Validating the Revised Scale for Caregiving Self-Efficacy: A Cross-National Review

Validating the Revised Scale for Caregiving Self-Efficacy: A Cross-National Review Abstract Background and Objectives This article reviews an instrument used in cross-national research with dementia family caregivers—the Revised Scale for Caregiving Self-Efficacy (RSCSE). Although the RSCSE has been translated into multiple languages, few studies have examined scale performance across samples. We examine congruence of psychometric, reliability, and validity data to inform research and practice. Methods We conducted citation searches using Scopus, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and PsycINFO. Identified dementia caregiving studies cited the original RSCSE article and described results of English and/or non-English translations of the scale. Results Peer-reviewed published studies (N = 58) of dementia family caregivers included data for Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Italian, and Spanish translations of the RSCSE; the majority (72%) reported use of non-English translations. Studies utilizing confirmatory factor analytic approaches reported findings consistent with the original development study. Internal consistency, convergent/discriminant validity, and criterion validity indices were congruent across diverse cross-national caregiving samples assessed with different translations. Data supported the RSCSE’s sensitivity to change following specific psychosocial caregiving interventions. Discussion The reliability and validity of different translations of the RSCSE support continued use with cross-national samples of dementia family caregivers. Limitations of the scale point to the need for further self-efficacy measurement development within caregiving domains. Consistent with Bandura’s discussion of social cognitive theory in cultural contexts, personal agency for caregiving challenges remains generalizable to cross-national populations. This review discusses the implications for cross-cultural research and practice. Dementia, Intervention Outcome, Measurement, Psychometrics The construct of self-efficacy has been useful in advancing psychosocial research and practice with dementia family caregivers. Grounded in Bandura’s (1997, 2002, 2012) social cognitive theory, self-efficacy beliefs reflect confidence in the ability to execute specific behaviors in response to situational demands. Unlike general constructs such as mastery or self-esteem, self-efficacy varies across multifaceted task demands. Self-efficacy beliefs have been demonstrated to influence the initiation of coping, expenditure of effort, and the degree that behaviors are sustained in challenging situations (Bandura, 1997). Relevant to family caregiving, self-efficacy beliefs show strong predictive validity across health conditions and domains of health behaviors (Anderson, Winett, & Wojcik, 2007; Plotnikoff, Lippke, Courneya, Birkett, & Sigal, 2008). Careful attention to measurement is needed when applying the self-efficacy construct to caregiving responses and change processes. Bandura (2006) recommends that self-efficacy scales focus on specific functional domains and include behaviorally detailed items that progressively increase in difficulty. Items should reflect multifaceted task demands and gradations of challenges or impediments, allowing for assessment of patterns of strengths and limitations in perceived capability. Two scales were originally developed to assess family caregiving self-efficacy in the domains of problem-solving and self-care (Zeiss, Gallagher-Thompson, Lovett, Rose, & McKibbin, 1999). These scales demonstrated good internal consistencies, test–retest reliabilities, and were related to measures of depression and burden. Data from independent samples of dementia caregivers were then used to revise and extend these scales, leading to development of the Revised Scale for Caregiving Self-Efficacy (RSCSE; Steffen, McKibbin, Zeiss, Gallagher-Thompson, & Bandura, 2002). The RSCSE assesses caregivers’ confidence in responding to three high challenge domains of dementia caregiving: Obtaining Respite (SE:OR; e.g., ‘…ask a friend or family member to stay with NAME for a day when you need time for yourself?’); Managing Disruptive Behaviors (SE:MB; e.g., ‘When NAME forgets your daily routine and asks when lunch is right after you’ve eaten … answer without raising your voice?’); and Controlling Upsetting Thoughts (SE:CT; e.g., ‘…control worrying about future problems that might come up with NAME?’). These three domains reflect distinct and common behavioral and cognitive challenges for dementia family caregivers. Following Bandura’s (2006) guidelines, domain-specific items are presented in order from lower to greater challenge (based on mean scores in the development sample) and represent gradations of challenges or impediments to successful performance. Items reflecting self-esteem, locus of control, or outcome expectations are avoided. Confirmatory factor analyses supported the purported three-factor structure, with data consistent with subscale reliability and convergent/discriminant validity (Steffen et al., 2002). The final version of the RSCSE consists of 15 items (5 items per subscale). Due to the domain specificity of the self-efficacy construct and the differing relationships between subscale scores and other coping and health outcome variables, no total score was examined or recommended by the scale developers. The RSCSE has been evaluated in several reviews of caregiving-specific instruments. In a selective review of self-efficacy measures (Betz, 2013), scale development for the RSCSE was described as exemplifying high research standards. A separate evaluation of caregiving measures rated the RSCSE as within the top third of scales meeting 10 criteria (Harvey et al., 2008). The scale has also been discussed in dementia-specific reviews of conceptual models of stress and health (Crellin, Orrell, McDermott, & Charlesworth, 2014), health care triads (i.e., primary care physicians, family caregivers, and persons with dementia; Fortinsky, 2001), and within the international caregiving intervention research literature (McKechnie, Barker, & Stott, 2014). A recent review of positive psychology scales for family dementia caregivers evaluated measurement studies on seven criteria and evaluated the original RSCSE article as moderate in quality (Stansfeld et al., 2017). Specifically, quality of data and methodology within the Steffen and colleagues (2002) study was described as well-designed and reported for content validity, internal consistency, construct validity, and agreement (test–retest reliability). The original study was evaluated as lacking information in several key measurement domains (e.g., criterion validity, responsiveness, floor and ceiling effects, and interpretability; Stansfeld et al., 2017), pointing to the value of investigators reporting additional information about the scale. Self-efficacy beliefs have been demonstrated to predict caregiving physical and mental health outcomes (Crellin, Orrell, et al., 2014) and are sensitive to the impact of relevant psychosocial interventions (McKechnie et al., 2014). Dementia caregiving research and clinical practice with diverse (Yeo & Gallagher-Thompson, 2006) and cross-national populations (Losada et al., 2006) has significantly expanded. As a part of these developments, the RSCSE has been used in published studies by investigators across North America, Europe, the Middle East, and Asia representing a range of disciplines (e.g., human development, medicine, nursing, occupational therapy, psychiatry, psychology, public health, social work, and sociology). The RSCSE has been translated into multiple languages, however, few studies have examined scale performance across samples. Although other measures of caregiving self-efficacy are available in the literature, the RSCSE has been cited with sufficient frequency to merit a review examining the reliability, validity, and utility of the published translations. In this article, we aim to: (1) Identify published studies utilizing the RSCSE, (2) Describe data on RSCSE reliability and validity, including factor structure, reported for the English version and published translations of the scale, (3) Reflect on further research developments using the RSCSE, and (4) Provide recommendations about the utility of the RSCSE in research and practice settings. Method Inclusion criteria consisted of (a) empirical studies reporting use of the RSCSE in data collection with (b) dementia family caregivers (i.e., Alzheimer disease, other neurocognitive disorders, cognitively impaired) of (c) older adults living in a (d) range of community and residential care settings, with the (e) studies published in English language professional journals, and excluding (f) case studies and research with very small sample sizes (N < 10). Citations listed for the Steffen and colleagues (2002) measurement article in Scopus (n = 159), Web of Science (n = 70), and Google Scholar (n = 312) were identified and exported into bibliographic management software (i.e., EndNote). Two different search processes were used within PsycINFO (n = 109); first, the name of the scale was inserted as a phrase in double quotes with and without a hyphen (“Revised Scale for Caregiving Self-Efficacy,” “Revised