Cargando…

A systematic review and psychometric evaluation of resilience measurement scales for people living with dementia and their carers

Psychometrically sound resilience outcome measures are essential to establish how health and care services or interventions can enhance the resilience of people living with dementia (PLWD) and their carers. This paper systematically reviews the literature to identify studies that administered a resi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Windle, Gill, MacLeod, Catherine, Algar-Skaife, Katherine, Stott, Joshua, Waddington, Claire, Camic, Paul M., Sullivan, Mary Pat, Brotherhood, Emilie, Crutch, Sebastian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9675235/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36402942
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01747-x
_version_ 1784833328141041664
author Windle, Gill
MacLeod, Catherine
Algar-Skaife, Katherine
Stott, Joshua
Waddington, Claire
Camic, Paul M.
Sullivan, Mary Pat
Brotherhood, Emilie
Crutch, Sebastian
author_facet Windle, Gill
MacLeod, Catherine
Algar-Skaife, Katherine
Stott, Joshua
Waddington, Claire
Camic, Paul M.
Sullivan, Mary Pat
Brotherhood, Emilie
Crutch, Sebastian
author_sort Windle, Gill
collection PubMed
description Psychometrically sound resilience outcome measures are essential to establish how health and care services or interventions can enhance the resilience of people living with dementia (PLWD) and their carers. This paper systematically reviews the literature to identify studies that administered a resilience measurement scale with PLWD and/or their carers and examines the psychometric properties of these measures. Electronic abstract databases and the internet were searched, and an international network contacted to identify peer-reviewed journal articles. Two authors independently extracted data. They critically reviewed the measurement properties from the available psychometric data in the studies, using a standardised checklist adapted for purpose. Fifty-one studies were included in the final review, which applied nine different resilience measures, eight developed in other populations and one developed for dementia carers in Thailand. None of the measures were developed for use with people living with dementia. The majority of studies (N = 47) focussed on dementia carers, three studies focussed on people living with dementia and one study measured both carers and the person with dementia. All the studies had missing information regarding the psychometric properties of the measures as applied in these two populations. Nineteen studies presented internal consistency data, suggesting seven of the nine measures demonstrate acceptable reliability in these new populations. There was some evidence of construct validity, and twenty-eight studies hypothesised effects a priori (associations with other outcome measure/demographic data/differences in scores between relevant groups) which were partially supported. The other studies were either exploratory or did not specify hypotheses. This limited evidence does not necessarily mean the resilience measure is not suitable, and we encourage future users of resilience measures in these populations to report information to advance knowledge and inform further reviews. All the measures require further psychometric evaluation in both these populations. The conceptual adequacy of the measures as applied in these new populations was questionable. Further research to understand the experience of resilience for people living with dementia and carers could establish the extent current measures -which tend to measure personal strengths -are relevant and comprehensive, or whether further work is required to establish a new resilience outcome measure. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01747-x.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9675235
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96752352022-11-20 A systematic review and psychometric evaluation of resilience measurement scales for people living with dementia and their carers Windle, Gill MacLeod, Catherine Algar-Skaife, Katherine Stott, Joshua Waddington, Claire Camic, Paul M. Sullivan, Mary Pat Brotherhood, Emilie Crutch, Sebastian BMC Med Res Methodol Research Psychometrically sound resilience outcome measures are essential to establish how health and care services or interventions can enhance the resilience of people living with dementia (PLWD) and their carers. This paper systematically reviews the literature to identify studies that administered a resilience measurement scale with PLWD and/or their carers and examines the psychometric properties of these measures. Electronic abstract databases and the internet were searched, and an international network contacted to identify peer-reviewed journal articles. Two authors independently extracted data. They critically reviewed the measurement properties from the available psychometric data in the studies, using a standardised checklist adapted for purpose. Fifty-one studies were included in the final review, which applied nine different resilience measures, eight developed in other populations and one developed for dementia carers in Thailand. None of the measures were developed for use with people living with dementia. The majority of studies (N = 47) focussed on dementia carers, three studies focussed on people living with dementia and one study measured both carers and the person with dementia. All the studies had missing information regarding the psychometric properties of the measures as applied in these two populations. Nineteen studies presented internal consistency data, suggesting seven of the nine measures demonstrate acceptable reliability in these new populations. There was some evidence of construct validity, and twenty-eight studies hypothesised effects a priori (associations with other outcome measure/demographic data/differences in scores between relevant groups) which were partially supported. The other studies were either exploratory or did not specify hypotheses. This limited evidence does not necessarily mean the resilience measure is not suitable, and we encourage future users of resilience measures in these populations to report information to advance knowledge and inform further reviews. All the measures require further psychometric evaluation in both these populations. The conceptual adequacy of the measures as applied in these new populations was questionable. Further research to understand the experience of resilience for people living with dementia and carers could establish the extent current measures -which tend to measure personal strengths -are relevant and comprehensive, or whether further work is required to establish a new resilience outcome measure. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01747-x. BioMed Central 2022-11-19 /pmc/articles/PMC9675235/ /pubmed/36402942 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01747-x Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis 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/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://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.
