C International Psychogeriatric Association 2014 International Psychogeriatrics (2014), 26:9, 1455–1463  doi:10.1017/S104161021400101X

Dimensionality of burden in Alzheimer caregivers: confirmatory factor analysis and correlates of the Zarit Burden interview ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Sheung-Tak Cheng,1 Timothy Kwok2 and Linda C. W. Lam3 1

Department of Health and Physical Education, Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong Department of Medicine & Therapeutics, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong 3 Department of Psychiatry, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong 2

ABSTRACT

Background: To investigate dimensions of caregiver burden through factor analysis of the Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI), and to examine predictors of different dimensions of burden. Methods: Confirmatory factor analyses were performed on 395 Hong Kong Chinese Alzheimer caregivers to examine whether several proposed factor structures fit the data well. Subsequently, participants were split into two roughly equal subsamples, for the purpose of identifying the most optimal factor structure through exploratory factor analysis in Sample A (n = 183) and an independent verification through confirmatory factor analysis in Sample B (n = 212). ZBI subscales representing the established factors were correlated with caregiver and care-recipient variables known to be associated with burden. Results: Confirmatory factor analyses showed that factor models reported elsewhere did not fit the data well. Subsequently, exploratory factor analysis in Sample A suggested a 4-factor structure. After dropping three items due to poor factor loadings, the 4-factor structure was found to fit the data moderately well in Sample B. The four factors tapped personal strain, captivity, self-criticism, and loss of control. However, self-criticism was basically unrelated to the other three factors and showed a rather different pattern of correlations with caregiver and care-recipient variables. Self-criticism was more common among child caregivers and those who did not live with the care-recipient and was less involved in day-to-day care, yet feeling obligated and close to the care-recipient. Conclusions: The dimensions of caregiver burden may be culturally specific. More research is needed to examine cultural considerations in measuring caregiver burden. Key words: Alzheimer’s disease, caregiver burden, confirmatory factor analysis, Hong Kong Chinese

Introduction Caregiver burden will become a public health issue given the anticipated rise in the dementia population, with Alzheimer’s disease being the most prevalent condition (Alzheimer’s Disease International, 2013; Cheng et al., 2013). The Zarit Burden Inventory (ZBI; Zarit et al., 1980) is probably the most widely adopted instrument for measuring caregiver burden, whether in surveys (e.g. Lin et al., 2012; Werner et al., 2012; Hayashi et al., 2013) or as an outcome measure in intervention studies (e.g. Cheng et al., in press; Correspondence should be addressed to: Sheung-Tak Cheng, PhD, Department of Health and Physical Education, Hong Kong Institute of Education, 10 Lo Ping Road, Tai Po, N.T., Hong Kong. Email: [email protected]. Received 4 Dec 2013; revision requested 3 Mar 2014; revised version received 27 Apr 2014; accepted 1 May 2014. First published online 3 June 2014.

Gaugler et al., 2013; Rodriguez-Sanchez et al., 2013). While it is most often used as a global measure, researchers have attempted to discover distinguishable dimensions within the scale in order to provide more differentiated information about the impact of caregiving. Differentiating the dimensions may also be useful for intervention research as interventions may not have the same effects across the different dimensions of burden. To do so, researchers have used either exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis to examine the factor structure (a.k.a. measurement model) of the items. However, substantial variations in the factor structure have been found. To date, solutions of 2– 5 factors have been reported and not all solutions included the whole scale. Whitlatch et al., (1991) were probably the first to examine the dimensions of the ZBI as outcomes

1456

S.-T. Cheng et al.

