Subscribe to RSS
Download PDF
DOI: 10.1055/a-2286-0291
Deutsche Übersetzung und erste psychometrische Testung des Family Appraisal of Caregiving Questionnaire for Palliative Care (FACQ-PC)
German Translation and Initial Psychometric Testing of the Family Appraisal of Caregiving Questionnaire for Palliative Care (FACQ-PC)Authors
Zusammenfassung
Ziel der Studie Pflegende Angehörige erfahren häufig erhebliche Belastungen. Um sie zu unterstützen, sollten belastende und positive Aspekte der Lebenssituation systematisch erfasst werden. Dazu wurde der Family Appraisal of Caregiving Questionnaire for Palliative Care (FACQ-PC) mit 25 Items in 4 Domänen übersetzt und validiert.
Methode Die Übersetzung erfolgte nach den Prinzipien der International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Anschließend wurden die interne Konsistenz sowie die Inhalts- und Augenscheinvalidität durch Expert*innen (n=15) sowie pflegende Angehörige (n=35) bestimmt.
Ergebnisse Die Übersetzung weist eine gute interne Konsistenz mit einem Cronbachs α-Wert von über 0,8 (n=35) in allen 4 Domänen, eine ausreichende Augenscheinvalidität (S-FVI=74%, n=32) sowie Inhaltsvalidität (I-CVI>78%, n=15) in allen bis auf 2 Items auf.
Schlussfolgerung Die Ergebnisse legen nahe, dass der deutschsprachige FACQ-PC für Praxis und Forschung valide ist.
Abstract
Aim of the study Caregivers often experience considerable stress. To support them, negative and positive aspects of the caregiving situation should be systematically assessed. Therefore, the Family Appraisal of Caregiving Questionnaire for Palliative Care (FACQ-PC) with 25 items in 4 domains was translated and validated.
Method The translation was done according to the principles of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). After translation, internal consistency, content validity and face validity were determined by experts (n=15) and caregivers (n=35).
Results The translation shows good internal consistency with a Cronbach’s α-value above 0.8 (n=35) in all four domains, sufficient face validity (S-FVI=74%, n=32) and sufficient content validity (I-CVI>78%, n=15) in all but two items.
Conclusions The results suggest that the German translation of the FACQ-PC is valid for use with caregivers in the palliative care setting.
Schlüsselwörter
pflegende Angehörige - Selbsteinschätzungsinstrument - Palliative Care - Validität - ReliabilitätKeywords
informal caregivers - self-assessment instrument - palliative care - validity - reliabilityPublication History
Article published online:
04 June 2024
© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
-
Literatur
- 1 World Health Organization. National cancer control programmes: policies and managerial guidelines. 2. Aufl. Genf: WHO; 2002
- 2 National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guidance on cancer services: improving supportive and palliative care for adults with cancer – the manual. 2004 Accessed November 10, 2022 at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/csg4
- 3 Nagl-Cupal M, Kolland F, Zartler U. et al. Angehörigenpflege in Österreich. Einsicht in die Situation pflegender Angehöriger und in die Entwicklung informeller Pflegenetzwerke. Wien: Bundesministerium für Arbeit, Soziales, Gesundheit und Konsumentenschutz; 2018
- 4 Kreyer C, Pleschberger S. Angehörige in der häuslichen Hospiz- und Palliativversorgung. In: Kreutzer S, Oetting-Roß C, Schwermann M. Palliative Care aus sozial- und pflegewissenschaftlicher Perspektive. Weinheim: Beltz Juventa; 2019: 165-180
- 5 Hudson PL, Thomas K, Trauer T. et al. Psychological and social profile of family caregivers on commencement of palliative care. J Pain Symptom Manage 2011; 41: 522-534
- 6 Hudson P, Payne S. Family Caregivers and Palliative Care: Current Status and Agenda for the Future. J Palliat Med 2011; 14: 864-869
- 7 Shilling V, Matthews L, Jenkins V. et al. Patient-reported outcome measures for cancer caregivers: a systematic review. Quality of Life Research 2016; 25: 1859-1876
- 8 Reuschenbach B. Wer bewahrt die Praxis vor ungeeigneten Pflegeassessments?. Pflege 2012; 25: 295-298
- 9 Cooper B, Kinsella GJ, Picton C. Development and initial validation of a family appraisal of caregiving questionnaire for palliative care. Psychooncology 2006; 15: 613-622
- 10 Kinsella G, Cooper B, Picton C. et al. Factors influencing outcomes for family caregivers of persons receiving palliative care: Toward an integrated model. J Palliat Care 2000; 16: 46-54
- 11 Wild D, Grove A, Martin M. et al. Principles of Good Practice for the Translation and Cultural Adaptation Process for Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Measures: Report of the ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. Value in Health 2005; 8: 94-104
- 12 Food and Drug Administration. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims. 2009 Accessed December 26, 2020 at: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/patient-reported-outcome-measures-use-medical-product-development-support-labeling-claims
- 13 Bühner M. Einführung in die Test- und Fragebogenkonstruktion. 3. Aufl. München: Pearson; 2010
- 14 Döring N, Bortz J. Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation in den Sozial- und Humanwissenschaften. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2016
- 15 Beckstead JW. Content validity is naught. Int J Nurs Stud 2009; 46: 1274-1283
- 16 Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: Are you sure you know what’s being reported? critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health 2006; 29: 489-497
- 17 Yusoff MSB. ABC of Response Process Validation and Face Validity Index Calculation. Education in Medicine Journal 2019; 11: 55-61
- 18 Boulkedid R, Abdoul H, Loustau M. et al. Using and Reporting the Delphi Method for Selecting Healthcare Quality Indicators: A Systematic Review. PLoS One 2011; 6: e20476
- 19 Moosbrugger H, Brandt H. Testtheorie und Fragebogenkonstruktion. 3. Aufl.. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2020
- 20 Geroge D, Mallery P. SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 4. Aufl. Boston: Allyn & Bacon; 2003
- 21 Bonett DG. Sample size requirements for testing and estimating coefficient alpha. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 2002; 27: 335-340
- 22 Nissen SK, Fournaise A, Lauridsen JT. et al. Cross-sectoral inter-rater reliability of the clinical frailty scale – a Danish translation and validation study. BMC Geriatr 2020; 20: 1-8
- 23 Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen SV. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Res Nurs Health 2007; 30: 459-467
- 24 Colin RM, Caroline J, Hollins M. Minimum Sample Size Requirements for a Validation Study of the Birth Satisfaction Scale-Revised (BSS-R). Journal of Nursing and Practice 2017; 1: 25-30
- 25 Lynn MR. Determination and quantification of content validity. Nurs Res 1986; 35: 382-385
- 26 Bujang MA, Omar ED, Baharum NA. A review on sample size determination for cronbach’s alpha test: A simple guide for researchers. Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences 2018; 25: 85-99
- 27 Yurdugül H. Minimum Sample Size for Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha: A Monte Carlo Study. Eğitim fakü̧ltesi dergisi 2008; 35: 397-405
- 28 Davda J, Kibet H, Achieng E. et al. Assessing the acceptability, reliability, and validity of the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) in Kenyan cancer patients: a cross-sectional study. J Patient Rep Outcomes 2021; 5: 4
- 29 Liebert A, Wilenska A, Czuber-Dochan W. et al. Translation and validation of the inflammatory bowel disease fatigue (IBD-F) patient self-assessment questionnaire. Prz Gastroenterol 2021; 16: 136-143