A Review of the Korean Nursing Research Literature with Focus on Quantitative Measurement of Caring

Jeong-Hee Kim; Young Sook Park

doi:10.12799/jkachn.2018.29.2.155

Journal List > J Korean Acad Community Health Nurs > v.29(2) > 1100759

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Kim and Park: A Review of the Korean Nursing Research Literature with Focus on Quantitative Measurement of Caring

Original Article

J Korean Acad Community Health Nurs 2018;29(2):155-169.

Published online: 12 June 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12799/jkachn.2018.29.2.155

A Review of the Korean Nursing Research Literature with Focus on Quantitative Measurement of Caring

Jeong-Hee Kim¹, Young Sook Park²

¹College of Nursing, Jeju National University, Jeju, Korea

²Department of Nursing, Korea National Open University, Seoul, Korea

Corresponding author: Kim, Jeong-Hee College of Nursing, Jeju National University, 102 Jejudaehak-ro, Jeju 63243, Korea. Tel: +82-64-754-3884, Fax: +82-64-702-2686, E-mail: snukjh@jejunu.ac.kr

Received 7 December 2017 Revised 30 January 2018 Accepted 31 January 2018

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to review the quantitative research literature on measuring caring in order to identify overall trends in measuring caring.

Methods

Fifty three papers were selected from four databases including RISS4U, DBpia, KISS, and Korea Med.

Results

The number of measuring caring papers has increased since 2000. Approximately 60 % of the total papers were descriptive and correlative design researches with convenience sampling. Jean Waston’s theory was the most popular conceptual framework, but much of the research tended to be conducted without any conceptual framework. In that kind of research, ‘caring’ terms were used without definition. The most frequently used term for the concept of caring was nurses’ caring behaviors. Also, ‘nurses’ was one of the most popular subjects. Thirty six measuring caring instruments were used. Twenty were developed in foreign countries and translated into Korean. The others were developed originally in Korean. Interpersonal Caring Technique - Communication Skills Scale, based on the interpersonal process model, was the most frequently used tool. Among the translated instruments, Coates’ Caring Efficacy Scale was the most popular. Some instruments were used without validation.

Conclusion

These results provide basic data on measuring caring and indicate directions for further research. In particular, validation studies of measuring caring instruments are needed.

Keywords: Nursing care, Nursing research, Review

References

1. Coates C. The evolution of measuring caring: Moving toward construct validity. Watson J, editor. Assessing and measuring caring in nursing and health science. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Springer Publishing;2009. p. 261–265.

2. Kim MJ, Lee EN. Development of an instrument to measure intra-operative caring behaviors perceived by regional anesthesia patients. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. 2012; 42(5):749–758. https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2012.42.5.749.

3. Jun YS, Kang KA. Development of the tool for measuring the care satisfaction of home health nursing based on Watson's theory of human caring. Journal of Korean Public Health Nursing. 2014; 28(1):57–70. https://doi.org/10.5932/JKPHN.2014.28.1.57.

4. Watson J. Overview: Measuring caring. Watson J, editor. Assessing and measuring caring in nursing and health science. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company;2009. p. 3–23.

5. Beck CT. Quantitative measurement of caring. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 1999; 30(1):24–32. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1999.01045.x.

6. Coates C. The evolution of measuring caring: Moving toward construct validity. Watson J, editor. Assessing and measuring caring in nursing and health science. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company;2002. p. 215–241.

7. Morse JM, Solberg SM, Neander WL, Bottorff JL, Johnson JL. Concepts of caring and caring as a concept. Advances in Nursing Science. 1990; 13(1):1–14.

8. Lee BS. Concept analysis of caring. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. 1996; 26(2):337–344. https://doi.org/10.4040%2Fjnas.1996.26.2.337.

9. Kim YY, Lee BS. Importance of nurses's caring behaviors as perceived by staff nurses and patients. Journal of Korean Academy of Fundamentals of Nursing. 1999; 6(1):18–34.