in caregiver interventions. Using exploratory factor analysis (EFA), they found two factors, namely Personal Strain (items 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 14, 16–21) and Role Strain (items 2, 3, 6, 11–13; see Table 3 for item content), which were equally responsive to individual and family counseling as compared with waitlist control, in a sample of 113 US dementia caregivers. Four items were dropped by Whitlatch and colleagues; the last item, itself a measure of global burden, was probably dropped due to simultaneous loading on the two factors (Knight et al., 2000). Subsequent efforts, however, have failed to replicate this 2-factor structure. Using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), Knight et al. (2000) found that the Whitlatch model did not fit their data well in another US caregiver sample (n = 220). Instead, they discovered, using EFA, a 3-factor structure consisting of 14 items, namely Patient Dependency (items 2, 8, 14), Embarrassment and Anger (items 4–6, 9–13, 18), and Self-criticism (items 20, 21). CFA showed that this 3-factor structure fit the data moderately well (comparative fit index [CFI] = 0.90, root-mean-square error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.06) in independent samples of Black (n = 175) and White (n = 225) caregivers in the United States, with factor loadings and factor covariances being invariant (i.e. equivalent) between the two ethnic groups (Longmire and Knight, 2011). In a recent study of 206 US caregivers using EFA, Springate and Tremont (2014) found five factors with eigenvalues > 1. However, the authors retained only the first three factors because the fourth factor contained just one item and the fifth factor consisted of items conceptually unrelated. The three factors retained were: Impact on Caregiver’s Life (items 2, 3, 6, 9–12, 17, 18, 22), Guilt (items 5, 19–21), and Frustration and Embarrassment (items 1, 4, 13, 14). Altogether, 18 items were retained in this final solution, including the last item (number 22) measuring global burden. EFA in a French sample (n = 152) by Ankri et al. (2005), again including the last global item, also found five factors but the last two factors were dropped for similar reasons. In this study, factor 1 measured Social Impact (items 6, 10–13, 17), factor 2 Psychological Burden (items 4, 5, 9, 18, 19, 22), and factor 3 Guilt (items 15, 16, 20, 21), retaining altogether 16 of the 22 items. Similar factor analytic analyses have also been conducted in Asian populations. Cheah et al. (2012) performed EFA on the full ZBI in a multiethnic Singaporean caregiver sample (n = 130). They found four factors, namely Demands of Care and Social Impact (items 1–4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14), Loss of Confidence/Control (items 13, 15–18), Psychological Impact (items 5, 6, 9, 10, 19, 22),

and Worry about Performance (items 20, 21; same as Knight’s Self-criticism factor). Finally, a study of 523 Mainland Chinese caregivers by Lu et al. (2009) found a 5-factor structure, while item 22 was omitted. The largest factor was labeled as Sacrifice (items 3, 7, 8, 10–14) to refer to the cultural value emphasizing one’s obligations for family members, but was similar to Whitlatch’s role strain factor and the factors framed in terms of daily/social impact in other studies reviewed above. The other factors were Loss of Control (items 15–17, 19), Embarrassment and Anger (items 4–6, 9), Selfcriticism (items 20, 21), and Patient Dependency (items 1, 2, 18). Such variations in factor structure from sample to sample are worrying. The differences in the cultural backgrounds of the samples might have contributed somewhat to this situation, but similar samples from within United States appeared to have caused similar confusions. Another reason was that some of the samples were relatively small, including the one used by Whitlatch et al. (1991), thus yielding unreliable results. Moreover, an important point to note is that researchers should test whether an existing factor model fit the data before embarking to do another factor analysis. EFA is known as a “garbage in, garbage out” procedure, capturing easily on chance correlations. Thus, finding different results based on another EFA alone is not sufficient justification to establish a new factor model. To date, only Knight and colleagues had performed this check using CFA, before proposing a new factor model. In the present study, we examined whether the factor models reviewed above fit the data in a sample of Hong Kong Alzheimer caregivers, and if not, what an alternative model might be.

Methods Participants and procedure Data were merged from one survey study (Cheng et al., 2013a) and an ongoing trial (baseline measures only; Cheng et al., 2012) of Alzheimer caregivers in Hong Kong. All were caring for someone who had a physician diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease or who met the National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke–Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Association criteria for possible Alzheimer’s disease (McKhann et al., 1984). Participants were recruited from outpatient and memory clinics, day hospitals, and various nongovernmental organizations. Caregivers provided informed consent to participate. Interviews took place at home or in a private area in clinics/centers.

Dimensions of caregiver burden

Table 1. Sample characteristics (N = 395) Age, M/SD Gender (women), % Married, % Education, % Primary or below Secondary Tertiary Relationship to care-recipient, % Spouse Child Child-in-law Sibling, niece or grandchild Living with care-recipient, % Care hours per week, M/SD Care duration (years), M/SD

