Between stressors and outcomes: can we simplify caregiving process variables?
Lawton, Kleban, Moss, Rovine & Glicksman's (1989) construction of caregiving appraisal is examined through a principal components analysis and varimax rotation of a data set based on in-depth quantitative interviews with 144 caregivers. Five caregiving appraisal dimensions were identified. Two dealt specifically with the provision of care: "task load caregiving" and "dysfunctional caregiving." The remaining three were primarily concerned with social supportiveness: "intimacy and love," "social captivity," and "social distance." "Dysfunctional caregiving" was the only type of appraisal that had significant bivariate relationships with poor mental health, low psychological well-being and subsequent institutionalization. A sixth dimension identified in this analysis, "inner strength and efficacy," represented psychological resources. Its independence from the appraisal measures supports Lawton et al.'s (1989) assumption that resources and appraisals can be measured separately. In contrast, social resources are better conceptualized as an integral part of caregiving appraisals.
Braithwaite
V
V
Research School of the Social Sciences, The Australian National University, Canberra.
D000223:Adaptation, Psychological; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D017028:Caregivers / Q000523:psychology*; D017281:Cost of Illness; D005260:Female; D016330:Frail Elderly / Q000523:psychology*; D006295:Health Resources; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D012944:Social Support; D013315:Stress, Psychological / Q000150:complications*; D016526:Workload / Q000523:psychology