4.5 Article

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of a Brief Version of the Zarit Burden Interview in Black and White Dementia Caregivers

期刊

GERONTOLOGIST
卷 51, 期 4, 页码 453-462

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/geront/gnr011

关键词

Factor structure; Metric equivalence; Invariance; Racial/ethnic comparisons

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [T32 AG 000037-26, R01 AG 016307-01] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NICHD NIH HHS [K12 HD055885-03] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose of the study: Although the Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI) is one of the most extensively used measures in research for caregiver burden, few researchers have examined its factor structure. Furthermore, though the ZBI has also been used in cross-group comparisons of burden, there have not been studies of whether or not it measures burden equally across various groups. Therefore, this study considers the psychometric properties of a brief version of the ZBI with particular attention to its factor structure and metric equivalence across two racial groups. Design and Methods: Distribution, reliability, and confirmatory factor analyses were performed with a 14-item three-factor ZBI factor model in a sample of 175 Black and 225 White caregivers of family members with dementia. Results: The 14 ZBI items were reliable and fairly normally distributed for both groups. The three-factor model fits the data and was invariant across the Black and White caregivers for number of factors, factor loadings, and factor covariances. Implications: These findings contribute to the literature on the factor structure of the ZBI and provide new data on the invariance of the ZBI across two racial/ethnic groups of caregivers. This study provides support for the validity of findings that compare the burden scores of Black and White caregivers in studies utilizing the ZBI. The 14-item version also offers a more parsimonious way to measure burden in clinical settings, potentially increasing screening opportunities when caregiver contact time is limited.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据