56.6/11.71 81 72 28 49 23 27 65 6 2 70 73.86/53.60 3.73/3.10

More details about the sample are displayed in Table 1. The survey study and the clinical trial, from which data for this study were obtained, were both approved by the Joint Chinese University of Hong Kong-New Territories East Cluster Clinical Research Ethics Committee and the Central Research Committee of the Hong Kong Institute of Education. Measures Besides the Zarit Burden Interview (rated on a 5point scale from 0 = not at all to 4 = extremely; α = 0.88), caregivers responded to (a) Pearlin and colleagues’ 4-item measure of role overload, rated on a 4-point scale from 1 = not at all to 4 = completely (α = 0.80; Pearlin et al., 1990); (b) the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (α = 0.80; Hamilton, 1960); (c) self-rated health, being the sum of two items (rating one’s health directly and against age- and sex-peers from 1 = very poor to 5 = excellent; α = 0.75); (d) a 4-item measure of satisfaction with social support (Cheng et al., 2013b) in terms of comforting and affection, companionship, practical assistance, and advice on caregiving (rated from 1 = very dissatisfied to 6 = very satisfied; α = 0.88); and (e) the Revised Scale for Caregiving Self-Efficacy (Steffen et al., 2002), with three items each measuring confidence in obtaining respite (α = 0.95), managing disruptive behaviors (α = 0.87), and controlling upsetting thoughts (α = 0.77) on a scale of 0 = cannot do at all to 100 = certain can do. In addition, we constructed measures (five items each) of affection (rated on a 6-point scale from 1 = not at all to 6 = extremely; α = 0.82) and obligation (rated from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree; α = 0.70), by referring to similar measures in the literature (Cicirelli, 1993; Cicirelli, 2006). Sample

1457

items are “How much do you understand (your relative)?” and “Taking into account all factors, how close you are to (your relative)?” for affection, and “I should try my best to help (my relative)” and “If I did not help (my relative), I would feel guilty” for obligation. Lastly, caregivers reported on caregiving hours per week, caregiving duration, relationship to, and whether living together (0 = no, 1 = yes) with the care-recipient. A few other measures, based partly or fully on the caregiver as an informant, pertained to the condition of the care-recipient: (a) the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) sum-of-box (Morris, 1993; Tractenberg et al., 2005), yielding two scores, that is, cognition (summed ratings of memory, orientation, and judgment and problem-solving; α = 0.89) and functioning (community affairs, home and hobbies, and personal care; α = 0.84); (b) activities of daily living as measured by a modified version of the OARS Multidimensional Functional Assessment Questionnaire, with 14 items rated as 1 = dependent, 2 = needs assistance, 3 = independent (α = 0.86; Fillenbaum and Smyer, 1981); and (c) the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI; Cummings, 1997) assessing 12 behavioral and psychological symptoms (BPSD) in terms of frequency (from 1 = occasionally or less than once a week to 4 = very frequently, once or more per day or continuously) and severity (1 = mild, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe), with the total score being the sum of the product of frequency and severity across 12 items (α = 0.78). Chinese versions of the instruments are all available and have been reported elsewhere (Cheng et al., 2012; Cheng et al., 2013a; 2013b; 2013c). Statistical analysis The covariance matrix of the items was subject to maximum likelihood estimation using LISREL version 8.52. Following some prior studies, item 22 was not included. Because the ZBI data were positively skewed, we report the Satorra–Bentler scaled version of the Chi-square (Satorra and Bentler, 1994), which corrects the statistic (and all fit indices based on it), along with the standard errors of estimates, for nonnormality. As the Chisquare statistic (the lower, the better) is sensitive to sample size leading to an inflated chance of falsely rejecting the null hypothesis of model and observed data being equivalent, we report additionally CFI, non-normed fit index (NNFI), RMSEA, and standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR). A well-fitting model should yield CFI/NNFI ࣙ 0.95 and RMSEA/SRMR ࣘ 0.05, whereas corresponding values of ࣙ0.90 and ࣘ0.08 would suggest moderate fit (Marsh et al., 2005). Because

1458

S.-T. Cheng et al.

Table 2. Fit indices of various proposed models χ2

df

p

CFI

NNFI

RMSEA

SRMR

............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Whitlatch’s 2-factor model Knight’s 3-factor model Springate’s 3-factor model Ankri’s 3-factor model Cheah’s 4-factor model Lu’s 5-factor model

1064.31 573.83 942.40 651.25 880.94 753.84

134 75 132 101 184 180

the models did not always include the same number of items, they were not necessarily nested with each other and the Chi-square difference test could not be used to evaluate relative fit. When necessary, we would refer to the Akaike’s information criterion (AIC), which adjusts Chisquare for model complexity, with a difference of ࣙ10 suggesting an inferior model (Burnham and Anderson, 2002). However, EFA using principal component analysis with oblique rotation would be conducted to explore new factor structure if none of the existing models fit the data at least moderately well. Items with loadings ࣙ0.40 were considered to belong to a specific factor. Finally, product-moment correlations were computed between ZBI subscales (composite scores) as indicated by factor pattern and caregiver and care-recipient variables to tap into the constructs measured by the respective subscales. Because symptom measures were skewed, we took the square roots of NPI and Hamilton depression. Alpha was set at 0.05, two-tailed.

