# PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE DANISH VERSION OF THE CAREGIVER BURDEN SCALE: INVESTIGATING PREDICTORS AND SEVERITY OF BURDEN AFTER STROKE, SPINAL CORD INJURY, OR TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY

**Authors:** Anne NORUP, Pernille Langer SOENDERGAARD, Mia Moth WOLFFBRANDT, Fin BIERING-SØRENSEN, Juan Carlos ARANGO-LASPRILLA, Frederik Lehman DORNONVILLE DE LA COUR

PMC · DOI: 10.2340/jrm.v56.34732 · Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine · 2024-05-02

## TL;DR

The Danish version of the Caregiver Burden Scale is valid for measuring burden in caregivers of people with stroke, spinal cord injury, or traumatic brain injury, with most caregivers reporting low levels of burden.

## Contribution

The study confirms the psychometric validity of the Danish Caregiver Burden Scale and identifies predictors of caregiver burden.

## Key findings

- The Danish Caregiver Burden Scale showed good internal consistency (α = 0.93) and no floor or ceiling effects.
- Longer time as a caregiver was a significant predictor of higher burden scores.
- Spinal cord injury caregivers were more likely to report low levels of burden compared to brain injury caregivers.

## Abstract

To investigate (i) psychometric properties of the Danish version of the Caregiver Burden Scale, (ii) predictors of burden in caregivers of persons with stroke, spinal cord injury, or traumatic brain injury, and (iii) severity of caregiver burden, and compare level of severity of burden in caregivers of persons with stroke, spinal cord injury, or traumatic brain injury.

Cross-sectional study.

Pooled sample of 122 caregivers.

Psychometric properties including internal consistency, floor and ceiling effects, inter-item and item-total correlation were investigated using the Caregiver Burden Scale. Severity of burden was compared using Fisher’s exact test and ANOVA, and predictors of burden were investigated using multiple linear regression models.

The total burden score exhibited good internal consistency (α = 0.93), with no floor or ceiling effects. Longer time as a caregiver was a significant predictor of higher total score. The majority (52.2%) reported a low level of caregiver burden (below cut-off of 2.00). Mean scores on the Caregiver Burden Scale were not significantly different among caregivers across diagnostic groups. Differences were found when comparing spinal cord injury caregivers with brain injury caregivers (traumatic brain injury and stroke, collectively), χ2(2) = 6.38, p = 0.04, as spinal cord injury caregivers were more likely to report low levels of burden.

Good psychometric properties were reported, and most caregivers reported a low level of burden, and longer time as a caregiver was associated with higher burden. Consequently, the Caregiver Burden Scale is a valid measure to use when measuring burden in caregivers of stroke, spinal cord injury, and traumatic brain injury patients.

LAY ABSTRACT

Acquiring an injury to the brain or spinal cord affects the person with the injury, but also the closest family. Very often close family members become informal caregivers providing daily care, which poses a significant burden. Caregiver burden among caregivers to persons with stroke, spinal cord injury, or traumatic brain injury were investigated, including the strengths and weaknesses of the Caregiver Burden Scale. The Danish version of the Caregiver Burden Scale was found to be valid. Longer time as a caregiver was associated with higher burden, and most caregivers reported a low level of burden.

## Linked entities

- **Diseases:** stroke (MONDO:0005098), spinal cord injury (MONDO:0043797), traumatic brain injury (MONDO:0858950)

## Full-text entities

- **Diseases:** traumatic brain injury (MESH:D000070642), brain injury (MESH:D001930), stroke (MESH:D020521), spinal cord injury (MESH:D013119)
- **Species:** Homo sapiens (human, species) [taxon 9606]

## Full text

_Full body text omitted from this summary view._ Fetch the complete paper as Markdown: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC11091905/full.md

## Figures

1 figure with captions in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC11091905/full.md

## References

47 references — full list in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC11091905/full.md

---
Source: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC11091905