Caregiving Appraisal Scale (CAS)

Share this page

Overview

Purpose
To assess the primary caregiver's evaluations and attitudes toward caregiving.
Respondent
Person with a Disability
Administration Method
Interview
Administration Mode
In-person
Developer
Lawton
0
Population
Caregiver

Instrument Citation(s)

Lawton, M.P., Moss, M., Hoffman, C., & Perkinson, M. (2000). Caregiving Appraisal Scale. Polisher
Research Institute: Madlyn and Leonard Abramson Center for Jewish Life.
https://www.abramsoncenter.org/media/1194/caregiving-appraisal-scale.pdf PDF

Lawton, M. P., Kleban, M.H., Moss, M., Rovine, M., & Glicksman, A. (1989). Measuring caregiving
appraisal. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 44(3), P61-71.

Lawton, M.P., Moss, M., Hoffman, C., & Perkinson, M. (2000). Two transitions in daughters’ caregiving
careers. The Gerontologist, 40(4), 437-448.

Psychometric Citations

  • Lawton, M. P., Kleban, M.H., Moss, M., Rovine, M., & Glicksman, A. (1989). Measuring caregiving
    appraisal. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 44(3), P61-71.

    Type of Publication
    Peer review
    Instrument Language
    english
    Sample: Age (Mean and Range)

    Mean=59.9 years (resp); Mean=57.4 years (Inst.)

    Sample: Age Group

    18-64 Years

    Sample: Countries/State

    Pennsylvania

    Sample: Disability Type

    N/A

    Sample: Gender (%male)

    21.7% (Resp.); 18.8 %(Inst.)

    Sample: Race/Ethnicity (%)

    non white 25.5 % for both samples

    Sample: Sampling Strategy

    Convenience Sample

    Sample: Size

    632 (respite study); 239 (insti study)

    Reliability: Internal Consistency

    Cronbach's Alpha respite: subjective burden (α= .85); Cronbach's Alpha Caregiving satisfaction (α= .67); Cronbach's Alpha Caregiving impact (α= .70); Cronbach's Alpha Instit.: subjective burden(α=.87); Cronbach's Alpha Caregiving satisfaction(α= .68); Cronbach's Alpha Caregiving impact (α= .65)

    Reliability: Test-retest

    inst study : subjective burden (.78), Caregiving satisfaction (.76); Caregiving impact (.75)

    Validity: Construct (Convergent and Discriminant)

    Respite: Factor analysis resulted in 5 factors that explained 38% of variance; instit: factor analysis resulted in four factors that explained 46% of the variance

    Validity: Criterion Validity (Concurrent and Predictive)

    Respite study Lisrel r .42 between subjective burden and caregiving satisfaction; r=.8 btw subjective burden and subjective caregiving impact; r=.49 between satisfaction and caregiving impact. Inst. study Lisrel r=.53 between subjective burden and caregiving satisfaction; r=.85 btw subjective burden and subjective caregiving impact; r=.38 between satisfaction and caregiving impact.

    Study design
    Cross-Sectional

  • Lawton, M. P., Moss, M., Kleban, M.H., Glicksman, A., & Rovine, M. (1991). A two-factor model of
    caregiving appraisal and psychological well-being. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological
    Sciences, 44(4), P181-189.

    Type of Publication
    Peer review
    Instrument Language
    english
    Sample: Age (Mean and Range)

    Mean=69.2 years (spouse); Mean=50.7 years (child)

    Sample: Age Group

    18-64, 65+ Years

    Sample: Disability Type

    N/A

    Sample: Gender (%male)

    70.9 % (spouse); 13.9% (child)

    Sample: Race/Ethnicity (%)

    non white 25.5 %

    Sample: Sampling Strategy

    Convenience Sample

    Sample: Size

    285 spouse & 244 adult child of elderly parents suffering Alzheimer's disease

    Reliability: Internal Consistency

    Cronbach's Alpha overall (α= .68) ; Cronbach's Alpha subjective burden (α= .87); Cronbach's Alpha Caregiving satisfaction (α= .71)

    Reliability: Test-retest

    modest

    Study design
    Cross-Sectional