Conceptual Evolution and Turkish Adaptation Status of Measurement Instruments Developed for Family Caregivers of Patients with Cancer: A Systematic Psychometric Review
III. International Nursing Care and Research Congress, Gaziantep, Türkiye, 5 - 07 Kasım 2026, ss.1-13, (Tam Metin Bildiri)
- Yayın Türü: Bildiri / Tam Metin Bildiri
- Basıldığı Şehir: Gaziantep
- Basıldığı Ülke: Türkiye
- Sayfa Sayıları: ss.1-13
- Recep Tayyip Erdoğan Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet
Özet
Introduction: Accurate assessment of the psychosocial status of cancer caregivers is a
fundamental component of holistic care. However, a significant shortcoming in
field research is the preference for general scales derived from other diseases
instead of tools specific to cancer caregivers, and the lack of a comprehensive
synthesis presenting the conceptual structures of existing tools and their
adaptation to Turkish.
Aim: The
aim of this study is to systematically identify original measurement tools
developed for informal caregivers of cancer patients; and to synthesize these
tools in terms of their conceptual structures, psychometric properties, and
validity and reliability in Turkish.
Material and Methods: This systematic review, reported according to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines
and registered in OSF (osf.io/c6pxa), searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science,
PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases between 1989 and July 2026; further targeted
searches were also conducted for forward/backward citations and Turkish
literature. Instruments specific to the general cancer caregiver population
were included; instruments specific to a particular cancer type, age group, or
clinical subgroup, non-cancer scales, and purely cultural adaptation studies
were excluded. Eligible instruments were descriptively synthesized in terms of
their country of development, target population, conceptual structure, psychometric
properties, and validity and reliability in Turkish.
Results: The
26 identified measurement tools were classified under five conceptual areas:
“Quality of Life, Caregiver Needs, Caregiver Outcomes, Caregiver Personal
Resources, and Caregiver Process”. The conceptual focus broadened over time
from caregiving burden, quality of life, and support needs to structures aimed
at empowering caregivers, such as self-efficacy, health literacy, roles, and
individual communication. Only 12% of the scales were validated with CFA, and
96% were never tested for measurement invariance. None of the eight scales
assessing caregiving outcomes (especially caregiving burden) and caregiver
personal resources have been adapted into Turkish-these two areas constitute
the most significant gap in Türkiye. In
eight studies involving five scales whose validity and reliability were
established in Turkish, content validity and internal consistency were reported
in all; in three of the four studies where CFA was tested, the original factor
structure could not be confirmed, and responsiveness and measurement invariance
were not tested in any of them.
Conclusions: The
findings showed that only 19% of cancer caregiver scales in Türkiye were
validated, there were no Turkish adaptations in the areas of caregiver burden
and personal resources, and no scales were originally developed in our
country; these findings highlight priority gaps for future adaptation studies.