ArticleBMJ open2025
Assessment of the validity of the Resilience and Strain Questionnaire in Caregivers of People with Dementia (ResQ-Care-Dem): a cross-sectional survey study.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of the present study was to examine the reliability and validity (structural and convergent) of the Resilience and Strain Questionnaire in Caregivers of People with Dementia (ResQ-Care-Dem).
designCross-sectional survey study.
settingOnline survey in Germany.
participantsThe ResQ-Care-Dem was completed by 243 informal caregivers of people with dementia (M
methodsThe ResQ-Care-Dem consists of four scales: two resilience scales (psychological aspects and social aspects of resilience) and two burden scales (interpersonal burden and general burden). The reliability of the two resilience and two burden scales was assessed using Cronbach's alpha as a measure of internal consistency. Structural validity was examined using a principal axis factor analysis. Convergent validity was assessed by Pearson's correlations with the Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI-7), the Caregiver Self-Efficacy Scale (CES-8) and the Gain in Alzheimer Care Instrument (GAIN).
resultsThe ResQ-Care-Dem scales' internal consistencies ranged between 0.65 and 0.81. The factorial structure could partly be confirmed, with the items of the four scales primarily loading on four factors. The burden scales demonstrated high and positive correlations with the score for caregiver burden (ZBI-7, r=0.51 - 0.55) and small to high, negative correlations with the scores for caregiver self-efficacy (CES-8, r=-0.52 -0.56) and gains from caregiving (GAIN, r=-0.21 -0.22), supporting construct validity of the scales. The resilience scales showed small to high positive correlations with the scores for caregiver self-efficacy (CES-8, r=0.50 - 0.57) and gains from caregiving (GAIN, r=0.27 - 0.50), as well as moderate negative correlations with the caregiver burden score (ZBI-7, r=-0.45 -0.50), providing evidence for the scales' construct validity.
conclusionsThe reliability and structural validity of the ResQ-Care-Dem were partially confirmed. Evidence supporting its convergent validity suggests that the questionnaire has potential as a tool for assessing caregiver burden and resilience factors among informal caregivers of people with dementia. While these findings indicate potential practical applicability, future studies should investigate its performance in real-world settings and assess changes over time (eg, responsiveness) in longitudinal studies.
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.