spellingShingle Research
Windle, Gill
MacLeod, Catherine
Algar-Skaife, Katherine
Stott, Joshua
Waddington, Claire
Camic, Paul M.
Sullivan, Mary Pat
Brotherhood, Emilie
Crutch, Sebastian
A systematic review and psychometric evaluation of resilience measurement scales for people living with dementia and their carers
title A systematic review and psychometric evaluation of resilience measurement scales for people living with dementia and their carers
title_full A systematic review and psychometric evaluation of resilience measurement scales for people living with dementia and their carers
title_fullStr A systematic review and psychometric evaluation of resilience measurement scales for people living with dementia and their carers
title_full_unstemmed A systematic review and psychometric evaluation of resilience measurement scales for people living with dementia and their carers
title_short A systematic review and psychometric evaluation of resilience measurement scales for people living with dementia and their carers
title_sort systematic review and psychometric evaluation of resilience measurement scales for people living with dementia and their carers
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9675235/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36402942
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01747-x
work_keys_str_mv AT windlegill asystematicreviewandpsychometricevaluationofresiliencemeasurementscalesforpeoplelivingwithdementiaandtheircarers
AT macleodcatherine asystematicreviewandpsychometricevaluationofresiliencemeasurementscalesforpeoplelivingwithdementiaandtheircarers
AT algarskaifekatherine asystematicreviewandpsychometricevaluationofresiliencemeasurementscalesforpeoplelivingwithdementiaandtheircarers
AT stottjoshua asystematicreviewandpsychometricevaluationofresiliencemeasurementscalesforpeoplelivingwithdementiaandtheircarers
AT waddingtonclaire asystematicreviewandpsychometricevaluationofresiliencemeasurementscalesforpeoplelivingwithdementiaandtheircarers
AT camicpaulm asystematicreviewandpsychometricevaluationofresiliencemeasurementscalesforpeoplelivingwithdementiaandtheircarers
AT sullivanmarypat asystematicreviewandpsychometricevaluationofresiliencemeasurementscalesforpeoplelivingwithdementiaandtheircarers
AT brotherhoodemilie asystematicreviewandpsychometricevaluationofresiliencemeasurementscalesforpeoplelivingwithdementiaandtheircarers
AT crutchsebastian asystematicreviewandpsychometricevaluationofresiliencemeasurementscalesforpeoplelivingwithdementiaandtheircarers
AT windlegill systematicreviewandpsychometricevaluationofresiliencemeasurementscalesforpeoplelivingwithdementiaandtheircarers
AT macleodcatherine systematicreviewandpsychometricevaluationofresiliencemeasurementscalesforpeoplelivingwithdementiaandtheircarers
AT algarskaifekatherine systematicreviewandpsychometricevaluationofresiliencemeasurementscalesforpeoplelivingwithdementiaandtheircarers
AT stottjoshua systematicreviewandpsychometricevaluationofresiliencemeasurementscalesforpeoplelivingwithdementiaandtheircarers
AT waddingtonclaire systematicreviewandpsychometricevaluationofresiliencemeasurementscalesforpeoplelivingwithdementiaandtheircarers
AT camicpaulm systematicreviewandpsychometricevaluationofresiliencemeasurementscalesforpeoplelivingwithdementiaandtheircarers
AT sullivanmarypat systematicreviewandpsychometricevaluationofresiliencemeasurementscalesforpeoplelivingwithdementiaandtheircarers
AT brotherhoodemilie systematicreviewandpsychometricevaluationofresiliencemeasurementscalesforpeoplelivingwithdementiaandtheircarers
AT crutchsebastian systematicreviewandpsychometricevaluationofresiliencemeasurementscalesforpeoplelivingwithdementiaandtheircarers