ArticleJournal of patient experience2020
Exploring the Score Equivalence of the English and Chinese Versions of the Brief Assessment Scale for Caregivers.
Article in Journal of patient experience, 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.
- Measurement Properties of the 15-Item Singapore Caregiver Quality of Life Scale (SCQOLS-15) in Family Caregivers of Patients with Heart Diseases.The patient · 2023Observational
- Analysis of the concept of caregiver role strain in informal caregivers: an approach according to Meleis.Revista CuidarteArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMultilingual outcome measures are used so that research studies are more generalizable across language contexts.
objectiveTo determine the score equivalence of the English and Chinese versions of Brief Assessment Scale for Caregivers (BASC) in Singapore.
methodCaregivers of patients with advanced cancer completed the BASC in either English or Chinese. Multivariable linear regression analysis was used to compare the mean BASC total and factor scores between the 2 language versions, with adjustment for possible confounding variables. Equivalence was declared if the 90% confidence interval of the mean scores fell entirely within an equivalence zone of ±0.5 standard deviation.
resultsThere were 521 ethnic Chinese participants, of whom 214 answered the English version and 307 answered the Chinese version. The BASC total and factor scores met the criteria for equivalence. Cronbach α coefficients were similar and exploratory factor analysis showed similar 2-factor structures for both language versions.
conclusionThe English and Chinese versions of the BASC were found to be equivalent in terms of similar adjusted mean scores, Cronbach α, and factor structures.
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.