ArticleInnovation in aging2026
Validation of the Revised Scale for Caregiving Self-Efficacy in the German population.
Article in Innovation in aging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Informal caregivers of people living with dementia are susceptible to significant caregiver burden. Strengthening self-efficacy may alleviate burden by improving caregivers' ability to persist in the face of challenging situations. To provide a relevant assessment tool, this study aimed to translate the Revised Scale for Caregiving Self-Efficacy (RSCSE) into German and evaluate its psychometric properties. Research Design and Methods: Cross-sectional data with a test-retest subsample were collected online from June 2024 to March 2025. Reliability was assessed via internal consistency, item analysis, and test-retest reliability. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to evaluate structural validity. To assess construct and convergent validity, we included the following scales: Confidence in Dementia Care Scale, Benefits of Being a Caregiver Scale, Brief Resilience Scale, Perceived Social Support Questionnaire, Dementia Knowledge Assessment Scale, and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Results: The convenience sample consisted of 127 individuals, with 60 taking part in the retest after 4 weeks. The subscales in this sample demonstrate high internal consistency (α/ω = 0.92/0.94) and moderate-to-good retest reliability. The CFA demonstrated a good model fit [χ Discussion and Implications: These results support the use of the RSCSE within the German population to assess the self-efficacy of caregivers of people living with dementia.
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.