10. Lee EO, Lim NY, Park HA, Lee IS, Kim JI, Bae JH, et al. Nursing research and statistical analysis. 4th ed. Seoul: Sumoonsa;2009. p. 789.

11. Park EJ, Kim MH. Characteristics of nursing and caring concepts measured in nursing competencies or caring behaviors tools. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration. 2016; 22(5):480–495. https://doi.org/10.11111/jkana.2016.22.5.480.

12. Waston J. Human caring science: a theory of nursing. 2nd ed. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning;2012. p. 122.

13. Kim S, Kim S. Interpersonal caring theory: An empirical test of its effectiveness utilizing growth curve analysis-II. Asian Nursing Research. 2007; 1(3):187–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1976-1317(08)60021-3.

14. Smith CE, Pace K, Kochinda C, Kleinbeck SVM, Koehler J, Popkess-Vawter S. Caregiving effectiveness model evolution to a midrange theory of home care: A process for critique and replication. Advances in Nursing Science. 2002; 25(1):50–64. https://doi.org/10.1097/00012272-200209000-00007.

15. Yoon SH. Study on clinical nurses' performance and satisfaction of using communication skills by interpersonal caring technique [master's thesis]. [Seoul]: Ewha Womans University;2005. p. 75.

16. Lee BS. Development of a measurement tool of caring to evaluate quality of nursing care. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration. 1996; 26(3):653–667. https://doi.org/10.11111/jkana.2016.22.5.480.

17. Lee AR, Han KJ. Development of a tool to measure maternal behavior for health promotion for preschool children with disabilities. Journal of Korean Academy of Child Health and Nursing. 2007; 13(4):444–453.

18. Hong JJ. Prediction model of well-being and caring behaviors in main caregivers of patients with stroke [dissertation]. [Seoul]: Hanyang University;2000. p. 158.

19. Coates CJ. The caring efficacy scale: Nurses' self-reports of caring in practice settings. Advanced Practice Nursing Quarterly. 1997; 3(1):53–59.

20. Lee JH, Friedmann E, Picot SJ, Thomas SA, Kim CJ. Korean version of the revised caregiving appraisal scale: A translation and validation study. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2007; 59(4):407–415. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04346.x.

21. Arthur D, Pang S, Wong T, Alexander MF, Drury J, Eastwood K, et al. Caring attributes, professional self concept and tech- nological influences in a sample of registered nurses in eleven countries. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 1999; 36(5):387–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7489(99)00035-8.

22. Wolf ZR, Zuzelo PR, Costello R, Cattilico D, Collaretti K, Cro-thers R, et al. Development and testing of the caring behaviors inventory for elders. International Journal for Human Caring. 2004; 8(1):48–54.

23. Lee AR. A structural model of caring behavior of mothers of disabled children. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. 2009; 39(5):673–682. https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2009.39.5.673.

24. Leininger MM. Culture care diversity and universality theory and evolution of the ethnonuring method. Leininger MM, Mcfarland MR, editors. Culture care diversity and universality: A wordwide theory of nursing. 2nd ed. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett;2006. p. 1–42.

25. Kim JH, Kong MY, Oh YH. Validity and reliability of the peer group caring interaction scale-Korean version. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. 2016; 46(3):431–442. https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2016.46.3.431.

26. Kitson AL. A comparative analysis of lay-caring and professional (nursing) caring relationships. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2003; 40(5):503–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7489(03)00065-8.

27. Cha ES, Kim KH, Erlen JA. Translation of scales in cross-cultural research: Issues and techniques. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2007; 58(4):386–395. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04242.x.

28. Tak YR, Woo HY, You SY, Kim JH. Validity and reliability of the person-centered care assessment tool in long-term care facilities in Korea. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. 2015; 45(3):412–419. https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2015.45.3.412.

29. Goodwin LD. Changing conceptions of measurement validity. Journal of Nursing Education. 1997; 36(3):102–107. https://doi.org/10.3928/0148-4834-19970301-04.

30. Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use. 5th ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press;2015. p. 399.

Table 1.

Characteristics of Relevant Studies (N=53)

Variables	Categories					n (%)
Variables		MD	JKAN	NRF	Non-NRF	n (%)
Publication year	1989	1	-	-	-	1 (1.9)
	1990~1999	2 (1)^†	1	3	1	7 (13.2)
	2000~2004	1	-	1 (1)^†	1	3 (5.7)
	2005~2009	5 (1)^†	1	3	-	9 (17.0)
	2010~2014	7 (2)^†	1	6 (1)^†	-	14 (26.4)
	2015~2016	7 (2)^†	3	9	-	19 (35.8)
	n (%)	23 (43.4)	6 (11.3)	22 (41.5)	2 (3.8)	53 (100.0)
Design	Cross-sectional descriptive/correlation					32 (60.3)
	Tool development					3 (5.7)
	Tool validation					3 (5.7)
	Model construction/path analysis					7 (13.2)
	Program development/experimental intervention					8 (15.1)
Sample	Nurses					20 (37.8)
	Nurses only					16 (30.2)
	Nurses & nursing students					1 (1.9)
	Nurses & patients					3 (5.7)
	Nursing students					6 (1.3)
	Family caregivers (or mothers)					18 (34.0)
	Patients/ home health care clients					5 (9.6)
	Staff in long-term facilities (formal caregivers)					4 (7.5)
Theoretical background	Waston's human caring theory					19 (35.8)
	Kim's interpersonal caring theory					5 (9.4)
	Lawton's appraisal of the care giving process					3 (5.7)
	Stress-appraisal-coping theory					3 (5.7)
	Morse et al.'s concepts of caring, caring attribute					2 (3.8)
	Pallett's conceptual framework for family caregiver burden					2 (3.8)
	Others: Bevis's caring process (stage), Mayeroff's on caring, Smith's caring effectiveness model or literature review					19 (35.8)

Concept of caring	Caring, caring behaviors
	Nurses' care; caring; caring behaviors; person -centered care; peer group caring behavior					16 (29.1)
	Family members' caregiving; caring behavior; caring performance					8 (14.5)
	Staffs' caring behavior; person-centered care					2 (3.6)
	Caregiving experience; caregiving (caregiver) appraisal; caregiver reaction assessment					9 (16.4)
	Caring process/ interpersonal caring behavior					6 (10.9)
	Caring ability/ competency; caring self-efficacy					7 (12.7)
	Caring attitudes; attitudes for care; attitude toward the care					4 (7.3)
	Care attributes					2 (3.6)
	Care satisfaction					1 (1.8)

^† ()=No. of program development or experimental intervention studies; MD=master's thesis or doctoral dissertation; JKAN=journal of Korean academy of nursing; NRF=journal registered with the national research foundation of Korea (NRF); Non-NRF=Journal non-registrated with the NRF.

Table 2.

Measurement Tools of Caring of Relevant Studies (N=53)