Scale for Caregiving Self Efficacy”) searching within all text. The second PsycINFO search used the Cited References feature, specifying author, year and the phrase search “Revised Scale for Caregiving Self-Efficacy” in double quotes. Citations from all of the combined above procedures (N = 650) were exported into EndNote, with duplicates identified and removed by EndNote. Figure 1 depicts the outcomes for the various steps in the extraction process, which were completed by the first author. Facets of study quality are noted in the review, including attention to sample size and research design (e.g., discussion of intervention studies separated by those utilizing randomized clinical trial (RCT) versus quasi-experimental (pre–post) design). Figure 1. View largeDownload slide Flow chart of review process. Figure 1. View largeDownload slide Flow chart of review process. Results A total of 58 published articles were identified as eligible for inclusion and are presented in Tables 1 and 2 in alphabetical order by first author. Table 1 displays the published works for the scale administered via interview (n = 46), and Table 2 displays studies using self-report data collection strategies (n = 12). Table 1. Predictive Studies and RCTs Using Interview Format of Revised Scale for Caregiving Self-Efficacy (n = 48) Author (publication year)  Country/language  Sample  Use of measure  Alpha (α)  Findingsa  1. Au and colleagues (2009)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 134; 75% female; 58% adult children  Predict depressive symptoms  SE:OR α = .89; SE:MB α = .91; SE:CT α = .90  aRSCSE subscales partially mediated the path between social support and depression  2. Au, Lau, and colleagues (2010)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 134; 75% female; 58% adult children  Predict depressive symptoms  SE:OR α = .89; SE:MB α = .91; SE:CT α = .90  aSE:CT mediated link between perceived physical health support and depression  3. Au, Li, and colleagues (2010)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese/ Cantonese  N = 27;100% female; 34% spouses/SO; 52% adult children  RCT outcome  SE:OR α = .92; SE:MB α = .95; SE:CT α = .86  aSE:MB and SE:CT improved in treatment group compared to control group  4. Au and colleagues (2014)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese/ Cantonese  N = 60; 76.7% female; 38.3% spouses; 60% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  No differences in SE:OR or SE:CT change following intervention, relative to comparison group  5. Cheng, Lam, Kwok, Ng, and Fung (2013)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 99; 71% female; 55% adult children  Measurement refinement and validation  SE:ORα = .92; SE:MB α = .86; SE:CT α = .75  aCFA of shortened scale supported three-factor model (χ2 = 29.09, df = 23, ns; RMSEA = .05)  SE:CT moderated relationship between challenging behaviors and role overload and burden  6. Cheng, Kwok, and Lam (2014)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 395; Data originating from two studies; 86% female; 27% spouse/sibling; 73% intergenerational  To support concurrent validity of Zarit Burden Interview  SE:OR α = .95; SE:MB α = .87; SE:CT α = .77  aRSCSE subscales negatively correlated with three of the four factors for Zarit Burden Interview  7. Cheng, Fung, Chan, and Lam (2016)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 129; 81% female; 27% spouse; 71% adult children  Mediate outcome of RCT  SE:OR α = .94; SE:MB α = .88; SE:CT α = .80  a3-item version of SE:CT subscale was primary mediator of outcome for a benefit-finding intervention  8. Cheng and colleagues (2017)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 96; 87% female; 24% spouse; 76% younger generation  Mediate outcome of RCT  SE:OR α = .96; SE:MB α = .84; SE:CT α = .75  a3-item version of SE:CT subscale was mediator of outcomes for a benefit- finding intervention  9. Coon, Thompson, Steffen, Sorocco, and Gallagher- Thompson (2003)  USA/English  N = 169; 100% female; 57% spouse; 43% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  aIntervention effect for both SE:MB and SE:CT relative to waitlist control. SE:CT partially mediated intervention impact on both anger and depressed mood.  10. Crellin, Charlesworth, and Orrell (2014)  England (UK)/English  N = 245; 71% female; 62% spouse; 29% adult children  To support concurrent validity of Caregiver Efficacy Scale  Not reported  aRSCSE subscales significantly correlated with Caregiver Efficacy Scale assessing confidence in dealing with behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia  11. Crespo and Fernández-Lansac (2014)  Spain/Spanish  N = 111; 74% female; 51% adult children  Predict well-being  SE:OR α = .87; SE:MB α = .93; SE:CT α = .90  aSupport for convergent and discriminant validity, with predicted varying relationships between the three subscales and depression, anxiety, anger, burden, and self-esteem  12. Cristancho-Lacroix and colleagues (2015)  France/French  N = 49; 65% female; 59% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  No intervention effect for RSCSE subscales  13. Depp and colleagues (2005)  USA/English and Spanish  N = 238; 100% female; 42% spouses/SOs; 58% adult children  Impact of ethnicity and kinship status on self-efficacy  Caucasian: SE:OR α = .89; SE:MB α = .90; SE:CT α = .89  aLevel of acculturation did not relate strongly with self- efficacy. Hispanic/Latinos higher on two of the three self-efficacy scales than Caucasian caregivers.  Hispanic/Latino: SE:OR α = .88; SE:MB α = .88; SE:CT α = .85  14. Ducharme, Lévesque, Lachance, Kergoat, and Coulombe (2011)  Canada (Québec)/French  N = 122; 78% female; 36% spouses/SOs; 64% adult children  Descriptive study of caregiving characteristics within 9 months of Alzheimer’s diagnosis  α = .86–.90  aSelf-efficacy differences by gender (lower scores for women) and by kinship (lower scores for spouses)  15. Ducharme, Lévesque, Lachance, Kergoat, Legault, and colleagues (2011)  Canada (Québec)/French  N = 111; 79% female; 34% spouses/SOs; 52% adult children  RCT outcome  α = .86  aIntervention effect for a total RSCSE score relative to waitlist control  16. Ducharme, Lachance, Lévesque, Kergoat, and Zarit (2012)  Canada (Québec)/French  N = 97; 81% female; 36% spouses/SOs; 55% adult children  RCT outcome at 6 months  Baseline α = .89; Follow-up α = .91  aIntervention effect for a total RSCSE score relative to waitlist control, ηp2 = .04  17. Ducharme, Lachance, Kergoat, and colleagues (2015)  Canada (Québec)/French  N = 96; 79% female; 66% spouses/SOs; 25% adult children  Comparison of caregivers for early- and late- onset dementia patients  α = .74–.92  No differences as hypothesized between caregivers of early- and late-onset caregivers in the three RSCSE subscales  18. Ducharme, Lachance, Lévesque, Zarit, and Kergoat (2015)  Canada (Québec)/French  N = 89; 80% female; 49% adult children  RCT outcome  α = .90  aIntervention effect for a total RSCSE score relative to waitlist control, for participants with and without an added booster session  19. Gallagher- Thompson and colleagues (2007)  USA/Mandarin, Cantonese, and English  N = 45; 100% female; 31% spouse  RCT outcome  Reported mean α = .90  aSE moderated treatment impact. Participants low in SE improved most for in-home behavior management intervention.  20. Gant, Steffen, and Lauderdale (2007)  USA/English  N = 32; 100% male; 88% spouse  RCT outcome  Not reported  Improvement pre to post for both conditions. No differential improvement for more intensive intervention.  21. George and Steffen (2014)  USA/English  N = 52; 100% female; 57% spouses/SO; 38% adult children  Longitudinal model predicting physical and mental health  Not reported  aSE:CT predicted better SF-12 physical health indices and lower psychoactive medication usage at 18 months postintervention  22. Gilliam and Steffen (2006)  USA/English  N = 74; 100% female; 52% spouses/SO; 43% adult children  Predict depressive symptoms  SE:MB α = .88  aSE-MB negatively correlated with depressive symptoms, after controlling for number of behavior problems and level of cognitive impairment  23. Gonyea, López, and Velásquez (2016)  USA/Spanish  N = 67; 95% female; 25% spouse; 57% adult children  RCT outcome  Total score α = .86  aCBT intervention effect for a total RSCSE score relative to psychoeducational control  24. Grano, Lucidi, and Violani (2017)  Italy/Italian  N = 108;57% female; 50% spouse; 47% adult children  Predict depressive symptoms using SEM with longitudinal data  SE:OR α = .86; SE:MB α = .92; SE:CT α = .86  aSE:CT partially mediated link between perceived physical health support and depression  25. Holland, Thompson, Tzuang, and Gallagher- Thompson (2010)  USA/Mandarin, Cantonese, and English  N = 47; 100% female; 39% spouses/SO; 61% adult children  Predict diurnal cortisol patterns  Total RSCSE α = .90  aBelief in Asian values associated with more normal cortisol patterns and with higher RSCSE scores  26. Liu and Huang (2016)  Taiwan/Chinese/Mandarin  N = 115; 66% female; 26% spouse; 71% adult children  Predict burden and self-esteem  SE:OR α = .94; SE:MB α = .96; SE:CT α = .96  aSE:OR partially mediated link between family functioning and burden. Other paths were nonsignificant.  