Results Factor structure Confirmatory factor analyses on the whole sample (N = 395) showed that none of the models fit the data reasonably well (Table 2). Although Lu and colleagues’ model, discovered in another Chinese sample, produced the most impressive fit indices, the NNFI and RMSEA were still marginally outside the acceptable range. Given these results, we attempted to identify the most fitting model for Chinese Alzheimer caregivers using both exploratory and confirmatory procedures. We randomly split the sample into two using the random sample function in SPSS version 20, performing EFA on Sample A (n = 183) while using Sample B (n = 212) for an independent verification of the EFA results. Based on Sample A, EFA suggested a 5-factor structure. The last factor had three items with both positive (items 8 and 14) and negative (item 19) factor loading coefficients, hence uninterpretable. Moreover, these three items

< 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

0.75 0.84 0.85 0.83 0.88 0.90

0.72 0.81 0.83 0.80 0.86 0.89

0.13 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.09

0.11 0.09 0.12 0.13 0.09 0.08

were loaded simultaneously on the other factors. Instead of dropping these items, as was done in previous studies, we asked for a 4-factor solution. Interestingly, items 1–10 were loaded on factor 1, items 11–14 on factor 2, items 20 and 21 on factor 3, and items 15–19 on factor 4. This 4-factor structure was then subject to CFA in Sample B, yielding χ2 (184) = 349.75, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.92, NNFI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.08. However, on examining the factor loadings, three items were loaded poorly on their respective factors, namely item 5 = 0.38, item 15 = 0.27, and item 18 = 0.12. Modification indices also suggest two large correlated errors associated with item 5. Part of the reason might be the low endorsement rates of these items, especially item 5 to which a rating of “never” was given by 79% of the participants in Sample B. As a result, we removed these items and fit the model again, yielding even better fit indices: χ2 (130) = 217.80, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.95, NNFI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.06, SRMR = 0.06. Although the χ2 was still statistically significant, the χ2 /df ratio was a respectable 1.68. Moreover, AIC was found to be 299.80, much lower than the AIC value of 344.04 before the three items were removed, suggesting that it was a clearly superior model. Standardized factor loadings of the final model are presented in Table 3. In light of item contents and previous literature, we named the factors Personal Strain, Captivity, Self-criticism, and Loss of Control, respectively. Nevertheless, on examination of item contents, item 8 appears to be more closely related conceptually to Captivity, and item 7 to Loss of Control. To ascertain that the model presented in Table 3 was indeed optimal, we ran the analysis again with these two items hypothesized to load on Captivity (Alternate A) and Loss of Control (Alternate B), respectively, resulting in (a) Alternate A: χ2 (130) = 278.33, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.93, NNFI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.08, AIC = 360.33; and (b) Alternate B: χ2 (130) = 235.62, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.94, NNFI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.06, SRMR = 0.07, AIC = 317.62. Although the fit

Dimensions of caregiver burden

1459

Table 3. Item descriptive statistics and standardized factor loadings, Sample B (n = 212) ITEMS

M

(SD)

F1

F2

F3

F4

............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

1. Feel that your relative asks for more help than he/she needs 2. Feel that because of the time you spend with your relative that you do not have enough time for yourself 3. Feel stressed between caring for your relative and trying to meet other responsibilities for your family or work 4. Feel embarrassed over your relative’s behavior 5. Feel angry when you are around your relative 6. Feel that your relative currently affects your relationships with other family members or friends in a negative way 7. Afraid what the future holds for your relative 8. Feel your relative is dependent on you 9. Feel strained when you are around your relative 10. Feel your health has suffered because of your involvement with your relative 11. Feel that you would not have as much privacy as you would like because of your relative 12. Feel that your social life has suffered because you are caring for your relative 13. Feel uncomfortable about having friends over because of your relative 14. Feel that your relative seems to expect you to take care of him/her as if you were the only one he/she could depend on 15. Feel that you do not have enough money to take care of your relative in addition to the rest of your expenses 16. Feel that you will be unable to take care of your relative much longer 17. Feel you have lost control of your life since your relative’s illness 18. Wish you could leave the care of your relative to someone else 19. Feel uncertain about what to do about your relative 20. Feel you should be doing more for your relative 21. Feel you could do a better job in caring for your relative 22. Overall, how burdened do you feel about caring for your relativea

0.69 (1.14)

0.50

1.30 (1.47)

0.84

1.51 (1.48)

0.84

0.76 (1.06) 0.37 (0.86) 0.56 (1.01)

0.56 — 0.52

1.20 (1.44) 1.97 (1.72) 0.53 (1.02) 0.67 (1.11)

0.45 0.64 0.40 0.71

1.77 (1.44)

0.80

1.43 (1.46)

0.85

1.05 (1.42)

0.53

2.17 (1.61)

0.49

0.74 (1.12)

—

0.93 (1.36)

0.66

1.04 (1.39)

0.68

0.77 (1.06)

—

1.10 (1.28) 1.59 (1.36) 1.66 (1.30) 2.14 (1.16)

0.42 0.89 0.92

Note: — = item removed due to poor loading. F1 = personal strain; F2 = captivity; F3 = self-criticism; F4 = loss of control. a Not included in factor analysis.

