Psychometric properties of the Danish version of the Caregiver Burden Scale: Investigating predictors and severity of burden after stroke, spinal cord injury, or traumatic brain injury.
Anne Norup, Pernille Langer Soendergaard, Mia Moth Wolffbrandt and 3 others
PMID 38698655WHAT IT FOUND
The Danish Caregiver Burden Scale reliably measures overall strain, disappointment, and emotional involvement in stroke, spinal cord, and brain injury caregivers.
However, its Environment and Isolation subscales are unreliable for most groups. Longer caregiving and being a spouse predicted higher burden.
Key findings
01The total burden score and the General Strain, Disappointment, and Emotional Involvement subscales showed adequate internal consistency and no floor or ceiling effects across all injury groups.
02The Environment subscale had poor internal consistency (alpha = 0.62) and significant floor effects in the total sample, while the Isolation subscale also showed floor effects and inconsistent reliability depending on the injury type.
03Time spent in the caregiver role was a significant predictor of burden across all subscales; doubling the months of caregiving was associated with an increase of 0.16 points in total burden.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study did not evaluate construct validity or factorial validity, so it is unclear if the scale items accurately represent the theoretical constructs of caregiver burden. The sample size for each specific injury group (e.g., SCI n=24) was limited, which may affect the accuracy and generalizability of the subgroup analyses. The cross-sectional design means there is no information on how caregiver burden or the scale's reliability changes over time. Some caregivers were recruited during the COVID-19 pandemic, which may have influenced their reported burden levels. The Environment subscale had poor reliability (alpha = 0.62) and significant floor effects, making its scores difficult to interpret. The Isolation subscale showed inconsistent reliability across different injury groups, limiting its utility for comparative assessments.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest. The study was supported by non-U.S. government funding.
The easy way to misread this
Do not use the Environment subscale scores to assess caregiver burden, as the study found poor internal consistency and significant floor effects for this subscale. Additionally, do not assume the Isolation subscale is valid for all injury types, as it was only reliable for caregivers of individuals with traumatic brain injury.