27. Lopez, Romero- Moreno, Marquez- González, and Losada (2012)  Spain/Spanish  N = 122; 80% female;36% spouses; 57% adult children  Interaction with spirituality to predict well-being  Cited Peñacoba, Losada, López, and Márquez-González (2008) CFA which supports three-factor model, loadings ranged from .45–.94, α = .84.  aSpirituality and self- efficacy had additive effect on well-being. High self-efficacy and high spirituality group had lower levels of depression.  28. Márquez-González, Losada, López, and Peñacoba (2009)  Spain/Spanish  N = 180; 78% female; 57% adult children  Validation study of Spanish translation  SE:OR α = .86; SE:MB α = .79; SE:CT α = .82  aSupport for reliability and convergent/discriminant validity of Spanish translation  29. Marziali and colleagues (2010)  Canada/English  N = 232; 75% female; 56% spouses; 36% adult children  Evaluate assessment battery  α = .70–.90  aSupport for inclusion of scale within standardized assessment battery. SE significantly predicted self-reported physical and mental health, and plan for institutionalization.  30. Montoro-Rodriguez and Gallagher-Thompson (2009)  USA/Spanish and English  N = 185; 100% female; 39% spouse/SO  Evaluate socio- cultural model of stress and caregiver burden  α = .81–85  aSE:CT inversely related to burden scores. Ethnicity had direct and indirect influence on burden via SE:CT.  31. Nogales-González, Romero- Moreno, Losada, Márquez- González, and Zarit (2015)  Spain/Spanish  N = 231; 79% female; 58% adult children  Predict well-being  SE:MB α = .80  aSE:MB partially moderated the relationship between patient behavior problems and caregiver reactions. High SE caregivers were less upset by increasing number of disruptive and depressive behaviors.  32. Peñacoba and colleagues (2008)  Spain/Spanish  N = 202; 78% female; 36% spouses; 57% adult children  Measurement study  Not reported  aCFA supported three-factor model (χ2 = 120.86, df = 87; GFI = 0.93; IFI = 0.97; CFI = 0.97; RMSEA = .04). Factor loadings ranged 0.45–0.94.  33. Rabinowitz, Mausbach, Thompson, and Gallagher- Thompson (2007)  USA/English and Spanish  N = 256; 100% female; 38% spouses/SOs; 52% adult children  Predict cumulative health risk  SE:OR α = .84; SE:MB α = .89; SE:CT α = .89  aSE:OR and SE:CT associated with fewer caregiver health risk behaviors; SE:CT associated with improved dietary practices  34. Rabinowitz, Mausbach, and Gallagher-Thompson (2009)  USA/English and Spanish  N = 256; 100% female; 61% spouses/SOs  Test model of caregiver depression  SE:OR α = .89; SE:MB α = .89; SE:CT α = .88  aSE:MB and SE:CT had direct inverse relationship with depressive symptoms. SE:MB moderated relationship between patient behavior problems and caregiver depression.  35. Rabinowitz, Saenz, Thompson, and Gallagher- Thompson (2011)  USA/English and Spanish  N = 256; 100% female; 61% spouses/SOs  Test model predicting health risk  SE:OR α = .89; SE:MB α = .89; SE:CT α = .88  aDepressive symptoms mediated the relationship between self- efficacy (SE:OR, SE:CT) and cumulative health risk  36. Romero-Moreno and colleagues (2011)  Spain/Spanish  N = 167; 77.20% female; 34.30% spouses; 60.20% adult children  Test SE as moderator of the relationship between stressors and distress  SE:MB α = .80; SE:CT α = .82  aSE:MB did not moderate the relationship between patient behavior problems and burden; SE:CT moderated the relationship between burden and distress (depression and anxiety). Support for construct validity of scale, showing inverse relationships between SE:MB and burden; and between SE:CT and depression/anxiety  37. Romero-Moreno, Márquez-González, Mausbach, and Losada (2012)  Spain/Spanish  N = 130; 83.08 female; 34.62% spouses; 61.53% adult children; (n = 116 at 3 month f/u; n = 82 at 12 month f/u)  Conceptual model testing; predict depression longitudinally  SE:CT α = .78 (sole domain used in study)  aLongitudinal analyses demonstrate that increases in SE:CT predicted decreases in depression over time  38. Séoud and Ducharme (2015)  Lebanon/Arabic  N = 140; 100% female; 18.6% wives; 69.3 adult daughters  Predict resilience  Total RSCSE α = .91  aRSCSE total score associated with a measure of resilience after accounting for control variables  39. Steffen (2000)  USA/English  N = 33; 75.8% female; 54.5% spouses; 36.4% adults children  RCT outcome  SE:MB = .84  aSE:MB scores were improved following both in-home and group-based interventions relative to control condition  40. Steffen and colleagues (2002)  USA/English  Study 1: N = 169; 100% female; 57% wives; 39% adult daughters  Measurement development  Study 1: SE:OR α = .88; SE:MB α = .84; SE:CT α = .86  aOriginal measurement development article. First sample used for scale refinement and exploratory factor analysis. Second sample used for CFA. Support for concurrent and discriminant validity examined with both data sets.  Study 2: N = 145;80% female; 46% spouse; 46% adult children  Study 2: SE:OR α = .85; SE:MB α = .82; SE:CT α = .85  41. Steffen and Gant (2015)  USA/English  N = 74; 100% female; 52% wives; 43% adult daughters  RCT outcome  Not reported  aTelehealth behavioral coaching showed greater improvement in SE:OR and SE:MB relative to comparison condition  42. Waelde, Meyer, Thompson, Thompson, and Gallagher- Thompson (2017)  USA/English  N = 31; 100% female  RCT outcome  SE:CT α = .80  SE:CT did not improve in meditation intervention group, relative to comparison condition  43. Waelde, Thompson, and Gallagher-Thompson (2004)  USA/English and Spanish  N = 12; 100% female; 50% wives; 50% adult daughters  bQuasi- experimental study outcome  Not reported  aSignificant improvement in SE:CT scores following yoga- meditation intervention  44. Wawrziczny and colleagues (2017a)  France/French  N = 125; 60% female; 100% spouses  Modeling distress  SE:OR α = .83; SE:MB α = .90; SE:CT α = .83  SE subscales did not show strong relationships with other variables and were excluded from the final model.  45. Wawrziczny and colleagues (2017b)  France/French  N = 150; 59.3% female; 100% spouses  Describe characteristics of cgs for early- and later-onset patients  Early onset: SE:OR α = .86; SE:MB α = .86; SE:CT α = .84  aSpouse cgs of early onset patients had lower average SE:CT scores compared to spouses of late onset individuals  Late onset: SE:OR α = .83; SE:MB α = .89; SE:CT α = .83  46. Williams and colleagues (2010)  USA/English  N = 116; 78% female; 40% spouses; 50% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  No improvement in SE subscale scores following video-based skills intervention relative to wait list control  Author (publication year)  Country/language  Sample  Use of measure  Alpha (α)  Findingsa  1. Au and colleagues (2009)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 134; 75% female; 58% adult children  Predict depressive symptoms  SE:OR α = .89; SE:MB α = .91; SE:CT α = .90  aRSCSE subscales partially mediated the path between social support and depression  2. Au, Lau, and colleagues (2010)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 134; 75% female; 58% adult children  Predict depressive symptoms  SE:OR α = .89; SE:MB α = .91; SE:CT α = .90  aSE:CT mediated link between perceived physical health support and depression  3. Au, Li, and colleagues (2010)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese/ Cantonese  N = 27;100% female; 34% spouses/SO; 52% adult children  RCT outcome  SE:OR α = .92; SE:MB α = .95; SE:CT α = .86  aSE:MB and SE:CT improved in treatment group compared to control group  4. Au and colleagues (2014)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese/ Cantonese  N = 60; 76.7% female; 38.3% spouses; 60% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  No differences in SE:OR or SE:CT change following intervention, relative to comparison group  5. Cheng, Lam, Kwok, Ng, and Fung (2013)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 99; 71% female; 55% adult children  Measurement refinement and validation  SE:ORα = .92; SE:MB α = .86; SE:CT α = .75  aCFA of shortened scale supported three-factor model (χ2 = 29.09, df = 23, ns; RMSEA = .05)  SE:CT moderated relationship between challenging behaviors and role overload and burden  6. Cheng, Kwok, and Lam (2014)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 395; Data originating from two studies; 86% female; 27% spouse/sibling; 73% intergenerational  To support concurrent validity of Zarit Burden Interview  SE:OR α = .95; SE:MB α = .87; SE:CT α = .77  aRSCSE subscales negatively correlated with three of the four factors for Zarit Burden Interview  7. Cheng, Fung, Chan, and Lam (2016)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 129; 81% female; 27% spouse; 71% adult children  Mediate outcome of RCT  SE:OR α = .94; SE:MB α = .88; SE:CT α = .80  a3-item version of SE:CT subscale was primary mediator of outcome for a benefit-finding intervention  8. Cheng and colleagues (2017)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 96; 87% female; 24% spouse; 76% younger generation  Mediate outcome of RCT  SE:OR α = .96; SE:MB α = .84; SE:CT α = .75  a3-item version of SE:CT subscale was mediator of outcomes for a benefit- finding intervention  9. Coon, Thompson, Steffen, Sorocco, and Gallagher- Thompson (2003)  USA/English  N = 169; 100% female; 57% spouse; 43% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  aIntervention effect for both SE:MB and SE:CT relative to waitlist control. SE:CT partially mediated intervention impact on both anger and depressed mood.  10. Crellin, Charlesworth, and Orrell (2014)  England (UK)/English  N = 245; 71% female; 62% spouse; 29% adult children  To support concurrent validity of Caregiver Efficacy Scale  Not reported  aRSCSE subscales significantly correlated with Caregiver Efficacy Scale assessing confidence in dealing with behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia  11. Crespo and Fernández-Lansac (2014)  Spain/Spanish  N = 111; 74% female; 51% adult children  Predict well-being  SE:OR α = .87; SE:MB α = .93; SE:CT α = .90  aSupport for convergent and discriminant validity, with predicted varying relationships between the three subscales and depression, anxiety, anger, burden, and self-esteem  12. Cristancho-Lacroix and colleagues (2015)  France/French  N = 49; 65% female; 59% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  No intervention effect for RSCSE subscales  13. Depp and colleagues (2005)  USA/English and Spanish  N = 238; 100% female; 42% spouses/SOs; 58% adult children  Impact of ethnicity and kinship status on self-efficacy  Caucasian: SE:OR α = .89; SE:MB α = .90; SE:CT α = .89  aLevel of acculturation did not relate strongly with self- efficacy. Hispanic/Latinos higher on two of the three self-efficacy scales than Caucasian caregivers.  