ArticleDysphagia2026
Psychometric Evaluation of the Turkish Version of the Caregiver Analysis of Reported Experiences with Swallowing Disorders (CARES-TR).
Article in Dysphagia, 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
This study aimed to translate, culturally adapt, and evaluate the psychometric properties of the Turkish version of the Caregiver Analysis of Reported Experiences with Swallowing Disorders (CARES-TR) among informal caregivers of individuals with dysphagia (IwD). This cross-sectional study included 193 informal caregivers of IwD. The CARES was adapted into Turkish, and its psychometric properties were examined using classical test theory and Rasch model analysis. Internal consistency, item-total correlations, and test-retest reliability were assessed. Convergent validity was examined through correlations with the Eating Assessment Tool-10 (EAT-10), Pedi-EAT-10, International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative Functional Diet Scale (IDDSI-FDS), Penetration-Aspiration Scale (PAS), and Zarit Caregiver Burden Interview (ZBI). Floor and ceiling effects were also evaluated. The CARES-TR demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach's α = .91), with subscale alpha values of .83 and .88. Item-total correlations ranged from .41 to .64. Test-retest reliability was excellent, with intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from .89 to .93. CARES-TR total and subscale scores showed moderate to strong correlations with related measures, including the EAT-10 (rₛ = .52-.55), Pedi-EAT-10 (rₛ = .62-.72), PAS (rₛ = .55-.63), IDDSI-FDS (rₛ = - .57 to - .68), and ZBI (rₛ = .64-.74; all p < .001). Rasch analysis indicated acceptable item fit (Infit MNSQ = 0.84-1.16; Outfit MNSQ = 0.71-1.19), adequate person reliability (.86), and appropriate targeting of item difficulty to respondent ability. No floor or ceiling effects were observed. The CARES-TR demonstrates satisfactory reliability and validity and appears to be a psychometrically robust, brief, and clinically applicable screening instrument for assessing dysphagia-related caregiver burden in Turkish-speaking populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42249959What 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.