Validity and reliability of the Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II) in family caregivers of children with chronic diseases

58Citations
Citations of this article
189Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background Information on the psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II) in family caregivers of children with chronic diseases is currently unavailable, indicating a significant gap in the literature. Therefore, we investigated 1) which of the five evaluated measurement models had the best fit, 2) the scale’s reliability, and 3) the scale’s convergent validity. MethodS In 2018, a cross-sectional ex post facto study with non-probability convenience sampling was conducted in 446 family caregivers of children with chronic diseases at the National Institute of Health in Mexico City; the family caregivers responded to the BDI-II and a battery of instruments measuring anxiety, caregiver burden, parental stress, well-being, and quality of life. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to determine the fit of the five models. Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability were calculated to assess the scale’s reliability, and Spearman´s rank correlation was used to investigate the scale’s convergent validity. Results This study provided evidence that the two-factor somatic-affective and cognitive model had the best fit. The BDI-II demonstrated adequate reliability and evidence of convergent validity, as the BDI-II factors were positively correlated with anxiety, caregiver burden, and parental stress and negatively correlated with well-being and quality of life. Conclusions The findings reveal that the BDI-II is a valid, reliable, and culturally relevant instrument to measure depression in family caregivers of children with chronic diseases.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Toledano-Toledano, F., & Contreras-Valdez, J. A. (2018). Validity and reliability of the Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II) in family caregivers of children with chronic diseases. PLoS ONE, 13(11). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0206917

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free