↓ Skip to main content

Assessment of the consequences of caregiving in psychosis: a psychometric comparison of the Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI) and the Involvement Evaluation Questionnaire (IEQ)

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
161 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Assessment of the consequences of caregiving in psychosis: a psychometric comparison of the Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI) and the Involvement Evaluation Questionnaire (IEQ)
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12955-017-0626-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Manuel Gonçalves-Pereira, Eduardo González-Fraile, Borja Santos-Zorrozúa, Manuel Martín-Carrasco, Paola Fernández-Catalina, Ana I. Domínguez-Panchón, Paula Muñoz-Hermoso, Javier Ballesteros

Abstract

The Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI) was originally developed to assess the level of subjective burden in caregivers of people with dementia. The Involvement Evaluation Questionnaire (IEQ) is amongst the leading scales to assess caregiving consequences in severe mental illness. We aimed to compare the psychometric properties of the ZBI, a generic tool, and of the IEQ, a more specific tool to assess the consequences of caregiving in schizophrenia and related disorders. Secondary analyses of a 16-week, randomized controlled trial of a psychoeducational intervention in 223 primary caregivers of patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Psychometric properties (internal consistency, convergent and discriminative validity, and sensitivity to change) were evaluated for both ZBI and IEQ. Internal consistency was good and similar for both scales (ZBI: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.89, 0.94; IEQ: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.83, 0.89). Convergent validity was relevant for similar domains (e.g. ZBI total score vs IEQ-tension r = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.61, 0.75) and at least moderate for the rest of domains (ZBI total score, personal strain and role strain vs IEQ-urging and supervision). Discriminative validity against psychological distress and depressive symptoms was good (Area Under the Curve [AUC]: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.71, 0.83; and 0.69, 95% CI: 0.63, 0.78 - for ZBI against GHQ-28 and CES-D respectively; and AUC: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.65, 0.78; and 0.69, 95% CI: 0.62, 0.77 - for IEQ against GHQ-28 and CES-D respectively). AUCs against the reference criteria did not differ significantly between the two scales. After the intervention, both scales showed a significant decrease at endpoint (p-values < 0.001) with similar standardised effect sizes for change (-0.36, 95% CI: -0.58, -0.15 - for ZBI; -0.39, 95% CI: -0.60, -0.18 - for IEQ). Both ZBI and IEQ have shown satisfactory psychometric properties to assess caregiver burden in this sample. We provided further evidence on the performance of the ZBI as a general measure of subjective burden. ( ISRCTN32545295 ).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 161 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 161 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 16%
Researcher 20 12%
Student > Bachelor 16 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 7%
Other 27 17%
Unknown 48 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 30 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 23 14%
Social Sciences 7 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 1%
Other 13 8%
Unknown 58 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 April 2017.
All research outputs
#17,885,520
of 22,962,258 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1,509
of 2,183 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,951
of 309,562 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#43
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,962,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,183 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 309,562 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.