Hispanic/Latino: SE:OR α = .88; SE:MB α = .88; SE:CT α = .85  14. Ducharme, Lévesque, Lachance, Kergoat, and Coulombe (2011)  Canada (Québec)/French  N = 122; 78% female; 36% spouses/SOs; 64% adult children  Descriptive study of caregiving characteristics within 9 months of Alzheimer’s diagnosis  α = .86–.90  aSelf-efficacy differences by gender (lower scores for women) and by kinship (lower scores for spouses)  15. Ducharme, Lévesque, Lachance, Kergoat, Legault, and colleagues (2011)  Canada (Québec)/French  N = 111; 79% female; 34% spouses/SOs; 52% adult children  RCT outcome  α = .86  aIntervention effect for a total RSCSE score relative to waitlist control  16. Ducharme, Lachance, Lévesque, Kergoat, and Zarit (2012)  Canada (Québec)/French  N = 97; 81% female; 36% spouses/SOs; 55% adult children  RCT outcome at 6 months  Baseline α = .89; Follow-up α = .91  aIntervention effect for a total RSCSE score relative to waitlist control, ηp2 = .04  17. Ducharme, Lachance, Kergoat, and colleagues (2015)  Canada (Québec)/French  N = 96; 79% female; 66% spouses/SOs; 25% adult children  Comparison of caregivers for early- and late- onset dementia patients  α = .74–.92  No differences as hypothesized between caregivers of early- and late-onset caregivers in the three RSCSE subscales  18. Ducharme, Lachance, Lévesque, Zarit, and Kergoat (2015)  Canada (Québec)/French  N = 89; 80% female; 49% adult children  RCT outcome  α = .90  aIntervention effect for a total RSCSE score relative to waitlist control, for participants with and without an added booster session  19. Gallagher- Thompson and colleagues (2007)  USA/Mandarin, Cantonese, and English  N = 45; 100% female; 31% spouse  RCT outcome  Reported mean α = .90  aSE moderated treatment impact. Participants low in SE improved most for in-home behavior management intervention.  20. Gant, Steffen, and Lauderdale (2007)  USA/English  N = 32; 100% male; 88% spouse  RCT outcome  Not reported  Improvement pre to post for both conditions. No differential improvement for more intensive intervention.  21. George and Steffen (2014)  USA/English  N = 52; 100% female; 57% spouses/SO; 38% adult children  Longitudinal model predicting physical and mental health  Not reported  aSE:CT predicted better SF-12 physical health indices and lower psychoactive medication usage at 18 months postintervention  22. Gilliam and Steffen (2006)  USA/English  N = 74; 100% female; 52% spouses/SO; 43% adult children  Predict depressive symptoms  SE:MB α = .88  aSE-MB negatively correlated with depressive symptoms, after controlling for number of behavior problems and level of cognitive impairment  23. Gonyea, López, and Velásquez (2016)  USA/Spanish  N = 67; 95% female; 25% spouse; 57% adult children  RCT outcome  Total score α = .86  aCBT intervention effect for a total RSCSE score relative to psychoeducational control  24. Grano, Lucidi, and Violani (2017)  Italy/Italian  N = 108;57% female; 50% spouse; 47% adult children  Predict depressive symptoms using SEM with longitudinal data  SE:OR α = .86; SE:MB α = .92; SE:CT α = .86  aSE:CT partially mediated link between perceived physical health support and depression  25. Holland, Thompson, Tzuang, and Gallagher- Thompson (2010)  USA/Mandarin, Cantonese, and English  N = 47; 100% female; 39% spouses/SO; 61% adult children  Predict diurnal cortisol patterns  Total RSCSE α = .90  aBelief in Asian values associated with more normal cortisol patterns and with higher RSCSE scores  26. Liu and Huang (2016)  Taiwan/Chinese/Mandarin  N = 115; 66% female; 26% spouse; 71% adult children  Predict burden and self-esteem  SE:OR α = .94; SE:MB α = .96; SE:CT α = .96  aSE:OR partially mediated link between family functioning and burden. Other paths were nonsignificant.  27. Lopez, Romero- Moreno, Marquez- González, and Losada (2012)  Spain/Spanish  N = 122; 80% female;36% spouses; 57% adult children  Interaction with spirituality to predict well-being  Cited Peñacoba, Losada, López, and Márquez-González (2008) CFA which supports three-factor model, loadings ranged from .45–.94, α = .84.  aSpirituality and self- efficacy had additive effect on well-being. High self-efficacy and high spirituality group had lower levels of depression.  28. Márquez-González, Losada, López, and Peñacoba (2009)  Spain/Spanish  N = 180; 78% female; 57% adult children  Validation study of Spanish translation  SE:OR α = .86; SE:MB α = .79; SE:CT α = .82  aSupport for reliability and convergent/discriminant validity of Spanish translation  29. Marziali and colleagues (2010)  Canada/English  N = 232; 75% female; 56% spouses; 36% adult children  Evaluate assessment battery  α = .70–.90  aSupport for inclusion of scale within standardized assessment battery. SE significantly predicted self-reported physical and mental health, and plan for institutionalization.  30. Montoro-Rodriguez and Gallagher-Thompson (2009)  USA/Spanish and English  N = 185; 100% female; 39% spouse/SO  Evaluate socio- cultural model of stress and caregiver burden  α = .81–85  aSE:CT inversely related to burden scores. Ethnicity had direct and indirect influence on burden via SE:CT.  31. Nogales-González, Romero- Moreno, Losada, Márquez- González, and Zarit (2015)  Spain/Spanish  N = 231; 79% female; 58% adult children  Predict well-being  SE:MB α = .80  aSE:MB partially moderated the relationship between patient behavior problems and caregiver reactions. High SE caregivers were less upset by increasing number of disruptive and depressive behaviors.  32. Peñacoba and colleagues (2008)  Spain/Spanish  N = 202; 78% female; 36% spouses; 57% adult children  Measurement study  Not reported  aCFA supported three-factor model (χ2 = 120.86, df = 87; GFI = 0.93; IFI = 0.97; CFI = 0.97; RMSEA = .04). Factor loadings ranged 0.45–0.94.  33. Rabinowitz, Mausbach, Thompson, and Gallagher- Thompson (2007)  USA/English and Spanish  N = 256; 100% female; 38% spouses/SOs; 52% adult children  Predict cumulative health risk  SE:OR α = .84; SE:MB α = .89; SE:CT α = .89  aSE:OR and SE:CT associated with fewer caregiver health risk behaviors; SE:CT associated with improved dietary practices  34. Rabinowitz, Mausbach, and Gallagher-Thompson (2009)  USA/English and Spanish  N = 256; 100% female; 61% spouses/SOs  Test model of caregiver depression  SE:OR α = .89; SE:MB α = .89; SE:CT α = .88  aSE:MB and SE:CT had direct inverse relationship with depressive symptoms. SE:MB moderated relationship between patient behavior problems and caregiver depression.  35. Rabinowitz, Saenz, Thompson, and Gallagher- Thompson (2011)  USA/English and Spanish  N = 256; 100% female; 61% spouses/SOs  Test model predicting health risk  SE:OR α = .89; SE:MB α = .89; SE:CT α = .88  aDepressive symptoms mediated the relationship between self- efficacy (SE:OR, SE:CT) and cumulative health risk  36. Romero-Moreno and colleagues (2011)  Spain/Spanish  N = 167; 77.20% female; 34.30% spouses; 60.20% adult children  Test SE as moderator of the relationship between stressors and distress  SE:MB α = .80; SE:CT α = .82  aSE:MB did not moderate the relationship between patient behavior problems and burden; SE:CT moderated the relationship between burden and distress (depression and anxiety). Support for construct validity of scale, showing inverse relationships between SE:MB and burden; and between SE:CT and depression/anxiety  37. Romero-Moreno, Márquez-González, Mausbach, and Losada (2012)  Spain/Spanish  N = 130; 83.08 female; 34.62% spouses; 61.53% adult children; (n = 116 at 3 month f/u; n = 82 at 12 month f/u)  Conceptual model testing; predict depression longitudinally  SE:CT α = .78 (sole domain used in study)  aLongitudinal analyses demonstrate that increases in SE:CT predicted decreases in depression over time  38. Séoud and Ducharme (2015)  Lebanon/Arabic  N = 140; 100% female; 18.6% wives; 69.3 adult daughters  Predict resilience  Total RSCSE α = .91  aRSCSE total score associated with a measure of resilience after accounting for control variables  39. Steffen (2000)  USA/English  N = 33; 75.8% female; 54.5% spouses; 36.4% adults children  RCT outcome  SE:MB = .84  aSE:MB scores were improved following both in-home and group-based interventions relative to control condition  40. Steffen and colleagues (2002)  USA/English  Study 1: N = 169; 100% female; 57% wives; 39% adult daughters  Measurement development  Study 1: SE:OR α = .88; SE:MB α = .84; SE:CT α = .86  aOriginal measurement development article. First sample used for scale refinement and exploratory factor analysis. Second sample used for CFA. Support for concurrent and discriminant validity examined with both data sets.  