakas T, McLennon SM, Byers DM, Monetti CJ, et al. Needs, concerns, strategies, and advice of daily home hemodialysis caregivers. Clin Nurs Res. 2014;23(6):644–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Alnazly E. Coping strategies and socio-demographic characteristics among Jordanian caregivers of patients receiving hemodialysis. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transplantation. 2016;27(1):101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mohamadi Shahbalaghi F. Self- Efficacy and Caregiver Strain in Alzheimer’s Caregivers. Salmand: Iranian Journal of Ageing. 2006;1(1):26–33.

  15. Given BA, Given CW, Sherwood PR. Family and caregiver needs over the course of the cancer trajectory. J Support Oncol. 2012;10(2):57–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Henriksson A, Hudson P, Öhlen J, Thomas K, Holm M, Carlander I, et al. Use of the preparedness for caregiving scale in palliative care: a rasch evaluation study. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2015;50(4):533–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gilbertson EL, Krishnasamy R, Foote C, Kennard AL, Jardine MJ, Gray NA. Burden of Care and Quality of Life among caregivers for adults receiving maintenance Dialysis: a systematic review. Am J Kidney Dis. 2019;73(3):332–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sajadi SAM, Ebadi AP, Moradian STP. Quality of life among Family caregivers of patients on Hemodialysis and its relevant factors: a systematic review. Int J Community Based Nurs Midwifery. 2017;5(3):206–18.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Cantekin I, Kavurmacı M, Tan M. An analysis of caregiver burden of patients with hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis. Hemodial Int. 2016;20(1):94–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Gotabi KA, Moghaddam AG, Mohammadi M. The burden of family caregivers caring for older adults and its relationshipwith some factors. Nurs J Vulnerable. 2016;3(1):27–36.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Navidian A, Salar A, Hashemi Nia A, Keikhaei A. Study of mental exhaustion experienced by family caregivers of patients with mental disorders, Zahedan Psychiatric Hospital, 2000. J Babol Univ Med Sci. 2001;3(4):33–8.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Archbold PG, Stewart BJ, Greenlick MR, Harvath T. Mutuality and preparedness as predictors of caregiver role strain. Res Nurs Health. 1990;13(6):375–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Stanley S, Balakrishnan S. Informal caregivers of people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia: determinants and predictors of resilience. J Mental Health. 2021;1(1):1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Holm M, Henriksson A, Carlander I, Wengström Y, Öhlen J. Preparing for family caregiving in specialized palliative home care: an ongoing process. Palliat Support Care. 2015;13(3):767–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Janze A, Henriksson A. Preparing for palliative caregiving as a transition in the awareness of death: family carer experiences. Int J Palliat Nurs. 2014;20(10):494–501.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Mokkink LB, de Vet HCW, Prinsen CAC, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Bouter LM, et al. COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1171–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Gutierrez-Baena B, Romero‐Grimaldi C. Development and psychometric testing of the Spanish version of the Caregiver preparedness scale. Nurs Open. 2021;8(3):1183–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Archbold P, B S,.M G. The clinical assessment of mutuality and preparedness in family caregiver to frail older poaple. Key aspects of elder care:Managing Falls, Incontinence and Cognitive Impairment, New York:Springer. 1992:328 – 39.

  29. Hudson PL, Hayman-White K. Measuring the psychosocial characteristics of family caregivers of palliative care patients: psychometric properties of nine self-report instruments. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2006;31(3):215–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Schumacher KL, Stewart BJ, Archbold PG. Mutuality and preparedness moderate the effects of Caregiving demand on Cancer Family Caregiver outcomes. Nurs Res. 2007;56(6):425–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Pucciarelli G, Savini S, Byun E, Simeone S, Barbaranelli C, Vela RJ, et al. Psychometric properties of the Caregiver preparedness scale in caregivers of stroke survivors. Heart lung: J Crit care. 2014;43(6):555–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;25(24):3186–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Hosseini L, Sharif Nia H, Ashghali Farahani M. Development and psychometric evaluation of Family caregivers’ hardiness scale: a sequential-exploratory mixed-method study. Front Psychol. 2022;13:807049.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Nevo B. Face Validity Revisited. J Educ Meas. 1985;22(4):287–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Polit DF, Yang FM. Measurement and the measurement of change. 1st ed. LWW; 2015.

