Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An investigation into the construct validity of the Carer Experience Scale (CES)

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The Carer Experience Scale (CES) is an index measure of the caring experience, focusing on six domains: activities outside caring, support from family and friends, assistance from the government and other organizations, fulfilment from caring, control over caring and getting on with the care recipient. This is an initial study of the construct validity of the CES focusing on validity in a heterogeneous group of carers in the UK.

Methods

The CES was included in a cross-sectional quality of life survey conducted in a UK city in 2010. The survey included a number of questions about the characteristics of the carer, care recipient, caring situation and motivation for caring. Hypotheses regarding the anticipated associations between these contextual variables and the caring experience were developed and statistically tested.

Results

Seven hundred and thirty carers fully completed the CES questionnaire. Associations between variables hypothesised to relate to the caring experience (such as recipient health and intensity of caring) and the CES were largely as expected, providing evidence that the CES captures the caring experience in a valid way. Most hypothesised associations were statistically significant in both carers of older and younger adults.

Conclusions

This study provides early encouraging evidence for the construct validity of the CES instrument. Further investigation is required to examine the validity of the CES in specific clinical subgroups and to examine the responsiveness of the CES in detecting changes in the carer’s outcomes over time.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CES:

Carer Experience Scale

QoL:

Quality of life

References

  1. Pickard, L., Wittenberg, R., Comas-Herrera, A., Davies, B., & Darton, R. (2000). Relying on informal care in the new century? Informal care for elderly people in England to 2031. Ageing & Society, 20(6), 745–772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Stone, P. W., Chapman, R. H., Sandberg, E. A., Liljas, B., & Neumann, P. J. (2000). Measuring costs in cost-utility analyses. Variations in the literature. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 16(1), 111–124.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Brouwer, W. B. (2006). Too important to ignore: Informal caregivers and other significant others. Pharmacoeconomics, 24(1), 39–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Goodrich, K., Kaambwa, B., & Al-Janabi, H. (2012). The inclusion of informal care in applied economic evaluation: A review. Value in Health, 15, 975–981.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Al-Janabi, H., Flynn, T. N., & Coast, J. (2011). QALYs and carers. Pharmacoeconomics, 29(12), 1015–1023.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Al-Janabi, H., Coast, J., & Flynn, T. N. (2008). What do people value when they provide unpaid care to an older person? A meta-ethnography with interview follow-up. Social Science and Medicine, 67(1), 111–121.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Al-Janabi, H., Flynn, T. N., & Coast, J. (2011). Estimation of a preference-based Carer Experience Scale. Medical Decision Making, 31(3), 458–468.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Brouwer, W. B., van Exel, N. J., van Gorp, B., & Redekop, W. K. (2006). The CarerQol instrument: A new instrument to measure care-related quality of life of informal caregivers for use in economic evaluations. Quality of Life Research, 15(6), 1005–1021.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bristol City Council (2011). Quality of life in Bristol. Quality of life in your Neighbourhood, Survey results 2010. http://www.bristol.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/council_and_democracy/consultations/iqol%202011%20finalv2.pdf. Accessed 25 Jan 2013.