Study 2: N = 145;80% female; 46% spouse; 46% adult children  Study 2: SE:OR α = .85; SE:MB α = .82; SE:CT α = .85  41. Steffen and Gant (2015)  USA/English  N = 74; 100% female; 52% wives; 43% adult daughters  RCT outcome  Not reported  aTelehealth behavioral coaching showed greater improvement in SE:OR and SE:MB relative to comparison condition  42. Waelde, Meyer, Thompson, Thompson, and Gallagher- Thompson (2017)  USA/English  N = 31; 100% female  RCT outcome  SE:CT α = .80  SE:CT did not improve in meditation intervention group, relative to comparison condition  43. Waelde, Thompson, and Gallagher-Thompson (2004)  USA/English and Spanish  N = 12; 100% female; 50% wives; 50% adult daughters  bQuasi- experimental study outcome  Not reported  aSignificant improvement in SE:CT scores following yoga- meditation intervention  44. Wawrziczny and colleagues (2017a)  France/French  N = 125; 60% female; 100% spouses  Modeling distress  SE:OR α = .83; SE:MB α = .90; SE:CT α = .83  SE subscales did not show strong relationships with other variables and were excluded from the final model.  45. Wawrziczny and colleagues (2017b)  France/French  N = 150; 59.3% female; 100% spouses  Describe characteristics of cgs for early- and later-onset patients  Early onset: SE:OR α = .86; SE:MB α = .86; SE:CT α = .84  aSpouse cgs of early onset patients had lower average SE:CT scores compared to spouses of late onset individuals  Late onset: SE:OR α = .83; SE:MB α = .89; SE:CT α = .83  46. Williams and colleagues (2010)  USA/English  N = 116; 78% female; 40% spouses; 50% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  No improvement in SE subscale scores following video-based skills intervention relative to wait list control  aIndicates findings support hypothesized function of RSCSE in study. bPre–post design without a comparison group. View Large Table 1. Predictive Studies and RCTs Using Interview Format of Revised Scale for Caregiving Self-Efficacy (n = 48) Author (publication year)  Country/language  Sample  Use of measure  Alpha (α)  Findingsa  1. Au and colleagues (2009)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 134; 75% female; 58% adult children  Predict depressive symptoms  SE:OR α = .89; SE:MB α = .91; SE:CT α = .90  aRSCSE subscales partially mediated the path between social support and depression  2. Au, Lau, and colleagues (2010)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 134; 75% female; 58% adult children  Predict depressive symptoms  SE:OR α = .89; SE:MB α = .91; SE:CT α = .90  aSE:CT mediated link between perceived physical health support and depression  3. Au, Li, and colleagues (2010)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese/ Cantonese  N = 27;100% female; 34% spouses/SO; 52% adult children  RCT outcome  SE:OR α = .92; SE:MB α = .95; SE:CT α = .86  aSE:MB and SE:CT improved in treatment group compared to control group  4. Au and colleagues (2014)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese/ Cantonese  N = 60; 76.7% female; 38.3% spouses; 60% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  No differences in SE:OR or SE:CT change following intervention, relative to comparison group  5. Cheng, Lam, Kwok, Ng, and Fung (2013)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 99; 71% female; 55% adult children  Measurement refinement and validation  SE:ORα = .92; SE:MB α = .86; SE:CT α = .75  aCFA of shortened scale supported three-factor model (χ2 = 29.09, df = 23, ns; RMSEA = .05)  SE:CT moderated relationship between challenging behaviors and role overload and burden  6. Cheng, Kwok, and Lam (2014)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 395; Data originating from two studies; 86% female; 27% spouse/sibling; 73% intergenerational  To support concurrent validity of Zarit Burden Interview  SE:OR α = .95; SE:MB α = .87; SE:CT α = .77  aRSCSE subscales negatively correlated with three of the four factors for Zarit Burden Interview  7. Cheng, Fung, Chan, and Lam (2016)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 129; 81% female; 27% spouse; 71% adult children  Mediate outcome of RCT  SE:OR α = .94; SE:MB α = .88; SE:CT α = .80  a3-item version of SE:CT subscale was primary mediator of outcome for a benefit-finding intervention  8. Cheng and colleagues (2017)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 96; 87% female; 24% spouse; 76% younger generation  Mediate outcome of RCT  SE:OR α = .96; SE:MB α = .84; SE:CT α = .75  a3-item version of SE:CT subscale was mediator of outcomes for a benefit- finding intervention  9. Coon, Thompson, Steffen, Sorocco, and Gallagher- Thompson (2003)  USA/English  N = 169; 100% female; 57% spouse; 43% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  aIntervention effect for both SE:MB and SE:CT relative to waitlist control. SE:CT partially mediated intervention impact on both anger and depressed mood.  10. Crellin, Charlesworth, and Orrell (2014)  England (UK)/English  N = 245; 71% female; 62% spouse; 29% adult children  To support concurrent validity of Caregiver Efficacy Scale  Not reported  aRSCSE subscales significantly correlated with Caregiver Efficacy Scale assessing confidence in dealing with behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia  11. Crespo and Fernández-Lansac (2014)  Spain/Spanish  N = 111; 74% female; 51% adult children  Predict well-being  SE:OR α = .87; SE:MB α = .93; SE:CT α = .90  aSupport for convergent and discriminant validity, with predicted varying relationships between the three subscales and depression, anxiety, anger, burden, and self-esteem  12. Cristancho-Lacroix and colleagues (2015)  France/French  N = 49; 65% female; 59% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  No intervention effect for RSCSE subscales  13. Depp and colleagues (2005)  USA/English and Spanish  N = 238; 100% female; 42% spouses/SOs; 58% adult children  Impact of ethnicity and kinship status on self-efficacy  Caucasian: SE:OR α = .89; SE:MB α = .90; SE:CT α = .89  aLevel of acculturation did not relate strongly with self- efficacy. Hispanic/Latinos higher on two of the three self-efficacy scales than Caucasian caregivers.  Hispanic/Latino: SE:OR α = .88; SE:MB α = .88; SE:CT α = .85  14. Ducharme, Lévesque, Lachance, Kergoat, and Coulombe (2011)  Canada (Québec)/French  N = 122; 78% female; 36% spouses/SOs; 64% adult children  Descriptive study of caregiving characteristics within 9 months of Alzheimer’s diagnosis  α = .86–.90  aSelf-efficacy differences by gender (lower scores for women) and by kinship (lower scores for spouses)  15. Ducharme, Lévesque, Lachance, Kergoat, Legault, and colleagues (2011)  Canada (Québec)/French  N = 111; 79% female; 34% spouses/SOs; 52% adult children  RCT outcome  α = .86  aIntervention effect for a total RSCSE score relative to waitlist control  16. Ducharme, Lachance, Lévesque, Kergoat, and Zarit (2012)  Canada (Québec)/French  N = 97; 81% female; 36% spouses/SOs; 55% adult children  RCT outcome at 6 months  Baseline α = .89; Follow-up α = .91  aIntervention effect for a total RSCSE score relative to waitlist control, ηp2 = .04  17. Ducharme, Lachance, Kergoat, and colleagues (2015)  Canada (Québec)/French  N = 96; 79% female; 66% spouses/SOs; 25% adult children  Comparison of caregivers for early- and late- onset dementia patients  α = .74–.92  No differences as hypothesized between caregivers of early- and late-onset caregivers in the three RSCSE subscales  18. Ducharme, Lachance, Lévesque, Zarit, and Kergoat (2015)  Canada (Québec)/French  N = 89; 80% female; 49% adult children  RCT outcome  α = .90  aIntervention effect for a total RSCSE score relative to waitlist control, for participants with and without an added booster session  19. Gallagher- Thompson and colleagues (2007)  USA/Mandarin, Cantonese, and English  N = 45; 100% female; 31% spouse  RCT outcome  Reported mean α = .90  aSE moderated treatment impact. Participants low in SE improved most for in-home behavior management intervention.  20. Gant, Steffen, and Lauderdale (2007)  USA/English  N = 32; 100% male; 88% spouse  RCT outcome  Not reported  Improvement pre to post for both conditions. No differential improvement for more intensive intervention.  