TY - JOUR
T1 - Head-to-Head Comparison of the Psychometric Properties of 3 Carer-Related Preference-Based Instruments
AU - McCaffrey, Nikki
AU - Bucholc, Jessica
AU - Rand, Stacey
AU - Hoefman, Renske
AU - Ugalde, Anna
AU - Muldowney, Anne
AU - Mihalopoulos, Cathrine
AU - Engel, Lidia
N1 - Funding Information:
Funding: This research was supported by grant HEAG-H 91_2018 awarded by the Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.
Funding Information:
Author Contributions: Concept and design: McCaffrey, Bucholc, Rand, Hoefman, Ugalde, Muldowney, Mihalopoulos, Engel, Acquisition of data: McCaffrey, Bucholc, Muldowney, Engel, Analysis and interpretation of data: McCaffrey, Bucholc, Rand, Hoefman, Engel, Drafting of the manuscript: McCaffrey, Critical revision of the paper for important intellectual content: McCaffrey, Rand, Hoefman, Ugalde, Muldowney, Mihalopoulos, Engel, Statistical analysis: McCaffrey, Engel, Provision of study materials or patients: Bucholc, Muldowney, Engel, Obtaining funding: McCaffrey, Rand, Hoefman, Ugalde, Muldowney, Mihalopoulos, Engel, Administrative, technical, or logistic support: Bucholc, Muldowney, Conflict of Interest Disclosures: The authors reported no conflicts of interest. Funding/Support: This research was supported by grant HEAG-H 91_2018 awarded by the Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia. Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Ethics Approval: The survey was approved by the Deakin University Faculty of Health, Human Ethics Advisory Group, Burwood, Australia (reference number HEAG-H 91_2018) and through the Carers Victoria's Carer Participation in Research process. Informed consent was obtained from all participants before completing the survey. Acknowledgments: The authors are indebted to the carers who participated in this research and warmly thank the members of Deakin Health Economics and the Faculty of Health who tested the pilot survey. Many thanks to Lana Dogan and Jessica Merganovski, Carers Victoria for their assistance with recruiting participants to the study.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research
PY - 2020/11
Y1 - 2020/11
N2 - Objectives: To compare the psychometric properties of the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit for carers (ASCOT-Carer), the Carer Experience Scale (CES), and the Care-related Quality of Life (CarerQol) to inform the choice of instrument in future studies. Methods: Data were derived from a 2018 online survey of informal carers in Australia. Reliability was assessed via internal consistency (Cronbach alpha, α) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC) for respondents who self-reported no change in their quality of life as a carer over 2 weeks. Convergent validity was evaluated via predetermined hypotheses about associations (Spearman's rank correlation) with existing, validated measures. Discriminative validity was assessed based on the ability of the carer-related scores to distinguish between different informal care situations (Mann–Whitney U, Kruskal–Wallis one-way analysis of variance). Results: Data from 500 carers were analyzed. The ASCOT-Carer demonstrated a higher degree of internal consistency, possibly due to a unidimensional structure, and test-retest reliability than the CarerQol and CES (α = 0.87, 0.65, 0.59; ICC, 0.87, 0.67, 0.81, respectively). All 3 instruments exhibited convergent validity and detected statistically significant associations between carer-related scores and different informal care situations, except for the CarerQol-7D and sole carer status. Conclusions: The ASCOT-Carer, CarerQol, and CES performed reasonably well psychometrically; the ASCOT-Carer exhibited the best psychometric properties overall in this sample of Australian informal carers. Findings should be used in conjunction with consideration of research goals, carer population, targeted carer-related constructs, and prevailing perspectives on the economic evaluation to inform choice of instrument in future studies.
AB - Objectives: To compare the psychometric properties of the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit for carers (ASCOT-Carer), the Carer Experience Scale (CES), and the Care-related Quality of Life (CarerQol) to inform the choice of instrument in future studies. Methods: Data were derived from a 2018 online survey of informal carers in Australia. Reliability was assessed via internal consistency (Cronbach alpha, α) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC) for respondents who self-reported no change in their quality of life as a carer over 2 weeks. Convergent validity was evaluated via predetermined hypotheses about associations (Spearman's rank correlation) with existing, validated measures. Discriminative validity was assessed based on the ability of the carer-related scores to distinguish between different informal care situations (Mann–Whitney U, Kruskal–Wallis one-way analysis of variance). Results: Data from 500 carers were analyzed. The ASCOT-Carer demonstrated a higher degree of internal consistency, possibly due to a unidimensional structure, and test-retest reliability than the CarerQol and CES (α = 0.87, 0.65, 0.59; ICC, 0.87, 0.67, 0.81, respectively). All 3 instruments exhibited convergent validity and detected statistically significant associations between carer-related scores and different informal care situations, except for the CarerQol-7D and sole carer status. Conclusions: The ASCOT-Carer, CarerQol, and CES performed reasonably well psychometrically; the ASCOT-Carer exhibited the best psychometric properties overall in this sample of Australian informal carers. Findings should be used in conjunction with consideration of research goals, carer population, targeted carer-related constructs, and prevailing perspectives on the economic evaluation to inform choice of instrument in future studies.
KW - carer-related quality of life
KW - economic evaluation
KW - informal care
KW - outcome measurement
KW - preference-based measures
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85091199243&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jval.2020.07.005
DO - 10.1016/j.jval.2020.07.005
M3 - Article
C2 - 33127019
AN - SCOPUS:85091199243
SN - 1098-3015
VL - 23
SP - 1477
EP - 1488
JO - Value in Health
JF - Value in Health
IS - 11
ER -