Tools		Study
Tools		ID	n	Total n
TD: Korean tools (n=3)^†	Tool of caring to evaluate quality of nursing care [TCEQ]	A1	3	6
	Intra-operative caring behaviors [CBM]	A2
	Tool for measuring the care satisfaction of home health nursing [TCS]	A3
VD: not Korean tools(n=3)^†	Caregiver reaction assessment [CRA-K]	B1	3
	Person-centered care assessment tool [P-CAT]	B2
	Peer group caring interaction scale [PGCIS]	B3
Non-TD/VD: Korean tools (n=13)^†	Developed for using in their studies by authors	C1~C6^‡	6^‡	24
	Interpersonal caring technique-communication skills [ICTC] Tool of caring to evaluate quality of nursing care [TCEQ]	C7~C11 C12~C15	5 4
	Attitudes for elderly care [AEC]	C16~C18	3
	Tool to measure maternal behavior for health promotion for preschool	C19~C21	3
	children with disabilities [MBCD]
	Caring behaviors of caregivers of patients with stroke [CBPS]	C22, C23	2
	Intra-operative caring behaviors [CBM]	C24	1
	Geriatric care helper's care fulfillment	C25	1
Non-TD/VD: not Korean tools (n=17)^†	Coates's caring efficacy scale [CES]	C26~C28	3	23
	Korean revised caregiving appraisal scale [K-RCAS]	C29~C31	3
	Arthur's caring attributes, professional self-concept. and technological	C32, C33	2
	influences scale [CAPSTI]
	Wolf's caring behaviors inventory for elders [CBI]	C34, C35	2
	Nkongho's caring ability inventory [CAI]	C36	1
	Parenting competency of the parenting sense of competence scale [PC-PSOC]	C6^‡	1
	Nelson & Waston's caring factor survey [CFS]	C37	1
	Cronin & Harrison's caring behaviors assessment tool [CBA]	C38	1
	PGCIS & organizational climate of caring questionnaire [OCCQ]	C39	1
	Person-centered care assessment tool [P-CAT]	C40	1
	Orbell's care work satisfaction scale [SAT] and strain scale [STR]	C41, C42^‡	2^‡
	Steffen et al.' caregiving self-efficacy [CSE] Szmukler et al.' experience of caregiving inventory [ECI]	C42 C43	1 1
	Otero et al.' professionals' shared competences in multidisciplinary dementia	C44	1
	care [PSCMDC]
	Shyu's caregiving resources of family caregiving factors inventory [CR-FCFI]	C45	1
	Caregiving experiences	C46^§	1
	- Positive=Nolan et al.'carers assessment of satisfaction index [CASI]
	- Negative experience=Korean version of Zarit burden interview [ZBI-K]
	Caregiving experience	C47^§	1
	- Positive=Patients' contribution to the family [PC], You and your child [YY]
	- Negative=Burden assessment scale [BAS], Care scale [CS], Kang's burden
	scale [KBS]

TD=tool development study; VD=validation study;

^† No. of tools (total tools used in relevant studies=36);

^‡ Multiple responses;

^§ C46 or C47 used 2 or 5 tools for measuring caregiving experiences but it analyzed that one tool was used.

Table 3.

Measurement Tools of Caring of Tool Development or Validation Studies (N=6)

Tools	Study ID	Theoretical Background	Concept of caring	Sub-domain (factors)	Sample	Sampling method	No. of items	Scale	Rating	Validity & Reliability T/RT
Tool of caring to evaluate quality of nursing care [TCEQ]	A1	Waston's theory	Nurses' caring behaviors	Accessibility & availability; emotional support & giving information; providing a protective environment (3 factors)	374 patients	s(-), c	27	L5	s, mean=94.77 (30~135)	P(+); V1(+); V2(+) IT(+); R1=.96
Intra-operative caring behaviors [CBM]	A2	Waston's theory	Nurses' caring behaviors	Holistic needs fulfillment; consideration; protective environment; cautiousness; concern; information; physical comfort (7 factors)	137 regional anesthesia patients	s(+), c	33	L5	i, mean=4.00 (3.35~4.42)	P(+); V1(+); V2(+); IT(+); R1=.96(.73~.92)
Tool for measuring the care satisfaction of home health nursing [TCS]	A3	Waston's theory	Care satisfaction	Allowance for existential-phenomenological forces; formation of humanistical altruistic system of values; cultivation of sensitivity to self and to others; development of helping-trust relationship; promotion of interpersonal teaching-learning; instillation of faith-hope; systematic use of the scientic problem-solving method for decision making; provision for supportive, protective, and corrective mental, physical, sociocultural, and spiritual environment; assistance with gratification of human needs; promotion and acceptance of the expression of positive and negative feelings (10 factors)	166 clients of home health nursing care	s(-), c	56	L4	i, mean=3.58 (3.12~3.73)	P(-); V1(+); V2(+); V3(+); V4(+); IT(+); R1=.98; R2=.90
Caregiver reaction assessment [CRA-K]	B1	Literature review	Caregiver's experiences	Disrupted schedule; lack of family support; health problems; financial problems; caregiver self- esteem (5 factors)	248 cancer patient's caregiver	s(-), c	24	L5	i, mean=1.26~2.73	P(+); V1(+); V2(+); V3(+) V4(+): V5(+); IT(+); R1=.81(.52~.75); RO=.84; T/RT(+/+)
Person-centered care assessment tool [P-CAT]	B2	Literature review	Staffs' care performance	3 factors (in original) → 2 factors (in revised): Personalized caring; organizational & environmental support	458 staff in long-term care facilities	s(+), c	13	L5	i, mean=3.83 (3.41~4.30)	P(+); V1(+); V2(+); V5(+); IT(+); R1=.86 (.84, .77); RO=.88; T/RT(+/+)
Peer group caring interaction scale [PGCS]	B3	Waston's theory, Noddings, Hughes	Caring behaviors	Modeling & assistance behavior; Communication & sharing behavior (2 factors)	218 nursing students	s(+), c	16	L6	s, mean=61.62	P(+); V1(+); V2(+); V3(+); V4(+); V5(+); IT(+); R1=.91; R2=.85; RO=.94; T/RT(+/+)