21. George and Steffen (2014)  USA/English  N = 52; 100% female; 57% spouses/SO; 38% adult children  Longitudinal model predicting physical and mental health  Not reported  aSE:CT predicted better SF-12 physical health indices and lower psychoactive medication usage at 18 months postintervention  22. Gilliam and Steffen (2006)  USA/English  N = 74; 100% female; 52% spouses/SO; 43% adult children  Predict depressive symptoms  SE:MB α = .88  aSE-MB negatively correlated with depressive symptoms, after controlling for number of behavior problems and level of cognitive impairment  23. Gonyea, López, and Velásquez (2016)  USA/Spanish  N = 67; 95% female; 25% spouse; 57% adult children  RCT outcome  Total score α = .86  aCBT intervention effect for a total RSCSE score relative to psychoeducational control  24. Grano, Lucidi, and Violani (2017)  Italy/Italian  N = 108;57% female; 50% spouse; 47% adult children  Predict depressive symptoms using SEM with longitudinal data  SE:OR α = .86; SE:MB α = .92; SE:CT α = .86  aSE:CT partially mediated link between perceived physical health support and depression  25. Holland, Thompson, Tzuang, and Gallagher- Thompson (2010)  USA/Mandarin, Cantonese, and English  N = 47; 100% female; 39% spouses/SO; 61% adult children  Predict diurnal cortisol patterns  Total RSCSE α = .90  aBelief in Asian values associated with more normal cortisol patterns and with higher RSCSE scores  26. Liu and Huang (2016)  Taiwan/Chinese/Mandarin  N = 115; 66% female; 26% spouse; 71% adult children  Predict burden and self-esteem  SE:OR α = .94; SE:MB α = .96; SE:CT α = .96  aSE:OR partially mediated link between family functioning and burden. Other paths were nonsignificant.  27. Lopez, Romero- Moreno, Marquez- González, and Losada (2012)  Spain/Spanish  N = 122; 80% female;36% spouses; 57% adult children  Interaction with spirituality to predict well-being  Cited Peñacoba, Losada, López, and Márquez-González (2008) CFA which supports three-factor model, loadings ranged from .45–.94, α = .84.  aSpirituality and self- efficacy had additive effect on well-being. High self-efficacy and high spirituality group had lower levels of depression.  28. Márquez-González, Losada, López, and Peñacoba (2009)  Spain/Spanish  N = 180; 78% female; 57% adult children  Validation study of Spanish translation  SE:OR α = .86; SE:MB α = .79; SE:CT α = .82  aSupport for reliability and convergent/discriminant validity of Spanish translation  29. Marziali and colleagues (2010)  Canada/English  N = 232; 75% female; 56% spouses; 36% adult children  Evaluate assessment battery  α = .70–.90  aSupport for inclusion of scale within standardized assessment battery. SE significantly predicted self-reported physical and mental health, and plan for institutionalization.  30. Montoro-Rodriguez and Gallagher-Thompson (2009)  USA/Spanish and English  N = 185; 100% female; 39% spouse/SO  Evaluate socio- cultural model of stress and caregiver burden  α = .81–85  aSE:CT inversely related to burden scores. Ethnicity had direct and indirect influence on burden via SE:CT.  31. Nogales-González, Romero- Moreno, Losada, Márquez- González, and Zarit (2015)  Spain/Spanish  N = 231; 79% female; 58% adult children  Predict well-being  SE:MB α = .80  aSE:MB partially moderated the relationship between patient behavior problems and caregiver reactions. High SE caregivers were less upset by increasing number of disruptive and depressive behaviors.  32. Peñacoba and colleagues (2008)  Spain/Spanish  N = 202; 78% female; 36% spouses; 57% adult children  Measurement study  Not reported  aCFA supported three-factor model (χ2 = 120.86, df = 87; GFI = 0.93; IFI = 0.97; CFI = 0.97; RMSEA = .04). Factor loadings ranged 0.45–0.94.  33. Rabinowitz, Mausbach, Thompson, and Gallagher- Thompson (2007)  USA/English and Spanish  N = 256; 100% female; 38% spouses/SOs; 52% adult children  Predict cumulative health risk  SE:OR α = .84; SE:MB α = .89; SE:CT α = .89  aSE:OR and SE:CT associated with fewer caregiver health risk behaviors; SE:CT associated with improved dietary practices  34. Rabinowitz, Mausbach, and Gallagher-Thompson (2009)  USA/English and Spanish  N = 256; 100% female; 61% spouses/SOs  Test model of caregiver depression  SE:OR α = .89; SE:MB α = .89; SE:CT α = .88  aSE:MB and SE:CT had direct inverse relationship with depressive symptoms. SE:MB moderated relationship between patient behavior problems and caregiver depression.  35. Rabinowitz, Saenz, Thompson, and Gallagher- Thompson (2011)  USA/English and Spanish  N = 256; 100% female; 61% spouses/SOs  Test model predicting health risk  SE:OR α = .89; SE:MB α = .89; SE:CT α = .88  aDepressive symptoms mediated the relationship between self- efficacy (SE:OR, SE:CT) and cumulative health risk  36. Romero-Moreno and colleagues (2011)  Spain/Spanish  N = 167; 77.20% female; 34.30% spouses; 60.20% adult children  Test SE as moderator of the relationship between stressors and distress  SE:MB α = .80; SE:CT α = .82  aSE:MB did not moderate the relationship between patient behavior problems and burden; SE:CT moderated the relationship between burden and distress (depression and anxiety). Support for construct validity of scale, showing inverse relationships between SE:MB and burden; and between SE:CT and depression/anxiety  37. Romero-Moreno, Márquez-González, Mausbach, and Losada (2012)  Spain/Spanish  N = 130; 83.08 female; 34.62% spouses; 61.53% adult children; (n = 116 at 3 month f/u; n = 82 at 12 month f/u)  Conceptual model testing; predict depression longitudinally  SE:CT α = .78 (sole domain used in study)  aLongitudinal analyses demonstrate that increases in SE:CT predicted decreases in depression over time  38. Séoud and Ducharme (2015)  Lebanon/Arabic  N = 140; 100% female; 18.6% wives; 69.3 adult daughters  Predict resilience  Total RSCSE α = .91  aRSCSE total score associated with a measure of resilience after accounting for control variables  39. Steffen (2000)  USA/English  N = 33; 75.8% female; 54.5% spouses; 36.4% adults children  RCT outcome  SE:MB = .84  aSE:MB scores were improved following both in-home and group-based interventions relative to control condition  40. Steffen and colleagues (2002)  USA/English  Study 1: N = 169; 100% female; 57% wives; 39% adult daughters  Measurement development  Study 1: SE:OR α = .88; SE:MB α = .84; SE:CT α = .86  aOriginal measurement development article. First sample used for scale refinement and exploratory factor analysis. Second sample used for CFA. Support for concurrent and discriminant validity examined with both data sets.  Study 2: N = 145;80% female; 46% spouse; 46% adult children  Study 2: SE:OR α = .85; SE:MB α = .82; SE:CT α = .85  41. Steffen and Gant (2015)  USA/English  N = 74; 100% female; 52% wives; 43% adult daughters  RCT outcome  Not reported  aTelehealth behavioral coaching showed greater improvement in SE:OR and SE:MB relative to comparison condition  42. Waelde, Meyer, Thompson, Thompson, and Gallagher- Thompson (2017)  USA/English  N = 31; 100% female  RCT outcome  SE:CT α = .80  SE:CT did not improve in meditation intervention group, relative to comparison condition  43. Waelde, Thompson, and Gallagher-Thompson (2004)  USA/English and Spanish  N = 12; 100% female; 50% wives; 50% adult daughters  bQuasi- experimental study outcome  Not reported  aSignificant improvement in SE:CT scores following yoga- meditation intervention  44. Wawrziczny and colleagues (2017a)  France/French  N = 125; 60% female; 100% spouses  Modeling distress  SE:OR α = .83; SE:MB α = .90; SE:CT α = .83  SE subscales did not show strong relationships with other variables and were excluded from the final model.  45. Wawrziczny and colleagues (2017b)  France/French  N = 150; 59.3% female; 100% spouses  Describe characteristics of cgs for early- and later-onset patients  Early onset: SE:OR α = .86; SE:MB α = .86; SE:CT α = .84  aSpouse cgs of early onset patients had lower average SE:CT scores compared to spouses of late onset individuals  Late onset: SE:OR α = .83; SE:MB α = .89; SE:CT α = .83  46. Williams and colleagues (2010)  USA/English  N = 116; 78% female; 40% spouses; 50% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  No improvement in SE subscale scores following video-based skills intervention relative to wait list control  Author (publication year)  Country/language  Sample  Use of measure  Alpha (α)  Findingsa  1. Au and colleagues (2009)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 134; 75% female; 58% adult children  Predict depressive symptoms  SE:OR α = .89; SE:MB α = .91; SE:CT α = .90  aRSCSE subscales partially mediated the path between social support and depression  2. Au, Lau, and colleagues (2010)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 134; 75% female; 58% adult children  Predict depressive symptoms  SE:OR α = .89; SE:MB α = .91; SE:CT α = .90  aSE:CT mediated link between perceived physical health support and depression  3. Au, Li, and colleagues (2010)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese/ Cantonese  N = 27;100% female; 34% spouses/SO; 52% adult children  RCT outcome  SE:OR α = .92; SE:MB α = .95; SE:CT α = .86  aSE:MB and SE:CT improved in treatment group compared to control group  4. Au and colleagues (2014)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese/ Cantonese  N = 60; 76.7% female; 38.3% spouses; 60% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  No differences in SE:OR or SE:CT change following intervention, relative to comparison group  5. Cheng, Lam, Kwok, Ng, and Fung (2013)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 99; 71% female; 55% adult children  Measurement refinement and validation  SE:ORα = .92; SE:MB α = .86; SE:CT α = .75  aCFA of shortened scale supported three-factor model (χ2 = 29.09, df = 23, ns; RMSEA = .05)  SE:CT moderated relationship between challenging behaviors and role overload and burden  6. Cheng, Kwok, and Lam (2014)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 