Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T00:38:17.336Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Développement d’une version canadienne-française du Montgomery Borgatta Caregiver Burden Scale*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2010

Nathalie Farley ,
Louise Demers  and
Bonnie R. Swaine
Nathalie Farley
Affiliation:
École de réadaptation, Faculté de médecine, Université de Montréal
Louise Demers*
Affiliation:
École de réadaptation, Faculté de médecine, Université de Montréal Centre de recherche de L'Institut universitaire de gériatrie de Montréal
Bonnie R. Swaine
Affiliation:
École de réadaptation, Faculté de médecine, Université de Montréal Centre de recherche interdisciplinaire en réadaptation, Montréal
*
Requests for offprints should be sent to:/Les demandes de tirés-à-part doivent être adressées à: Louise Demers, O.T., Ph.D., Centre de recherche de L'Institut universitaire de gériatrie de Montréal, 4565, chemin de la Reine Marie, Montréal, Québec, Canada, H3W 1W5, (Louise.Demers@UMontreal.ca)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Assessing the burden linked to caring for the frail elderly is becoming an important issue in rehabilitation. The purpose of this study was to translate/validate the Montgomery Borgatta Caregiver Burden Scale into French for use in Canada. This easy-to-use questionnaire evaluates aspects of burden such as objective, subjective stress and subjective demand burden. The instrument underwent: 1) parallel translation/back-translation; 2) expert's committee review leading to an experimental version; 3) pre-test to ensure wording clarity; and 4) study of psychometric properties with bilingual subjects (n = 27) and French-speaking subjects (n = 18). Results suggest that convergence between the original and the French versions is satisfactory for two of the three sub-scales of the MBCBS (ICC 0.83 et 0.96). The test-retest stability coefficients are also very good (ICC of 0.92 et 0.91), as is internal consistency (0.90, 0.66). The objective burden sub-scale correlates moderately with a measure of functional autonomy (SMAF). Results for the subjective burden scale linked to demand are, however, inadequate. All in all, two of the three sub-scales of the French-Canadian version of the Montgomery Borgatta Caregiver Burden Scale demonstrate adequate psychometric properties, thereby favouring its use in geriatric rehabilitation.

Résumé

Évaluer le fardeau des proches-aidants est primordial en réadaptation gériatrique afin d’établir un plan d’intervention tenant compte de la dyade aîné-aidant. Le but de cette recherche est de développer une version canadienne-française du Montgomery Borgatta Caregiver Burden Scale, en suivant les étapes suivantes: 1) traductions/traductions renversées parallèles; 2) production d’une version expérimentale en comité d’experts; 3) pré-test; 4) étude des valeurs psychométriques auprès de sujets bilingues (n = 27) et francophones (n = 18). Les résultats suggèrent une convergence élevée de la version canadienne-française avec la version originale (CCI 0,83 et0,96) pour les sous-échelles fardeau objectif et fardeau subjectif relié au stress. Pour celles-ci, les coefficients de fidélité test-retest de la nouvelle version sont très bons (CCI de0,92 et de0,91) de même que la cohérence interne (0,90, et0,66). La sous-échelle fardeau objectif est modérément corrélée avec une mesure d’indépendance fonctionnelle (SMAF). Les résultats pour la sous-échelle du fardeau objectif relié à la demande sont insatisfaisants. Deux des trois sous-échelles de la version canadienne-française du Montgomery Borgatta Caregiver Burden Scale présentent des qualités psychométriques favorisant leur utilisation en réadaptation gériatrique.

Keywords

agingmeasurement toolburdencaregiversgeriatric rehabilitationcross-cultural adaptationvieillissementinstrument de mesurefardeauproches-aidantsréadaptation gériatriqueadaptation transculturelle
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , Summer/Été 2008 , pp. 181 - 190
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association on Gerontology 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

L'article a été rédigé dans le cadre de la formation à la maîtrise du premier auteur, avec L'appui du Groupe de recherche Université de Montréal-Université McGill sur les services intégrés pour les personnes âgées (SOLIDAGE). Merci à Francine Giroux pour L'aide reliée aux analyses statistiques, à Diane Patenaude, Claudette Cloutier, Marie Chevalier et Marie Dufresne, pour le recrutement des participants. Un merci particulier aux proches-aidants et proches-aidantes qui ont bien voulu se prêter à L'exercice de cette recherche.

