Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
The Technology in Caring Questionnaire: Development and Psychometric Properties
Kiselica AM, Lin SSH, Ranum R, Mikula CM, Hermann G, Boone A, Scullin M, Mechanic-Hamilton D et al.. Alzheimer disease and associated disorders, 2024-01-22
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Objective We developed the Technology in Caring Questionnaire (TCQ) to assess the use of technology-based strategies by dementia caregivers. Methods One hundred caregivers completed a survey that included TCQ items along with measures of technology proficiency and patient and caregiver-centered outcomes. Results The final 34-item TCQ scale had adequate to excellent internal consistency (raw Cronbach alpha = 0.75; standardized Cronbach alpha = 0.95; Guttman lambda-6 = 0.97). TCQ scores demonstrated modest convergent associations with scores from measures of smartphone ( r = 0.265, P < 0.01) and computer proficiency ( r = 0.230, P < 0.05) but a strong association with overall technology experience scores ( r = 0.578, P < 0.001). Elevated TCQ scores were associated with reduced informant-reported cognitive symptoms ( B = -0.003, P < 0.05), increased ability of caregivers to find support and information ( B = 0.03, P < 0.001), and increased direct care strain ( B = 0.03, P < 0.05), after controlling for dementia severity and demographics. Conclusion The TCQ has good psychometric properties for the assessment of technology-based care strategies among dementia caregivers. Findings imply that the use of technologies may aid in symptom management and finding support and information but may also increase caregiver strain.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Kiselica, A. M., Lin, S. S. H., Ranum, R., Mikula, C. M., Hermann, G., Boone, A., et al. (2024). The Technology in Caring Questionnaire: Development and Psychometric Properties. Alzheimer disease and associated disorders. https://doi.org/10.1097/wad.0000000000000604
Vancouver
Kiselica AM, Lin SSH, Ranum R, Mikula CM, Hermann G, Boone A, et al. The Technology in Caring Questionnaire: Development and Psychometric Properties. Alzheimer disease and associated disorders. 2024. doi:10.1097/wad.0000000000000604. PMID: 38277628.
BibTeX
@article{kiselica2024-38277628,
author = {Kiselica, A. M. and Lin, S. S. H. and Ranum, R. and Mikula, C. M. and Hermann, G. and Boone, A. and Scullin, M. and Mechanic-Hamilton, D. and others},
title = {{The Technology in Caring Questionnaire: Development and Psychometric Properties}},
journal = {Alzheimer disease and associated disorders},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.1097/wad.0000000000000604},
pmid = {38277628},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1097/wad.0000000000000604}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results The final 34-item TCQ scale had adequate to excellent internal consistency (raw Cronbach alpha = 0.75; standardized Cronbach alpha = 0.95; Guttman lambda-6 = 0.97).
- TCQ scores demonstrated modest convergent associations with scores from measures of smartphone ( r = 0.265, P < 0.01) and computer proficiency ( r = 0.230, P < 0.05) but a strong association with overall technology experience scores ( r = 0.578, P < 0.001).
- Elevated TCQ scores were associated with reduced informant-reported cognitive symptoms ( B = -0.003, P < 0.05), increased ability of caregivers to find support and information ( B = 0.03, P < 0.001), and increased direct care strain ( B = 0.03, P < 0.05), after controlling for dementia severity and demographics.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 41/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded 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 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Alzheimer disease and associated disorders) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2024 — within 3 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 | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 38277628) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 24 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100. |
| Total | 41 / 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 Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “caring”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “caring”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.