Ageing and Dementia @ Bangor, Dementia Services Development Centre (DSDC), School of Medical and Health Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.
Department of Neuromedicine and Movement Science (INB), Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022 Nov 19;22(1):298. doi: 10.1186/s12874-022-01747-x.
Psychometrically sound resilience outcome measures are essential to establish how health and care services or interventions can enhance the resilience of people living with dementia (PLWD) and their carers. This paper systematically reviews the literature to identify studies that administered a resilience measurement scale with PLWD and/or their carers and examines the psychometric properties of these measures. Electronic abstract databases and the internet were searched, and an international network contacted to identify peer-reviewed journal articles. Two authors independently extracted data. They critically reviewed the measurement properties from the available psychometric data in the studies, using a standardised checklist adapted for purpose. Fifty-one studies were included in the final review, which applied nine different resilience measures, eight developed in other populations and one developed for dementia carers in Thailand. None of the measures were developed for use with people living with dementia. The majority of studies (N = 47) focussed on dementia carers, three studies focussed on people living with dementia and one study measured both carers and the person with dementia. All the studies had missing information regarding the psychometric properties of the measures as applied in these two populations. Nineteen studies presented internal consistency data, suggesting seven of the nine measures demonstrate acceptable reliability in these new populations. There was some evidence of construct validity, and twenty-eight studies hypothesised effects a priori (associations with other outcome measure/demographic data/differences in scores between relevant groups) which were partially supported. The other studies were either exploratory or did not specify hypotheses. This limited evidence does not necessarily mean the resilience measure is not suitable, and we encourage future users of resilience measures in these populations to report information to advance knowledge and inform further reviews. All the measures require further psychometric evaluation in both these populations. The conceptual adequacy of the measures as applied in these new populations was questionable. Further research to understand the experience of resilience for people living with dementia and carers could establish the extent current measures -which tend to measure personal strengths -are relevant and comprehensive, or whether further work is required to establish a new resilience outcome measure.
心理测量学上可靠的韧性评估方法对于确定卫生和保健服务或干预措施如何增强痴呆症患者(PLWD)及其照顾者的韧性至关重要。本文系统地回顾了文献,以确定对 PLWD 和/或其照顾者进行韧性评估量表的研究,并检查了这些测量方法的心理测量特性。通过电子摘要数据库和互联网进行了搜索,并联系了一个国际网络以确定同行评议的期刊文章。两位作者独立提取数据。他们使用专门为此目的改编的标准化清单,从研究中可用的心理测量数据中批判性地审查了测量特性。最终综述共纳入 51 项研究,这些研究应用了 9 种不同的韧性测量方法,其中 8 种方法在其他人群中开发,1 种方法在泰国开发用于痴呆症照顾者。没有一种方法是专为与痴呆症患者一起使用而开发的。大多数研究(N=47)都集中在痴呆症照顾者上,有 3 项研究集中在痴呆症患者身上,有 1 项研究同时测量了照顾者和患有痴呆症的人。所有研究都缺少关于这些人群中应用的测量方法的心理测量特性的信息。19 项研究提供了内部一致性数据,表明 9 项措施中有 7 项在这些新人群中具有可接受的可靠性。有一些结构有效性的证据,有 28 项研究事先提出了假设(与其他结果测量/人口统计数据/相关组之间分数的差异),这些假设得到了部分支持。其他研究要么是探索性的,要么没有指定假设。这一有限的证据并不一定意味着韧性测量方法不合适,我们鼓励这些人群中韧性测量方法的未来使用者报告信息,以增进知识并为进一步的综述提供信息。所有这些措施都需要在这两个人群中进行进一步的心理测量评估。这些新人群中应用的措施的概念充分性值得怀疑。进一步研究了解痴呆症患者和照顾者的韧性体验,可以确定当前倾向于衡量个人优势的措施在多大程度上是相关和全面的,或者是否需要进一步工作来建立新的韧性结果测量。