  36. Hejazi SS, Hosseini M, Ebadi A, Alavi Majd H. Development and psychometric evaluation of Caregiver Burden Questionnaire for Family caregivers of patients undergoing hemodialysis: a protocol for a sequential exploratory mixed-method study. Iran J Psychiatry. 2021;16(4):471–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Sharif-Nia Hamid, Osborne Jason, Gorgulu Ozkan, Khoshnavay Fomani Fatemeh, Goudarzian Amir Hossein. Statistical concerns, invalid construct validity, and future recommendations. Nurs Pract Today. 2023;11(1).

  38. Plichta SB, Kelvin EA, Munro BH. Munro’s statistical methods for health care research. Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2013.

  39. Rahmatpour P, Peyrovi H, Sharif Nia H. Development and psychometric evaluation of postgraduate nursing student academic satisfaction scale. Nurs Open. 2021;8(3):1145–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Sharif Nia H, Kaur H, Fomani FK, Rahmatpour P, Kaveh O, Pahlevan Sharif S, et al. Psychometric properties of the impact of events scale-revised (IES-R) among General Iranian Population during the COVID-19 pandemic. Front Psychiatry. 2021;12:692498.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Hejazi SS, Hosseini M, Ebadi A, Alavi Majd H. Development and psychometric properties evaluation of caregiver burden questionnaire in family caregivers of hemodialysis patients. BMC Nurs. 2022;21(1):246.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Mohammadbeigi A, Mohammadsalehi N, Aligol M. Validity and reliability of the instruments and types of MeasurmentS in Health Applied researches. J Rafsanjan Univ Med Sci. 2015;13(12):1153–70.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Ebadi A, Taghizadeh Z, Montazeri A, Shahvari Z, Tavousi M, Bagherzadeh R. Translation, development and psychometric properties of health related measures-part 2: construct validity, reliability and responsiveness. Payesh (Health Monitor). 2017;16(4):445–55.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Petruzzo A, Paturzo M, Buck HG, Barbaranelli C, D’Agostino F, Ausili D, et al. Psychometric evaluation of the Caregiver preparedness scale in caregivers of adults with heart failure. Res Nurs Health. 2017;40(5):470–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Henriksson A, Andershed B, Benzein E, Årestedt K. Adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the preparedness for Caregiving Scale, Caregiver competence scale and rewards of Caregiving Scale in a sample of Swedish family members of patients with life-threatening illness. Palliat Med. 2012;26(7):930–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Kuzmik A, Boltz M, Resnick B, BeLue R. Evaluation of the caregiver preparedness scale in African American and white caregivers of persons with dementia during post-hospitalization transition. J Nurs Meas. 2021.

  47. Ugur O, Elçigil A, Aslan D, Paçal S. The psychometric properties of the preparedness scale of the family care inventory: the Turkish version. Int J Caring Sci. 2017;10(2):657–68.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We extend our gratitude to all study participants for their invaluable contributions.

Funding

This study was supported by North Khorasan University of Medical Sciences. The funder had no role in the design and writing of the manuscript and will have not in data collection and analysis of data.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Student Research Committee, Department of Nursing, Bojnurd School of Nursing, North Khorasan University of Medical Sciences, Bojnurd, Iran

    Arash Kian

  2. Psychosomatic Research Center, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran

    Hamid Sharif-Nia

  3. Department of Nursing, Amol Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran

    Hamid Sharif-Nia

  4. Department of Nursing, Bojnurd School of Nursing, North Khorasan University of Medical Sciences, Shahriar Ave, Bojnurd, Iran

    Sima Hejazi

Authors
  1. Arash Kian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hamid Sharif-Nia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sima Hejazi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AK, HSN, and SH led the conceptualization and design of the study. AK collected data and AK, HSN, and SH analyzed data. SH and HSN substantively revised the study. AK wrote the first draft and SH and HSN critically reviewed it and provided comments to improve the manuscript. AK, HSN, and SH read and approved the final manuscript. AK, HSN, and SH have agreed on both to be personally accountable for the author’s contributions and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, even ones in which the author was not personally involved, are appropriately investigated, resolved, and the resolution documented in the literature. All authors have read and approved the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sima Hejazi.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval and consent to participate

Written informed consent was obtained from the participants, and assurance of confidentiality of their information was provided. This article is based on a master’s thesis in geriatric nursing, and the ethics committee of North Khorasan University of Medical Sciences with the ethics code IR.NKUMS.REC.1401.002 approved its proposal.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kian, A., Sharif-Nia, H. & Hejazi, S. The Farsi version of Caregiver Preparedness Scale in Iranian family caregivers of the older adults undergoing hemodialysis: a psychometric study. BMC Geriatr 24, 512 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-05103-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-05103-0

Keywords

BMC Geriatrics

ISSN: 1471-2318

Contact us