Table 4. Factor intercorrelations, Sample B (n = 212) F1

F2

F3

F4

........................................................................................................................................................

F1: Personal strain F2: Captivity F3: Self-criticism F4: Loss of control

— 0.65 0.08 0.38

— 0.05 0.61

— 0.21

—

indices of both of these models were within the acceptable range, their AICs were increased by 60.5 and 17.8 points, respectively, clearly higher than the 10-point threshold. Thus, the model presented in Table 3 remains the model of choice. Factor intercorrelations (Table 4) suggest that

Personal Strain, Captivity, and Loss of Control were moderately to strongly correlated with each other, whereas Self-criticism was relatively independent of the other three. Correlations with caregiver and care-recipient variables Subscale composites corresponding to the four factors were created and were correlated with selected caregiver and care-recipient variables known to be associated with burden. As a larger sample can yield more precise estimates due to smaller standard errors and is more representative, Samples A and B were merged (N = 395) in this analysis. A noted finding from Table 5 was

1460

S.-T. Cheng et al.

Table 5. Correlations with caregiver and care-recipient variables, whole sample (N = 395) F1

F2

F3

F4

............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Caregiver variables Age Relationshipa Gender (women) Care hours per week Living together with care-recipient Self-rated health Felt obligation Affection toward care-recipient Social support satisfaction Self-efficacy: obtaining respite Self-efficacy: behavior management Self-efficacy: controlling upsetting thoughts Role overload Depressionb

− 0.09 − 0.03 0.16∗∗∗ 0.13∗∗ 0.04 − 0.37∗∗∗ − 0.02 0.05 − 0.27∗∗∗ − 0.28∗∗∗ − 0.35∗∗∗ − 0.47∗∗∗ 0.63∗∗∗ 0.55∗∗∗

0.06 − 0.11∗ 0.07 0.34∗∗∗ 0.16∗∗∗ − 0.09 − 0.00 − 0.09 − 0.14∗∗ − 0.28∗∗∗ − 0.21∗∗∗ − 0.38∗∗∗ 0.58∗∗∗ 0.44∗∗∗

− 0.30∗∗∗ 0.26∗∗∗ 0.10∗ − 0.14∗∗ − 0.14∗∗ − 0.21∗∗∗ 0.16∗∗ 0.21∗∗∗ − 0.11∗ 0.01 − 0.09 − 0.11∗ 0.19∗∗∗ 0.07

− 0.11∗ 0.07 0.14∗∗ 0.01 − 0.04 − 0.21∗∗∗ 0.11∗ 0.00 − 0.12∗ − 0.14∗∗ − 0.12∗ − 0.32∗∗∗ 0.39∗∗∗ 0.35∗∗∗

Care-recipient variables CDR cognition CDR functioning BPSDb Activities of daily living

0.07 0.17∗∗∗ 0.48∗∗∗ − 0.22∗∗∗

0.18∗∗∗ 0.26∗∗∗ 0.32∗∗∗ − 0.28∗∗∗

− 0.02 − 0.04 0.12∗ − 0.03

0.05 0.10∗ 0.22∗∗∗ − 0.19∗∗∗

Note: ∗ p < 0.05, ∗∗ p < 0.01, ∗∗∗ p < 0.001. CDR = Clinical Dementia Rating; BPSD = behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia; F1 = personal strain; F2 = captivity; F3 = self-criticism; F4 = loss of control. Composite scores, not factor scores, were used in computation. a Coded as 0 = spouse and sibling, 1 = adult child, child-in-law, and grandchild. b Transformed by taking the square root.

that, mirroring the factor intercorrelations, Selfcriticism showed a correlational pattern that was rather different from those of the other three subscales. Not only was Self-criticism unrelated to many variables but the directions of association were even reversed in some cases, such as when correlated with caregiver age, relationship, care hours, and whether living together. The pattern suggested that caregivers who did not live with the care-recipient, spent less time in providing care, and were children, tended to feel that they should have done more. Self-criticism was also correlated, positively, with affection and obligation, suggesting that this subscale tapped a sense of guilt by family members who felt a strong sense of responsibility for and were close to the care-recipient, but could not provide care as much as one wanted to. Other than the above, the correlational patterns were consistent with what one might expect from the literature. Of the care-recipient variables, daily functioning was generally more distressing to caregivers than cognitive decline, but the most important predictor of burden was BPSD. Given the findings concerning the Self-criticism subscale, which consists of only two items, we removed them from the scale, together with the three items already removed in the factor analysis.