  10. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psycological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kane, M. T. (2001). Current concerns in validity theory. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38(4), 319–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Al-Janabi, H., Frew, E., Brouwer, W. B., Rappange, D., & Van Exel, J. (2010). The inclusion of positive aspects of caring in the Caregiver Strain Index: Tests of feasibility and validity. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47(8), 984–993.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. van Exel, N. J., Brouwer, W. B., van den Berg, B., Koopmanschap, M., & van den Bos, G. (2004). What really matters: An inquiry into the relative importance of dimensions of informal caregiver burden. Clinical Rehabilitation, 18(6), 683–693.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hoefman, R. J., van Exel, N. J., Looren de Jong, S., Redekop, K., & Brouwer, W. B. (2011). A new test of the construct validity of the CarerQol instrument: Measuring the impact of informal care giving. Quality of Life Research, 20(6), 875–887.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hoefman, R. J., van Exel, N. J., Foets, M., & Brouwer, W. B. (2011). Sustained informal care: The feasibility, construct validity and test–retest reliability of the CarerQol-instrument to measure the impact of informal care in long-term care. Aging & Mental Health, 15(8), 1018–1027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Scholte op Reimer, W. J. M., de Haan, R. J., Rijnders, P. T., Limburg, M., & van den Bos, G. A. M. (1998). The burden of caregiving in partners of long-term stroke survivors. Stroke, 29, 1605–1611.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. van Exel, N. J., Scholte op Reimer, W., Brouwer, W. B., van den Berg, B., Koopmanschap, M., & van den Bos, G. (2004). Instruments for assessing the burden of informal caregiving for stroke patients in clinical practice: A comparison of CSI, CRA, SCQ and self-rated burden. Clinical Rehabilitation, 18(2), 203–214.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bobinac, A., van Exel, N. J., Rutten, F., & Brouwer, W. B. (2010). Caring for and caring about: Disentangling the caregiver effect and the family effect. Journal of Health Economics, 29(4), 549–556.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Almberg, B., Grafstrom, M., & Winblad, B. (1997). Caring for a demented elderly person—burden and burnout among caregiving relatives. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25(1), 109–116.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. van den Heuvel, E. T., deWitte, L. P., Schure, L. M., Sanderman, R., & Meyboom de Jong, B. (2001). Risk factors for burn-out in caregivers of stroke patients, and possibilities for intervention. Clinical Rehabilitation, 15(6), 669–677.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. van Exel, N. J., Koopmanschap, M. A., van den Berg, B., Brouwer, W. B., & van den Bos, G. A. (2005). Burden of informal caregiving for stroke patients. Cerebrovascular Diseases, 19(1), 11–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Peters, M., Fitzpatrick, R., Doll, H., Playford, D., & Jenkinson, C. (2011). Does self-reported well-being of patients with Parkinson’s disease influence caregiver strain and quality of life? Parkinsonism and Related Disorders, 17(5), 348–352.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Choi-Kwon, S., Kim, H. S., Kwon, S. U., & Kim, J. S. (2005). Factors affecting the burden on caregivers of stroke survivors in South Korea. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 86(5), 1043–1048.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bugge, C., Alexander, H., & Hagen, S. (1999). Stroke patients’ informal caregivers. Patient, caregiver, and service factors that affect caregiver strain. Stroke, 30(8), 1517–1523.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Tooth, L., McKenna, K., Barnett, A., Prescott, C., & Murphy, S. (2005). Caregiver burden, time spent caring and health status in the first 12 months following stroke. Brain Injury, 19(12), 963–974.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Brouwer, W. B., van Exel, N. J., van den Berg, B., van den Bos, G., & Koopmanschap, M. (2005). Process utility from providing informal care: The benefit of caring. Health Policy, 74(1), 85–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Grant, J., Bartolucci, A., Elliot, T., & Newman Giger, J. (2000). Sociodemographic, physical, and psychosocial characteristics of depressed and non-depressed family caregivers of stroke survivors. Brain Injury, 14(12), 1089–1100.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Montgomery, R., Gonyea, J., & Hooyman, N. (1985). Caregiving and the experience of subjective and objective burden. Family Relations, 34, 19–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Pozzilli, C., Palmisano, L., Mainero, C., Tomassini, V., Marinelli, F., et al. (2004). Relationship between emotional distress in caregivers and health status in persons with multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis, 10(4), 442–446.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Orbell, S., Hopkins, N., & Gillies, B. (1993). Measuring the impact of informal caring. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 3, 149–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Jones, D. A., & Vetter, N. J. (1985). Formal and informal support received by carers of elderly dependants. British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Edition), 291, 643–645.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Zarit, S. H., Reever, K. E., & Bach-Peterson, J. (1980). Relatives of the impaired elderly: Correlates of feelings of burden. The gerontologist, 20(6), 649–655.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Thanks are due to all those who participated in the survey, members of the Bristol Partnership who funded the survey, Bristol City Council and particularly to Phil Chan.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Health Economics Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

    Ilias Goranitis, Joanna Coast & Hareth Al-Janabi

Authors
  1. Ilias Goranitis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joanna Coast
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hareth Al-Janabi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ilias Goranitis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Goranitis, I., Coast, J. & Al-Janabi, H. An investigation into the construct validity of the Carer Experience Scale (CES). Qual Life Res 23, 1743–1752 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0616-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0616-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation