Home › Research › End-of-life care
Reliability and Validity of the Resistiveness to Care Scale Among Cognitively Impaired Older Adults
Galik E, Resnick B, Vigne E, Holmes SD, Nalls V.. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 2016-10-21
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background Resistiveness to care is behavior that prevents or interferes with caregivers' performing or assisting with activities of daily living and puts residents at risk for inappropriate use of antipsychotic drugs, other restraining interventions, social isolation, and physical abuse. The purpose of this study was to establish the psychometric properties of a previously developed Resistiveness to Care measure. Procedures This was a descriptive study using baseline data from an ongoing randomized controlled trial testing a Function and Behavior Focused Care (FBFC) intervention. Residents were eligible to participate if they were 55 years of age or older, had a Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE) score of 15 or less, and were not enrolled in hospice or admitted for subacute care. Descriptive information included age, race, gender, cognitive status, and marital status. In addition to the Resistance to Care Scale, the Barthel Index, the Physical Activity Survey in Long Term Care (PAS-LTC), and the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) were completed. Psychometric testing was done using Rasch analysis and the Winsteps statistical program. Main findings The participants were moderate to severely cognitively impaired (MMSE of 7.23), functionally dependent (Barthel Index 47.31, SD 27.59), and engaged in only 134.17 (SD = 207.32) minutes of physical activity daily. Reliability was supported based on a Cronbach alpha of 0.84 and the DIF analysis, as there was no difference in function of the items between male and female participants. Validity was supported as all items fit the measurement model based on INFIT and OUTFIT statistics. Conclusions The findings support the reliability and validity of the Resistiveness to Care Scale for use with older adults with dementia in nursing home settings. Future work with the measure may benefit from the addition of items that are easier to endorse with regard to resistiveness to care (shutting eyes or spitting out food may be useful additions).
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Galik, E., Resnick, B., Vigne, E., Holmes, S. D., & Nalls, V. (2017). Reliability and Validity of the Resistiveness to Care Scale Among Cognitively Impaired Older Adults. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2016.08.008
Vancouver
Galik E, Resnick B, Vigne E, Holmes SD, Nalls V. Reliability and Validity of the Resistiveness to Care Scale Among Cognitively Impaired Older Adults. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association. 2017. doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2016.08.008. PMID: 27776986.
BibTeX
@article{galik2017-27776986,
author = {Galik, E. and Resnick, B. and Vigne, E. and Holmes, S. D. and Nalls, V.},
title = {{Reliability and Validity of the Resistiveness to Care Scale Among Cognitively Impaired Older Adults}},
journal = {Journal of the American Medical Directors Association},
year = {2017},
doi = {10.1016/j.jamda.2016.08.008},
pmid = {27776986},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2016.08.008}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Main findings The participants were moderate to severely cognitively impaired (MMSE of 7.23), functionally dependent (Barthel Index 47.31, SD 27.59), and engaged in only 134.17 (SD = 207.32) minutes of physical activity daily.
- Reliability was supported based on a Cronbach alpha of 0.84 and the DIF analysis, as there was no difference in function of the items between male and female participants.
- Validity was supported as all items fit the measurement model based on INFIT and OUTFIT statistics.
- Conclusions The findings support the reliability and validity of the Resistiveness to Care Scale for use with older adults with dementia in nursing home settings.
- Future work with the measure may benefit from the addition of items that are easier to endorse with regard to resistiveness to care (shutting eyes or spitting out food may be useful additions).
Study details
- Study designrandomized controlled trial
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 66/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 38 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 66 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the American Medical Directors Association) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 11 / 12 | A randomised controlled trial |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2017 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 1 / 2 | Randomised (as stated in the record) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 27776986) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 38 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 38 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 66 out of 100. |
| Total | 66 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in End-of-life care
Also tagged “care”
995 studies in the library carry the topic tag “care”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 995 tagged studies.