References

Références

Arcand, M. (2001). La réadaptation gériatrique: le passé, le présent et L'avenir. Dans Desrosiers, J., et Kouri, K. (Éds.) Réadaptation des personnes âgées. Les échanges cliniques et scientifiques sur le vieillissement (p. 1–12). Sherbrooke: Edisem inc.Google Scholar
Behling, O., et Law, K.S. (2000). Translation questionnaires and other research instruments: Problems and solutions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage University Papers.Google Scholar
Bottomley, J.M., et Lewis, C.B. (2003). Geriatric rehabilitation—a clinical approach. (2e éd.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Chappell, N.L., et Reid, R.C. (2002). Burden and well-being among caregivers: Examining the distinction. The Gerontologist, 42, 772–780.Google Scholar
Chen, T.-Y.A., Mann, W.C., Tomita, M., et Nochajski, S. (2000). Caregiver involvement in the use of assistive devices by frail older persons. The Occupationnal Therapy Journal of Research, 20, 179–199.Google Scholar
Corradetti, E.V., et Hills, G.A. (1998). Assessing and supporting caregivers of the elderly. Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation, 14(1), 12–35.Google Scholar
Demers, L., Desrosiers, J., Ska, B., Wolfson, C., Nikolova, R., Pervieux, I., et Auger, C. (2005). Assembling a toolkit to measure geriatric rehabilitation outcomes. American Journal of Physical Medecine and Rehabilitation, 84, 460–472.Google Scholar
Demers, L., Ska, B., Desrosiers, J., Alix, C., et Wolfson, C. (2004). Development of a conceptual framework for the assessment of geriatric rehabilitation outcomes. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 38, 221–237.Google Scholar
Derogatis, L.R., Rickels, K., et Rock, A.F. (1976). The SCL-90 and the MMPI: A step in the validation of a new self-report scale. British Journal of Psychiatry, 128, 280–289.Google Scholar
De Vellis, R.F. (1991). Scale development theory and applications. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
DiBartolo, M.C. (2001). Instruments, challenges, and nursing implications for individuals with Alzheimer's disease and their caregivers. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 26, 46–53.Google Scholar
Farley, N., et Demers, L. (2005). Les premières étapes dans L'adaptation transculturelle d’une échelle de « fardeau ». La Gérontoise, 16, 42–50.Google Scholar
Fortin, M.-F., Coutu-Wakulczyk, G., et Engelsmann, F. (1989). Contribution to the validation of the SCL-90-R in French-speaking women. Health Care for Women International, 10, 27–41.Google Scholar
Guberman, N. (2001). Development of screening and assessment tools for family caregivers. Montréal: Université du Québec à Montréal.Google Scholar
Guillemin, F., Bombardier, C., et Beaton, D.E. (1993). Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: Literature review and proposed guidelines. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 46, 1417–1432.Google Scholar
Hébert, R., Carrier, R., et Bilodeau, A. (1988). The functional autonomy measurement system (SMAF): Description and validation of an instrument for the measurement of handicaps. Age and Ageing, 17, 293–302.Google Scholar
Hilton, A., et Skrutkowski, M. (2002). Translating instruments into other languages: development and testing processes. Cancer Nursing, 25(1), 1–7.Google Scholar
Hooyman, N.R., Gonyea, J.G., et Montgomery, R.J.V. (1985). The impact of in-home services termination on family caregivers. The Gerontologist, 25, 141–145.Google Scholar
Horowitz, L.M., Rosenberg, S.E., Baer, B.A., Ureno, G., et Villasenor, V.S. (1988). Inventory of interpersonal problems: Psychometric properties and clinical applications. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 885–892.Google Scholar
Manthorpe, J., Alaszewski, H. (2002). Working with carers. Dans Squires, A., et Hastings, M. (Éds.), Rehabilitation of the older person (p. 195–205). Alexandria, UK: Nelson Thornes.Google Scholar
