Caregiving Appraisal Scale (CAS)
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
- Item Count
- 37
- 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 
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.
Instrument Domains
| Domain | Number of Items |
|---|---|
| Level of Caregiver Well-Being | 36 |
| Caregiver Support | 0 |
| Access to resources | 0 |
| Family caregiver/natural support involvement | 0 |
| Family caregiver/natural support wellbeing | 0 |
| Training and skill-building | 0 |
| Choice and Control | 0 |
| Choice of services and supports | 0 |
| Personal choices and goals | 0 |
| Personal freedoms and dignity of risk | 0 |
| Self-direction | 0 |
| Community Inclusion | 0 |
| Employment | 0 |
| Meaningful activity | 0 |
| Resources and settings to facilitate inclusion | 0 |
| Social connectedness and relationships | 0 |
| Transportation | 0 |
| Consumer Leadership in System Development | 0 |
| Evidence of meaningful caregiver involvement | 0 |
| Evidence of meaningful consumer involvement | 0 |
| System supports meaningful consumer involvement | 0 |
| Equity | 0 |
| Availability | 0 |
| Equitable access and resource allocation | 0 |
| Transparency and consistency | 0 |
| Fluctuation of Need | 0 |
| Holistic Health and Functioning | 0 |
| Health promotion and prevention | 0 |
| Individual health and functioning | 0 |
| Human and Legal Rights | 0 |
| Freedom from abuse and neglect | 0 |
| Informed decision-making | 0 |
| Optimizing the preservation of legal and human rights | 0 |
| Privacy | 0 |
| Supporting individuals in exercising their human and legal rights | 0 |
| Person-Centered Planning and Coordination | 0 |
| Assessment | 0 |
| Coordination | 0 |
| Person-centered planning | 0 |
| Service Delivery and Effectiveness | 0 |
| Delivery | 0 |
| Person's needs met and goals realized | 0 |
| System Performance and Accountability | 0 |
| Data management and use | 0 |
| Evidence-based practice | 0 |
| Financing and service delivery structures | 0 |
| Workforce | 0 |
| Adequately compensated with benefits | 0 |
| Culturally competent | 0 |
| Demonstrated competencies when appropriate | 0 |
| Person-centered approach to services | 0 |
| Safety of and respect for the worker | 0 |
| Staff Turnover | 0 |
| Sufficient workforce numbers dispersion and availability | 0 |
| Workforce engagement and participation | 0 |
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