After the removal, the alpha coefficient was found to be 0.88 for this 17-item version of the ZBI (item 22 included). Had the five items been retained, the alpha coefficient was nonetheless identical. Thus, no internal reliability was lost by removing the five items concerned.

Discussion This study investigated the dimensions of burden in a sample of Hong Kong Chinese Alzheimer caregivers. As interventions may not address all aspects of caregiver burden, dimensions that can be differentiated from one another may allow researchers to assess the effects of interventions more precisely. However, none of the factor models reported in the literature were found to fit our data well. The most plausible model appeared to be a 5factor model found in another Chinese sample using EFA by Lu et al. (2009). Nevertheless, given the limitations of EFA, it was not even certain whether that particular model fit their data well. In any case, their model generated from EFA was very different from our final model. To some extent, it is difficult to compare the results across studies due to differences in the sample and the method employed.

Dimensions of caregiver burden

At the same time, the variations in findings suggest that more research is necessary to replicate a certain factor structure in any particular cultural group as well as across cultures. Using a rigorous, multistep procedure, we found that a 4-factor model was optimal for Hong Kong Chinese Alzheimer caregivers. This model bears some resemblance to others reported in the literature but is also unique in important ways. The Self-criticism factor, sometimes labeled as guilt or worry about performance, was found in several other studies (Knight et al., 2000; Lu et al., 2009; Longmire and Knight, 2011; Cheah et al., 2012) and appears to be the most stable or generalizable factor across samples and cultures. With further analysis, we showed that this dimension was related to the quality of the dyadic relationship and the feeling that one was obligated to help but was not doing enough for the loved relative. Future research may demonstrate whether such observations hold in other cultural groups. Furthermore, it should be noted that existing interventions tend to focus on tackling psychological strain and distress, activity restriction, physical dependencies, and BPSD (Cheng et al., in press; Gallagher-Thompson et al., 2012; Mittelman, 2013), while neglecting Selfcriticism as a contributory factor to caregiver mental health. Researchers should examine whether addressing performance concerns would further enhance the effectiveness of caregiver interventions, especially in child caregivers. Personal Strain was the largest dimension of all, being composed of nine items. This dimension incorporates several factors referred to by other researchers as the impacts on one’s life and psychological well-being (Cheah et al., 2012; Springate and Tremont, 2014). It is no wonder that this dimension was, in general, more strongly correlated with various predictors than the other dimensions of burden. The second dimension was often referred to as social impact by other researchers, although it was not necessarily a separate factor in other studies (Ankri et al., 2005; Cheah et al., 2012). On examination of the items, we feel that this factor taps the extent to which one is tied to the caregiving role, while the effect on social life may be one aspect of this experience. If this factor was measuring social impact, item 6 would have been loaded on it also. However, not only was item 6 loaded on a different factor but it had a low mean score, whereas items in the Captivity factor had relatively high mean values (Table 3). The mean values of the Captivity items and correlations between the total and various variables of interest suggest that this subscale captures some of the most common and significant concerns of caregivers. Finally, the last factor resembles the Loss of Control

1461

factors found in two other Asian/Chinese samples, suggesting that the fear of not being able to manage the situation may be rather common among Asian caregivers. Correlational analysis suggested that it was related somewhat to a sense of obligation for family members, a value system rooted in Chinese/Asian cultures (Table 5). It is noteworthy that item 5 on anger had the lowest endorsement rate. In another study of Taiwan dementia caregivers, Li and Lewis (2013) found, within the Level of Expressed Emotion Scale (Cole and Kazarian, 1988), that the Attitude toward Illness subscale measuring mostly hostility had low internal reliability (α = 0.55), probably due to very low endorsement rates and low variability of most of the items. The authors attributed this to the cultural belief in fatalism, helping caregivers to accept the role. Similarly, the low endorsement rate of another removed ZBI item, number 18, might be related to the cultural norm that is strongly against abandoning an ill family member, especially the parent. Together with what has been discussed above, clearly more research into cultural factors in caregiver burden is needed. To conclude, a 4-factor structure of the ZBI discovered through EFA was independently verified through CFA in another sample of Hong Kong Chinese caregivers. Not all items appeared to cohere well; it was found that the internal reliability of the scale remained the same after removing five suspect items. Beyond the factor structure of the ZBI, cultural issues were identified that may be relevant for optimizing the measurement of caregiver burden in the Chinese. As the ZBI can be shortened for the Chinese, more items may be added to subscales with few items to improve measurement of different aspects of burden, without substantially lengthening the administration of the measure. Additionally, Self-criticism may be studied in its own right, and may constitute an independent outcome to be tackled specifically in future intervention studies. Finally, more studies using larger and more representative samples are needed to demonstrate that this factor structure can be replicated and generalized. In addition, it will be useful to show that the factor structure is also valid for those caring for other types of dementia. This will allow direct comparison of different aspects of caregiver burden across dementia types and at different stages of the different conditions.