395; Data originating from two studies; 86% female; 27% spouse/sibling; 73% intergenerational  To support concurrent validity of Zarit Burden Interview  SE:OR α = .95; SE:MB α = .87; SE:CT α = .77  aRSCSE subscales negatively correlated with three of the four factors for Zarit Burden Interview  7. Cheng, Fung, Chan, and Lam (2016)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 129; 81% female; 27% spouse; 71% adult children  Mediate outcome of RCT  SE:OR α = .94; SE:MB α = .88; SE:CT α = .80  a3-item version of SE:CT subscale was primary mediator of outcome for a benefit-finding intervention  8. Cheng and colleagues (2017)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 96; 87% female; 24% spouse; 76% younger generation  Mediate outcome of RCT  SE:OR α = .96; SE:MB α = .84; SE:CT α = .75  a3-item version of SE:CT subscale was mediator of outcomes for a benefit- finding intervention  9. Coon, Thompson, Steffen, Sorocco, and Gallagher- Thompson (2003)  USA/English  N = 169; 100% female; 57% spouse; 43% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  aIntervention effect for both SE:MB and SE:CT relative to waitlist control. SE:CT partially mediated intervention impact on both anger and depressed mood.  10. Crellin, Charlesworth, and Orrell (2014)  England (UK)/English  N = 245; 71% female; 62% spouse; 29% adult children  To support concurrent validity of Caregiver Efficacy Scale  Not reported  aRSCSE subscales significantly correlated with Caregiver Efficacy Scale assessing confidence in dealing with behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia  11. Crespo and Fernández-Lansac (2014)  Spain/Spanish  N = 111; 74% female; 51% adult children  Predict well-being  SE:OR α = .87; SE:MB α = .93; SE:CT α = .90  aSupport for convergent and discriminant validity, with predicted varying relationships between the three subscales and depression, anxiety, anger, burden, and self-esteem  12. Cristancho-Lacroix and colleagues (2015)  France/French  N = 49; 65% female; 59% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  No intervention effect for RSCSE subscales  13. Depp and colleagues (2005)  USA/English and Spanish  N = 238; 100% female; 42% spouses/SOs; 58% adult children  Impact of ethnicity and kinship status on self-efficacy  Caucasian: SE:OR α = .89; SE:MB α = .90; SE:CT α = .89  aLevel of acculturation did not relate strongly with self- efficacy. Hispanic/Latinos higher on two of the three self-efficacy scales than Caucasian caregivers.  Hispanic/Latino: SE:OR α = .88; SE:MB α = .88; SE:CT α = .85  14. Ducharme, Lévesque, Lachance, Kergoat, and Coulombe (2011)  Canada (Québec)/French  N = 122; 78% female; 36% spouses/SOs; 64% adult children  Descriptive study of caregiving characteristics within 9 months of Alzheimer’s diagnosis  α = .86–.90  aSelf-efficacy differences by gender (lower scores for women) and by kinship (lower scores for spouses)  15. Ducharme, Lévesque, Lachance, Kergoat, Legault, and colleagues (2011)  Canada (Québec)/French  N = 111; 79% female; 34% spouses/SOs; 52% adult children  RCT outcome  α = .86  aIntervention effect for a total RSCSE score relative to waitlist control  16. Ducharme, Lachance, Lévesque, Kergoat, and Zarit (2012)  Canada (Québec)/French  N = 97; 81% female; 36% spouses/SOs; 55% adult children  RCT outcome at 6 months  Baseline α = .89; Follow-up α = .91  aIntervention effect for a total RSCSE score relative to waitlist control, ηp2 = .04  17. Ducharme, Lachance, Kergoat, and colleagues (2015)  Canada (Québec)/French  N = 96; 79% female; 66% spouses/SOs; 25% adult children  Comparison of caregivers for early- and late- onset dementia patients  α = .74–.92  No differences as hypothesized between caregivers of early- and late-onset caregivers in the three RSCSE subscales  18. Ducharme, Lachance, Lévesque, Zarit, and Kergoat (2015)  Canada (Québec)/French  N = 89; 80% female; 49% adult children  RCT outcome  α = .90  aIntervention effect for a total RSCSE score relative to waitlist control, for participants with and without an added booster session  19. Gallagher- Thompson and colleagues (2007)  USA/Mandarin, Cantonese, and English  N = 45; 100% female; 31% spouse  RCT outcome  Reported mean α = .90  aSE moderated treatment impact. Participants low in SE improved most for in-home behavior management intervention.  20. Gant, Steffen, and Lauderdale (2007)  USA/English  N = 32; 100% male; 88% spouse  RCT outcome  Not reported  Improvement pre to post for both conditions. No differential improvement for more intensive intervention.  21. George and Steffen (2014)  USA/English  N = 52; 100% female; 57% spouses/SO; 38% adult children  Longitudinal model predicting physical and mental health  Not reported  aSE:CT predicted better SF-12 physical health indices and lower psychoactive medication usage at 18 months postintervention  22. Gilliam and Steffen (2006)  USA/English  N = 74; 100% female; 52% spouses/SO; 43% adult children  Predict depressive symptoms  SE:MB α = .88  aSE-MB negatively correlated with depressive symptoms, after controlling for number of behavior problems and level of cognitive impairment  23. Gonyea, López, and Velásquez (2016)  USA/Spanish  N = 67; 95% female; 25% spouse; 57% adult children  RCT outcome  Total score α = .86  aCBT intervention effect for a total RSCSE score relative to psychoeducational control  24. Grano, Lucidi, and Violani (2017)  Italy/Italian  N = 108;57% female; 50% spouse; 47% adult children  Predict depressive symptoms using SEM with longitudinal data  SE:OR α = .86; SE:MB α = .92; SE:CT α = .86  aSE:CT partially mediated link between perceived physical health support and depression  25. Holland, Thompson, Tzuang, and Gallagher- Thompson (2010)  USA/Mandarin, Cantonese, and English  N = 47; 100% female; 39% spouses/SO; 61% adult children  Predict diurnal cortisol patterns  Total RSCSE α = .90  aBelief in Asian values associated with more normal cortisol patterns and with higher RSCSE scores  26. Liu and Huang (2016)  Taiwan/Chinese/Mandarin  N = 115; 66% female; 26% spouse; 71% adult children  Predict burden and self-esteem  SE:OR α = .94; SE:MB α = .96; SE:CT α = .96  aSE:OR partially mediated link between family functioning and burden. Other paths were nonsignificant.  27. Lopez, Romero- Moreno, Marquez- González, and Losada (2012)  Spain/Spanish  N = 122; 80% female;36% spouses; 57% adult children  Interaction with spirituality to predict well-being  Cited Peñacoba, Losada, López, and Márquez-González (2008) CFA which supports three-factor model, loadings ranged from .45–.94, α = .84.  aSpirituality and self- efficacy had additive effect on well-being. High self-efficacy and high spirituality group had lower levels of depression.  28. Márquez-González, Losada, López, and Peñacoba (2009)  Spain/Spanish  N = 180; 78% female; 57% adult children  Validation study of Spanish translation  SE:OR α = .86; SE:MB α = .79; SE:CT α = .82  aSupport for reliability and convergent/discriminant validity of Spanish translation  29. Marziali and colleagues (2010)  Canada/English  N = 232; 75% female; 56% spouses; 36% adult children  Evaluate assessment battery  α = .70–.90  aSupport for inclusion of scale within standardized assessment battery. SE significantly predicted self-reported physical and mental health, and plan for institutionalization.  30. Montoro-Rodriguez and Gallagher-Thompson (2009)  USA/Spanish and English  N = 185; 100% female; 39% spouse/SO  Evaluate socio- cultural model of stress and caregiver burden  α = .81–85  aSE:CT inversely related to burden scores. Ethnicity had direct and indirect influence on burden via SE:CT.  31. Nogales-González, Romero- Moreno, Losada, Márquez- González, and Zarit (2015)  Spain/Spanish  N = 231; 79% female; 58% adult children  Predict well-being  SE:MB α = .80  aSE:MB partially moderated the relationship between patient behavior problems and caregiver reactions. High SE caregivers were less upset by increasing number of disruptive and depressive behaviors.  32. Peñacoba and colleagues (2008)  Spain/Spanish  N = 202; 78% female; 36% spouses; 57% adult children  Measurement study  Not reported  aCFA supported three-factor model (χ2 = 120.86, df = 87; GFI = 0.93; IFI = 0.97; CFI = 0.97; RMSEA = .04). Factor loadings ranged 0.45–0.94.  33. Rabinowitz, Mausbach, Thompson, and Gallagher- Thompson (2007)  USA/English and Spanish  N = 256; 100% female; 38% spouses/SOs; 52% adult children  Predict cumulative health risk  SE:OR α = .84; SE:MB α = .89; SE:CT α = .89  aSE:OR and SE:CT associated with fewer caregiver health risk behaviors; SE:CT associated with improved dietary practices  34. Rabinowitz, Mausbach, and Gallagher-Thompson (2009)  USA/English and Spanish  N = 256; 100% female; 61% spouses/SOs  Test model of caregiver depression  SE:OR α = .89; SE:MB α = .89; SE:CT α = .88  aSE:MB and SE:CT had direct inverse relationship with depressive symptoms. SE:MB moderated relationship between patient behavior problems and caregiver depression.  