McCullagh, E., Brigstocke, G., Donaldson, N., et Kalra, L. (2005). Determinants of caregiving burden and quality of life in caregivers of stroke patients. Stroke, 36, 2181–2186.Google Scholar
Montgomery, R.J.V. (1988). Respite care: Lessons from a controled design study. Health Care Financing Review, (Annual Supplement), 133–138.Google Scholar
Montgomery, R.J.V. (1996). Advancing caregiver research: weighing efficacy and feasibility of interventions. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 51B(3), S109–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, R.J.V., et Borgatta, E.F. (1989). The effects of alternative support strategies on family caregiving. The Gerontologist, 29, 457–464.Google Scholar
Montgomery, R.J.V., Borgatta, E.F. et Borgatta, M.L. (2000). Societal and family change in the burden of care. Dans Liu, W.T. et Kending, H. (Éds.), Who should care for the elderly? An east-west value divide (p. 27–52). Singapore: The National University of Singapore Press.Google Scholar
Montgomery, R.J.V., Gonyea, J.G., et Hooyman, N.R. (1985). Caregiving and the experience of subjective and objective burden. Family Relations, 34, 19–26.Google Scholar
Montgomery, R.J.V., et Kosloski, K. (1994). A longitudinal analysis of nursing home placement for dependent elders cared for by spouses vs adult children. Journal of Gerontology, 49, S62–S74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Montgomery, R.J.V., Kosloski, K.D., et Datwyler, M.M. (1993). Factors defining caregivers: Final report to the National Institute on Aging. Lawrence, KS: Gerontology Center, University of Kansas.Google Scholar
Montoro-Rodriguez, J., Kosloski, K., et Montgomery, R.J.V. (2003). Evaluating a practice-oriented service model to increase the use of respite services among minorities and rural caregivers. The Gerontologist, 43, 916–924.Google Scholar
Nunally, J.C., et Bernstein, I.R. (1994). Psychometric theory. (3e éd.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Shrout, P.E., et Fleiss, J.L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychology Bulletin, 86, 420–428.Google Scholar
Stuckey, J.C., Neundorfer, M.M., et Smyth, K.A. (1996). Burden and well-being: The same coin or related currency? The Gerontologist, 36, 686–693.Google Scholar
Tooth, L.R., McKenna, K.T., Smith, M., et O'Rourke, P. (2003). Further evidence for the agreement between patients with stroke and their proxies on the Frenchay Activities Index. Clinical Rehabilitation, 17, 656–665.Google Scholar
Vallerand, R.J. (1989). Vers une méthodologie de validation transculturelle de questionnaires psychologiques: implications pour la recherche en langue française. Canadian Psychology, 30, 662–680.Google Scholar
Vallerand, R.J., et Halliwell, W.R. (1983). Vers une méthodologie de validation transculturelle de questionnaires psychologiques: implications pour la psychologie du sport. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 8(1), 9–18.Google Scholar
Visser-Meily, J.M.A., Post, M.W.M., Riphagen, I.I., et Lindeman, E. (2004). Measures used to assess burden among caregivers of stroke patients: A review. Clinical Rehabilitation, 18, 601–623.Google Scholar
Vitaliano, P.P., Maiuro, R.D., Ochs, H., Russo, J. (1989). A model of burden in caregivers of DAT patients. Dans Light, E., et Lebowitz, B. (Éds.), Alzheimer's disease treatment and family stress: Future directions for research (p. 267–291). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Wolff, J.L., et Kasper, J.D. (2006). Caregivers of frail elders: Updating a national profile. The Gerontologist, 46, 344–356.Google Scholar
Zarit, S.H. (1985). The hidden victims of Alzheimer's disease. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Zarit, S.H., Reever, K.E., et Bach-Peterson, J. (1980). Relatives of the impaired elderly: Correlates of feelings of burden. The Gerontologist, 20, 649–655.Google Scholar