Conflict of interest None.

1462

S.-T. Cheng et al.

Description of authors’ roles S.-T. Cheng is the principal investigator and led study design, data analysis, and writing the paper, while T. Kwok and L.C.W. Lam contributed to study conceptualization, data collection, and writing.

Acknowledgments This study was supported by Strategic Public Policy Research Grant No. HKIEd1001-SPPR-08 and General Research Fund No. HKIEd140609, both from the Research Grants Council of Hong Kong. The funding source had no involvement in any part of the project.

References Alzheimer’s Disease International. (2013). The Global Impact of Dementia 2013–2050. London: Alzheimer’s Disease International. Ankri, J., Andrieu, S., Beaufils, B., Grand, A. and Henrard, J. C. (2005). Beyond the global score of the Zarit Burden Interview: useful dimensions for clinicians. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 20, 254–260. Burnham, K. P. and Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach. New York: Springer. Cheah, W. K., Han, H. C., Chong, M. S., Anthony, P. V. and Lim, W. S. (2012). Multidimensionality of the Zarit Burden Interview across the severity spectrum of cognitive impairment: an Asian perspective. International Psychogeriatrics, 24, 1846–1854. doi: 10.1017/ S104161021200110X. Cheng, S.-T., Chou, K.-L. and Zarit, S. H. (2013). Dementia in Asia: introduction to a special section. Aging & Mental Health, 17, 911–914. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2013.837151. Cheng, S.-T., Kwok, T. and Lam, L. C. W. (2012). Neuropsychiatric symptom clusters of Alzheimer’s disease in Hong Kong Chinese: prevalence and confirmatory factor analysis of the Neuropsychiatric Inventory. International Psychogeriatrics, 24, 1465–1473. doi: 10.1017/S1041610212000609. Cheng, S.-T., Lam, L. C. W. and Kwok, T. (2013a). Neuropsychiatric symptom clusters of Alzheimer’s disease in Hong Kong Chinese: correlates with caregiver burden and depression. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 21, 1029–1037. doi: 10.1016/j.jagp.2013.01.041. Cheng, S.-T., Lam, L. C. W., Kwok, T., Ng, N. S. S. and Fung, A. W. T. (2013b). The social networks of Hong Kong Chinese family caregivers of Alzheimer’s disease: correlates with positive gains and burden. The Gerontologist, 53, 998–1008. doi: 10.1093/geront/gns195. Cheng, S.-T., Lam, L. C. W., Kwok, T., Ng, N. S. S. and Fung, A. W. T. (2013c). Self-efficacy is associated with less burden and more gains from behavioral problems of

Alzheimer’s disease in Hong Kong Chinese caregivers. The Gerontologist, 53, 71–80. doi: 10.1093/geront/gns062. Cheng, S.-T. et al. (in press). Benefit-finding intervention for Alzheimer caregivers: conceptual framework, implementation issues, and preliminary efficacy. The Gerontologist. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnu018. Cheng, S.-T. et al. (2012). A benefit-finding intervention for family caregivers of persons with Alzheimer disease: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial. Trials, 13, 98. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-13-98. Cicirelli, V. G. (2006). Caregiving decision making by older mothers and adult children: process and expected outcome. Psychology and Aging, 21, 209–221. doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.21.2.209. Cicirelli, V. G. (1993). Attachment and obligation as daughters’ motives for caregiving behavior and subsequent effect on subjective burden. Psychology and Aging, 8, 144–155. doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.8.2.144. Cole, J. D. and Kazarian, S. S. (1988). The level of expressed emotion scale: a new measure of expressed emotion. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44, 392–397. doi: 10.1002/1097-4679(198805)44:3< 392::AIDJCLP2270440313> 3.0.CO;2-3. Cummings, J. L. (1997). The neuropsychiatric inventory: assessing psychopathology in dementia patients. Neurology, 48, S10–S16. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67889-0. Fillenbaum, G. G. and Smyer, M. A. (1981). The development, validity, and reliability of the OARS Multidimensional Functional Assessment Questionnaire. Journals of Gerontology, 36, 428–434. Gallagher-Thompson, D. et al. (2012). International perspectives on nonpharmacological best practices for dementia family caregivers: a review. Clinical Gerontologist, 35, 316–355. doi: 10.1080/07317115.2012.678190 Gaugler, J. E., Reese, M. and Mittelman, M. S. (2013). Effects of the NYU caregiver intervention-adult child on residential care placement. The Gerontologist, 53, 985–997. doi: 10.1093/geront/gns193. Hamilton, M. (1960). A rating scale for depression. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 23, 56–61. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.23.1.56. Hayashi, S. et al. (2013). Burden of caregivers for patients with mild cognitive impairment in Japan. International Psychogeriatrics, 25, 1357–1363. doi: 10.1017/ S1041610213000537. Knight, B. G., Fox, L. S. and Chou, C. (2000). Factor structure of the burden interview. Journal of Clinical Geropsychology, 6, 249–258. doi: 10.1023/ A:1009530711710. Li, C. Y. and Lewis, F. M. (2013). Expressed emotion and depression in caregivers of older adults with dementia: results from Taiwan. Aging & Mental Health, 17, 924–929. Lin, W., Tsai, C., Wang, S., Hwang, J. and Fuh, J. (2012). Comparison of the burdens of family caregivers and foreign paid caregivers of the individuals with dementia. International Psychogeriatrics, 24, 1953–1961. doi: 10.1017/S1041610212001354. Longmire, C. V. F. and Knight, B. G. (2011). Confirmatory factor analysis of a brief version of the Zarit Burden Interview in Black and White dementia caregivers. The Gerontologist, 51, 453–462. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnr011.

