RESUMO
Objective: This study investigated whether a sample of Iranian university students considered posttraumatic depreciation (PTD) and posttraumatic growth (PTG) as negative or positive. Also, possible gender and religiosity differences in understanding of changes in PTD and PTG were evaluated. Method : The present cross-sectional study was conducted during 2019-2020. The target sample Consisted of 298 students (mean age = 23.79) from 3 Universities in Esfahan and Tehran (Iran), recruited by convenience sampling. The sample answered to the scales, including Posttraumatic Growth Inventory and Posttraumatic Depreciation Inventory; and Iranian version of The Clark and Stark Religious questionnaire. Results: Despite the overall support for the PTG and PTD constructs, the present study showed that there are cross-cultural differences that can affect people's perception of item evaluation positively or negatively. In this study, almost all items that were evaluated differently with operationally defined PTG and PTD belonged to "Relating to Others" factor. The result also displayed gender and religiosity differences in perceptions of growth and depreciation. Conclusion: These results suggest that it is necessary to identify the concept of PTG and PTD in each culture and the individual differences that may affect the perception of PTG and PDT be considered.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: It is essential to better understand the caregiving burden and its determinants to support caregivers. The aim of this study was to test the validity and reliability (internal consistency) of the caregiver burden inventory (CBI) in Iranian caregivers of elderly patients with Alzheimer. METHODS: A cross sectional study was conducted to translate and validate the CBI in Iran. The structural validity of the scale was evaluated by exploratory factor analysis. The concurrent validity was tested correlating the CBI scores with the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) scores. The internal consistency reliability was assessed using the Cronbach's alpha coefficient. RESULTS: In total, we enrolled 315 caregivers of elderly patients with Alzheimer disease (79% women, mean age 56.5 ± 13.9). The structural validity of the CBI as assessed by exploratory factor analysis indicated three factors (emotional/psychological, time-dependence and physical burden) that jointly explained 45.21% of the total variance observed. The Pearson correlation coefficient for the relationship between the scores obtained on the Caregiver Burden Inventory and the BAI and the BDI were 0.69 and 0.49 respectively, confirming the concurrent validity. The Cronbach's alpha for the CBI was 0.91 ranging from 0.78 to 0.92 for its subscales. CONCLUSION: Used in clinical practice and research, the CBI was verified to be a proper multidimensional instrument for evaluating the burden in caregivers of elderly patients with Alzheimer disease.