A1~A3=Development studies; B1~B3=Validation studies; Sampling method (s=sampling rationale, c=convenient sampling); Scale (L4~6=4~6 point Likert scale); Rating (s=sum, i=mean of items, f=frequency); Validity & Reliability, T/RT (P=pilot study, V=validity, V1=content, V2=constuct or factor analysis, V3=convergent, V4=discriminant, V5=criterion, IT=item analysis, R=reliability, R1=Cronbach's ⍺, R2=Guttman's split-half coefficient, RO=Cronbach's ⍺ of the original tools, T/RT=translated and re-translated).

Table 4.

Measurement Tools of Caring of non-Development and Validation Studies (N=47)

Tools (n=No. of study)	Study ID	Sampling method	Sample & sample size	No. of items	Scale type	Rating	Validity & reliability	Original reliability	Remarks or T/RT
Developed for using in their studies by authors (n=6)^†	C1	s(-); c	73 PT & 73 NR	12	L7	s; f	p(+); V1(+); R1(+)=.76~.83	N/A	Semantic
	C2^‡	s(-); c; r(-)^‡	NR e=27, c=0	10		f	V1(+); R1(-)	N/A
	C3	s(+); c	260 F	72	L4	i	p(+); R1(+)=.91	N/A
	C4	s(-); c	57 NR	33	L5	i	p(+); V1(+); R1(+)=.90	N/A
	C5^‡	s(-); c; r(-)^‡	NR e=18, c=14	20	L7	i	V1(+); V2(+); R1(+)=.96	N/A	Semantic
	C6	s(+); c	291 F	25	L4	i	p(+); V1(+); V2(+) R1(+)=.87	N/A
Interpersonal caring technique-communication skills [ICTC] (n=5)	C7~C11	all=s(+); c	C7=369 NR; C8=252 NRST;	C7~C10=50	all=L5	all=i	all=R1(+)=.93~.97	all=yes
			C9=207 NRST; C10=174 NR;	C11=10			C11=P(+); C11=V1(+)
			C11=100 F
Tool of caring to evaluate quality of nursing care [TCEQ] (n=4)	C12~C15	C12~14=s(-)	C12=244 PT	27	C12=L5	i	all=R1(+)=.95~.98	C12,13,15=yes	A1
		C15=s(+); all=c	C13=340 PT & 295 NR		C13~15=L7		C13=P(+)	C14=no
			C14=656 NRST; C15=162 NR
Attitudes for elderly care [AEC] (n=3)	C16^‡	C16=s(+), r(-)^‡	C16=SF e=18, c=18;	C16,17=17	C16,17=L5	C16,17=s	all=R1(+)=.84~.96	C17,18=yes	C18=Semantic
	C17^‡	C17=s(+), r(+)^‡	C17=NR e=25, c=25; C18=200	C18=20	C18=L7	C18=i		C16=no
	C18	C18=s(-); all=c
Tool to measure maternal behavior for health promotion for preschool children with disabilities [MBCD] (n=3)	C19~C21	C19=s(+); all=c	C19=371 M; C20=371 M;	C19=15	all=L4	C19=no	all=R1(+)=.83~.86	C19,20=yes
		C20,C21=s(-);	C21=364 M	C20,21=19		C20,21=i	C19=V2(+)	C21=no