Dimensions of caregiver burden Lu, L., Wang, L., Yang, X. and Feng, Q. (2009). Zarit Caregiver Burden Interview: development, reliability and validity of the Chinese version. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 63, 730–734. doi: 10.1111/j.14401819.2009.02019.x. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. and Grayson, D. (2005). Goodness of fit in structural equation models. In J. J. McArdle (ed.), Contemporary Psychometrics: A Festschrift for Roderick P. McDonald (pp. 275–340). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. McKhann, G., Drachman, D., Folstein, M., Katzman, R., Price, D. and Stadlan, E. M. (1984). Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: report of the NINCDS-ADRDA Work Group under the auspices of Department of Health and Human Services Task Force on Alzheimer’s Disease. Neurology, 34, 939–944. Mittelman, M. (2013). Psychosocial interventions to address the emotional needs of caregivers of individuals with Alzheimer’s disease. In S. H. Zarit and R. C. Talley (eds.), Caregiving for Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders: Research, Practice, Policy (pp. 17–34). New York: Springer. Morris, J. C. (1993). The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR): current version and scoring rules. Neurology, 43, 2412–2414. Pearlin, L. I., Mullan, J. T., Semple, S. J. and Skaff, M. M. (1990). Caregiving and the stress process: an overview of concepts and their measures. The Gerontologist, 30, 583–594. Rodriguez-Sanchez, E. et al. (2013). Effects of a psychological intervention in a primary health care center for caregivers of dependent relatives: a randomized trial. The Gerontologist, 53, 397–406. doi: 10.1093/ geront/gns086.

1463

Satorra, A. and Bentler, P. M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In A. von Eye, C. C. Clogg, A. von Eye and C. C. Clogg (eds.), Latent Variables Analysis: Applications for Developmental Research (pp. 399–419). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Springate, B. A. and Tremont, G. (2014). Dimensions of caregiver burden in dementia: impact of demographic, mood, and care recipient variables. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 22, 294–300. Steffen, A. M., McKibbin, C., Zeiss, A. M., Gallagher-Thompson, D. and Bandura, A. (2002). The Revised Scale for caregiving self-efficacy: reliability and validity studies. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 57B, P74–P86. Tractenberg, R. E., Weiner, M. F., Cummings, J. L., Patterson, M. B. and Thal, L. J. (2005). Independence of changes in behavior from cognition and function in community-dwelling persons with Alzheimer’s disease: a factor analytic approach. The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 17, 51–60. doi: 10.1176/ appi.neuropsych.17.1.51. Werner, P., Mittelman, M. S., Goldstein, D. and Heinik, J. (2012). Family stigma and caregiver burden in Alzheimer’s disease. The Gerontologist, 52, 89–97. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnr117. Whitlatch, C. J., Zarit, S. H. and von Eye, A. (1991). Efficacy of interventions with caregivers: a reanalysis. The Gerontologist, 31, 9–14. doi: 10.1093/geront/31.1.9. Zarit, S. H., Reever, K. E. and Bach-Peterson, J. (1980). Relatives of the impaired elderly: correlates of feelings of burden. The Gerontologist, 20, 649–655.