Validity and reliability of the Caregiver Reaction Assessment scale among primary informal caregivers for older persons in Singapore

Abstract

Previous studies evaluating the validity and reliability of the Caregiver Reaction Assessment (CRA) scale (24 items; five subscales: schedule, health, finances, family support, and esteem) in different countries are not fully congruent. This article assesses the validity and reliability of the CRA among informal caregivers of older persons in Singapore. Data from a national survey of 1190 primary informal caregivers of Singaporeans aged ≥75 years with ≥1 activity of daily living limitation was analyzed. Fit of the five-factor model was tested in half of the sample using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and the other half subjected to exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The CRA was modified accordingly and again subjected to CFA. The CRA's measurement equivalence/invariance (ME/I) across language of administration (Chinese/English/Malay) was assessed. CFA showed a poor fit for the five-factor model. EFA suggested the presence of four factors, three items to have neither sufficient nor unique factor loadings and items on two of the subscales to load on a single factor. CFA of the ‘modified’ CRA (21 items; four subscales: schedule and health, finances, family support, and esteem) suggested a better fit for the four-factor model than for the five-factor model. ME/I analysis supported partial invariance of the CRA across language of administration. The CRA scale should be assessed for relevance in Asian settings. With the suggested modifications, it is suitable for assessing negative and positive effects of caregiving among informal caregivers of older persons with activity limitations in Singapore.

Keywords:

• family caregivers
• older adult
• factor analysis
• psychometrics
• Asia
• Southeastern
• Singapore

Acknowledgments

The data utilized for this article are from the SIC, which was funded by the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, Singapore. The analyses were in part funded by an A*STAR infrastructure grant to the Duke-NUS Program in Health Services and Systems Research and a grant from the Tsao Foundation, Singapore (NUS (N-111-000-018-091)). The authors thank Dr Charles Given for granting permission to use the CRA scale, available in the public domain, in the SIC.