Caring behaviors of caregivers of patients with stroke [CBPS] (n=2)	C22, C23	all=s(-); all=c	C22=68 F	C22=39	all=L4	C22=i	C22=R1(-)	C23=yes	C3
			C23=70 F	C23=64		C23=f	C23=R1(+)=.97; all=V1(+)	C22=no

Intra-operative caring behaviors [CBM] (n=1)	C24	s(+); c	162 PT	33	L5	i	R1(+)=.97	yes	A2
Intra-operative caring behaviors [CBM] (n=1)
Geriatric care helper's care fulfillment (n=1)	C25	s(+); c	112 STAFF	23	L4	i	R1(+)=.87	yes
Geriatric care helper's care fulfillment (n=1)
Caring efficacy scale [CES] (n=3)	C26^‡	all=c; C26=s(+)	C26,28=NRST	all=30	all=L6	all=i	all=R1(+)=.91~.92	all=yes	C26 uses C27
	C27 C28^‡	C27,28=s(-)	e=23~28, c=23~29++				C27, C28=V1(+)		C27,
		C26,28=r(-)^‡	C27=422 NR						C28=T/RT(+/+)
Korean revised caregiving appraisal scale [K-RCAS] (n=3)	C29 C30^‡	C29,30=s(-)	C29=103 F	C29,C30=27	all=L5	C29=i	C29=P(+); C29=V1(+)	all=yes	Korean version^§
	C31	C31=s(+)	C30=F e=21, c=20++	C31=22		C30,C31=s	C29=R1(+)=.39~.87
		c; r(-)^‡	C31=210 F				C30=V2(+), R1(+)=.81
							C31=R1(+)=.79
Caring attributes, professional self-concept. and technological influences scale [CAPSTI] (n=2)	C32,C33	all=s(-); all=c	C32=560 NR	C32=60	all=L5	all=i,s	all=V1(+); C33=V2(+)	C33=yes	C32=T/RT(+/+)
			C33=324 NR & 372 NRST	C33=42		C32=f	all=R1(+)=.91~.94	C32=no	C33 uses C32

Caring behaviors inventory for elders [CBI] (n=2)	C34,C35	all=s(+); all=c	C34=430 NR	all=42	all=L4	all=i; s	all=V1(+); all=R1(+)=.96	all=yes	C34=T/RT(+/+)
Caring behaviors inventory for elders [CBI] (n=2)			C35=156 NR						C35 uses C34

C1~C25=Korean tools; C26~C47=Translated tools;

^† Multiple responses;

^‡ Program development or intervention study (total=8);

^§ not a Korean article; Sampling method (s=sampling rationale, c=convenient sampling, rr=random sampling, r=randomization of intervention study); Sample sample size (PT=patients including home health care clients, NR=nurses, F=family caregivers, M=mother, NRST=nursing students, Staff=formal caregivers in long-term facilities, e=experimental group, c=control group); Scale-L4~7=4~7 point Likert scale; Rating (s=sum, i=item mean, f=frequency); Validity & Reliability (P=pilot study, V1=content validity, V2=construct validity or factor analysis, R1=cronbach's ⍺; Original reliability (N/A=not applicable, yes=reliability of original tools, No=not reported); T/RT=translated and re-translated

Table 4.

