ArticleJournal of physical therapy science2020
Reliability and validity of the Mongolian version of the Zarit Caregiver Burden Interview.
Article in Journal of physical therapy science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validation of the Zarit burden interview for Polish caregivers of individuals with rare diseases: a multidimensional approach to assessing caregiver burden.BMC psychology · 2025Article
- Zarit Caregiver Burden Interview: Psychometric Properties in Family Caregivers of People with Intellectual Disabilities.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
[Purpose] Our study aimed to verify the reliability and validity of the translated Mongolian version of the Zarit Caregiver Burden Interview (ZBI). [Participants and Methods] We obtained the basic information of patients and their caregivers when they were hospitalized (Study 1). Subsequently, after the hospital discharged the patients, the caregivers answered the ZBI by telephone during the 4th and 5th weeks (Studies 2 and 3, respectively). To evaluate reliability, we calculated the correlation coefficient, compared the total scores of the ZBI obtained in Studies 2 and 3, and calculated Cronbach's alpha coefficient. To evaluate validity, we calculated the correlation coefficient of the score of item 22 and the sum of the scores of items 1-21. [Results] The correlation coefficient for reliability was high, and the difference between the two studies was insignificant. Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.92. The correlation coefficient was high for validity as well. [Conclusion] The Mongolian version of the ZBI has high reliability and validity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.