×
Home
Current Archive Submission Guidelines
News Contact
Research paper

Designing and psychometric properties of coping strategies scale for family caregivers of hemodialysis patients

By
Nayereh Baghcheghi ,
Nayereh Baghcheghi
Hamid Koohestani
Hamid Koohestani

Abstract

The present study tries to design and evaluate the psychometric properties of coping strategies scale for family caregivers of hemodialysis patients. This study consisted of two phases: phase one was a qualitative study to analyze the experiences of coping strategies of hemodialysis patients' family caregivers' (N = 14). Then, the items were extracted from the interviews and the literature. Phase two was a psychometric assessment including face validity, content validity, construct validity (N = 245) and reliability. In phase one, 89 items were extracted and after face and content validity, 56 items remained. Construct validity of the scale, based on exploratory factor analysis, removed another 22 items. The remaining 34 items contained nine subscales (active coping, positive thinking, appeal to spirituality, help-seeking, altruism, acting out, self-blaming, seeking isolation, and intentional forgetting). The reliability of the scale with Cronbach's Alpha was 0.91 and its stability was obtained through test-retest (ICC = 0.9). Coping strategies scale for family caregivers of hemodialysis patients has an acceptable validity and reliability. The tool can be used to assess effective and ineffective coping strategies in family caregivers of hemodialysis patients that may be useful for facilitating management and education of efficient coping strategies to family caregivers of hemodialysis patients.

References

1.
Bolger N, Amarel D. Effects of social support visibility on adjustment to stress: Experimental evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 92(3):458–75.

Citation

Article metrics

Google scholar: See link

The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.