Measurement Tools of Caring of non-Development and Validation Studies (Continued) (N=47)

Tools (n=No. of study)	Study ID	Sampling method	Sample & sample size	No. of items	Scale type	Rating	Validity & reliability	Original reliability	Remarks or T/RT
Caring ability inventory [CAI] (n=1)	C36	s(-); c	NR 277	37	L7	i	R1(+)=.83	no	T/RT(+/-)
Caring ability inventory [CAI] (n=1)
Parenting competency of the parenting sense of competence scale [PC-PSOC] (n=1)	C6	s(+); c	291 F	7	L6	i	V1(+); R1(+)=.74	yes	C6 uses C20
									T/RT(-/-)

Caring factor survey [CFS] (n=1)	C37	s(+); c	107 NR	20	L7	s; i	V1(+); R1(+)=.94	yes	T/RT(+/+)
caring behaviors assessment tool [CBA] (n=1)	C38	s(+); c	159 NR & 159 PT	60	L5	i	p(+); V1(+); R1(+)=.83~.93	yes	T/RT(+/+)
caring behaviors assessment tool [CBA] (n=1)
PGCIS & organizational climate of caring questionnaire [OCCQ] (n=1)	C39	s(+); c	229 NR	PGCIS=16	L6	i	p(+); V1(+);	yes	PGCIS=B3
				OCCQ=17			R1(+) PGCIS=.91; OCCQ=.91

Person-centered care assessment tool [P-CAT] (n=1)	C40	s(+); c	114 NR	13	L5	i	R1(+)=.78	yes	B2
Person-centered care assessment tool [P-CAT] (n=1)
Care work satisfaction scale [SAT] and strain scale [STR] (n=2)^†	C41,C42	C41=s(-);	C41=374 F	SAT all=6	all=L5	C41=i;	SAT all R1(+)=.91~.94	all=yes	C41=T/RT(+/-)
		C42=s(+), c	C42=200 F	STR all=13		C42=no	STR all R1(+)=.94		C42 uses C41

Caregiving self-efficacy [CSE] (n=1)	C42	s(+); c	200 F	15	0~100	no	V1(+); R1(+)=.89	yes	T/RT(+/+)
Caregiving self-efficacy [CSE] (n=1)
Experience of caregiving inventory [ECI] (n=1)	C43^‡	s(-); c; r(-)^‡	F; e=17, c=16++	66	L4	i	R1=.87~.92	yes	Korean version
Experience of caregiving inventory [ECI] (n=1)
Professionals' shared competences in Multidisciplinary dementia care [PSCMDC] (n=1)	C44	s(+); c	201 STAFF	19	L5	i	V1(+); R1(+)=.93	yes	T/RT(+/+)



Caregiving resources of family caregiving factors inventory [CR-FCFI] (n=1)	C45	s(+); c	87 F	12	L3	i	p(+); V1(+); V2(+)	yes	T/RT(+/+)
							R1(+)=.86

Carers assessment of satisfaction index [CASI]; Korean version of Zarit burden interview [ZBI-K] (n=1)	C46	s(+); rr(+)	320 F	CASI=20	CASI=L3	s	R1(+) CASI=.91	yes	Korean version
				ZBI-K=22	ZBI-K=L5		ZBI-K=.94


Patients' contribution to the family [PC]; You and your child [YY]; Burden assessment scale [BAS]; Care scale [CS]; Kang's burden scale [KBS] (n=1)	C47	s(-); c	100 F	BAS=7	L4	i	p(+); R1(+) BAS=.82	partly yes	T/RT(+/-)
				CS=8			CS=.84; KBS=.92
				KBS=18			PC=.87; YY=.78
				PC=9, YY=9

C1~C25=Korean tools; C26~C47=Translated tools; +Multiple responses;

^‡ Program development or intervention study (total=8);

TOOLS

Similar articles