35. Rabinowitz, Saenz, Thompson, and Gallagher- Thompson (2011)  USA/English and Spanish  N = 256; 100% female; 61% spouses/SOs  Test model predicting health risk  SE:OR α = .89; SE:MB α = .89; SE:CT α = .88  aDepressive symptoms mediated the relationship between self- efficacy (SE:OR, SE:CT) and cumulative health risk  36. Romero-Moreno and colleagues (2011)  Spain/Spanish  N = 167; 77.20% female; 34.30% spouses; 60.20% adult children  Test SE as moderator of the relationship between stressors and distress  SE:MB α = .80; SE:CT α = .82  aSE:MB did not moderate the relationship between patient behavior problems and burden; SE:CT moderated the relationship between burden and distress (depression and anxiety). Support for construct validity of scale, showing inverse relationships between SE:MB and burden; and between SE:CT and depression/anxiety  37. Romero-Moreno, Márquez-González, Mausbach, and Losada (2012)  Spain/Spanish  N = 130; 83.08 female; 34.62% spouses; 61.53% adult children; (n = 116 at 3 month f/u; n = 82 at 12 month f/u)  Conceptual model testing; predict depression longitudinally  SE:CT α = .78 (sole domain used in study)  aLongitudinal analyses demonstrate that increases in SE:CT predicted decreases in depression over time  38. Séoud and Ducharme (2015)  Lebanon/Arabic  N = 140; 100% female; 18.6% wives; 69.3 adult daughters  Predict resilience  Total RSCSE α = .91  aRSCSE total score associated with a measure of resilience after accounting for control variables  39. Steffen (2000)  USA/English  N = 33; 75.8% female; 54.5% spouses; 36.4% adults children  RCT outcome  SE:MB = .84  aSE:MB scores were improved following both in-home and group-based interventions relative to control condition  40. Steffen and colleagues (2002)  USA/English  Study 1: N = 169; 100% female; 57% wives; 39% adult daughters  Measurement development  Study 1: SE:OR α = .88; SE:MB α = .84; SE:CT α = .86  aOriginal measurement development article. First sample used for scale refinement and exploratory factor analysis. Second sample used for CFA. Support for concurrent and discriminant validity examined with both data sets.  Study 2: N = 145;80% female; 46% spouse; 46% adult children  Study 2: SE:OR α = .85; SE:MB α = .82; SE:CT α = .85  41. Steffen and Gant (2015)  USA/English  N = 74; 100% female; 52% wives; 43% adult daughters  RCT outcome  Not reported  aTelehealth behavioral coaching showed greater improvement in SE:OR and SE:MB relative to comparison condition  42. Waelde, Meyer, Thompson, Thompson, and Gallagher- Thompson (2017)  USA/English  N = 31; 100% female  RCT outcome  SE:CT α = .80  SE:CT did not improve in meditation intervention group, relative to comparison condition  43. Waelde, Thompson, and Gallagher-Thompson (2004)  USA/English and Spanish  N = 12; 100% female; 50% wives; 50% adult daughters  bQuasi- experimental study outcome  Not reported  aSignificant improvement in SE:CT scores following yoga- meditation intervention  44. Wawrziczny and colleagues (2017a)  France/French  N = 125; 60% female; 100% spouses  Modeling distress  SE:OR α = .83; SE:MB α = .90; SE:CT α = .83  SE subscales did not show strong relationships with other variables and were excluded from the final model.  45. Wawrziczny and colleagues (2017b)  France/French  N = 150; 59.3% female; 100% spouses  Describe characteristics of cgs for early- and later-onset patients  Early onset: SE:OR α = .86; SE:MB α = .86; SE:CT α = .84  aSpouse cgs of early onset patients had lower average SE:CT scores compared to spouses of late onset individuals  Late onset: SE:OR α = .83; SE:MB α = .89; SE:CT α = .83  46. Williams and colleagues (2010)  USA/English  N = 116; 78% female; 40% spouses; 50% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  No improvement in SE subscale scores following video-based skills intervention relative to wait list control  aIndicates findings support hypothesized function of RSCSE in study. bPre–post design without a comparison group. View Large Table 2. Predictive Studies and RCTs Using Self-Report Format of Revised Scale for Caregiving Self-Efficacy (n = 12)a Author (publication year)  Country/language  Sample  Use of measure  Alpha (α)  Findingsa  47. Easom, Alston, and Coleman (2013)  USA/English  N = 85; 78% female; 49% adult children  bQuasi-experimental study outcome  Not reported  No intervention effect for a total RSCSE score. Improved SE for worry about future (one item from SE:CT).  48. Farran and colleagues (2011)  USA/English  N = 82; 77% female; 55% spouse, 35% adult children  Support validity of Caregiver Assessment of Behavioral Skill- Self-Report (CAB-SR)  Not reported  aSE:CT subscale correlated with four of the seven CAB-SR subscales  49. Glueckauf, Ketterson, Loomis, and Dages (2004)  USA/English  N = 21; 86% female; 62% spouses/SO; 38% adult children  bPilot quasi-experimental study outcome  Not reported  aSignificant pre–post intervention improvement in all three subscales  50. Glueckauf and colleagues (2007)  USA/English  N = 14; 71% female; 29% spouses/SO; 57% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  aSignificant pre–post intervention improvement in SE:OR and SE:MB for treatment compared to control  51. Hou and colleagues (2014)  China (Hong Kong)/ Cantonese  N = 141; 83% female; 40% spouses/SO; 45% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  aMindfulness-based stress reduction intervention showed greater improvement in SE:CT relative to control  52. Kwok and colleagues (2013)  China (Hong Kong)/ Cantonese  N = 38; 74% female; 10% spouses/SO; 87% adult children  RCT outcome  SE:OR α = .90; SE:MB α = .93; SE:CT α = .92  aPsychoeducation administered by telephone showed greater improvement in SE:OR relative to control. SE:MB showed nonsignificant trend for intervention impact.  53. Kwok and colleagues (2014)  China (Hong Kong)/ Cantonese  N = 36; 72% female; 16% spouses/SO; 78% adult children  bQuasi-experimental study outcome  SE:MB α = .95; SE:CT α = .91  aDementia severity moderated impact of online CBT intervention on SE:CT  54. Lorig and colleagues (2012)  USA/English  N = 60; 82% female; 62% spouses/SO; 68% caring for dementia patients  bQuasi-experimental study outcome  Not reported  aSignificant improvement in total SE score following online intervention  55. MacDougall and Steffen (2017)  USA/English  N = 158; 100% female; 17% spouse; 60% adult children  Predict emotional eating  SE:CT α = .90  aSE:CT predicted lower rates of emotional eating after controlling for other predictors  56. Marziali and Garcia (2011)  Canada/English and French  N = 91; 72% female; 74% spouses/SO; 26% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  aSignificant improvement in total SE score following two online interventions. Change in SE scores for video group predicted change in distress.  57. Sadak and colleagues (2015)  USA/English  N = 130; 80% female; 63% spouse/SO; 25% adult children  Support concurrent validity of PBH-LCI:D scale  α = .90  Correlation between RSCSE and PBH-LCI:D nonsignificant  58. Wang, Yip, and Chang (2016)  Taiwan/Chinese  N = 72; 78% female; 21% spouse/SO; 79% adult children  Test SE as a mediator of the relationship between stressors and depression.  Not reported  aSE:CT partially mediated relationship between stressors and depression.  Author (publication year)  Country/language  Sample  Use of measure  Alpha (α)  Findingsa  47. Easom, Alston, and Coleman (2013)  USA/English  N = 85; 78% female; 49% adult children  bQuasi-experimental study outcome  Not reported  No intervention effect for a total RSCSE score. Improved SE for worry about future (one item from SE:CT).  48. Farran and colleagues (2011)  USA/English  N = 82; 77% female; 55% spouse, 35% adult children  Support validity of Caregiver Assessment of Behavioral Skill- Self-Report (CAB-SR)  Not reported  aSE:CT subscale correlated with four of the seven CAB-SR subscales  49. Glueckauf, Ketterson, Loomis, and Dages (2004)  USA/English  N = 21; 86% female; 62% spouses/SO; 38% adult children  bPilot quasi-experimental study outcome  Not reported  aSignificant pre–post intervention improvement in all three subscales  50. Glueckauf and colleagues (2007)  USA/English  N = 14; 71% female; 29% spouses/SO; 57% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  aSignificant pre–post intervention improvement in SE:OR and SE:MB for treatment compared to control  51. Hou and colleagues (2014)  China (Hong Kong)/ Cantonese  N = 141; 83% female; 40% spouses/SO; 45% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  aMindfulness-based stress reduction intervention showed greater improvement in SE:CT relative to control  52. Kwok and colleagues (2013)  China (Hong Kong)/ Cantonese  N = 38; 74% female; 10% spouses/SO; 87% adult children  RCT outcome  SE:OR α = .90; SE:MB α = .93; SE:CT α = .92  aPsychoeducation administered by telephone showed greater improvement in SE:OR relative to control. SE:MB showed nonsignificant trend for intervention impact.  53. Kwok and colleagues (2014)  China (Hong Kong)/ Cantonese  N = 36; 72% female; 16% spouses/SO; 78% adult children  bQuasi-experimental study outcome  SE:MB α = .95; SE:CT α = .91  aDementia severity moderated impact of online CBT intervention on SE:CT  54. Lorig and colleagues (2012)  USA/English  N = 60; 82% female; 62% spouses/SO; 68% caring for dementia patients  bQuasi-experimental study outcome  Not reported  aSignificant improvement in total SE score following online intervention  55. MacDougall and Steffen (2017)  USA/English  N = 158; 100% female; 17% spouse; 60% adult children  Predict emotional eating  SE:CT α = .90  aSE:CT predicted lower rates of emotional eating after controlling for other predictors  56. Marziali and Garcia (2011)  Canada/English and French  N = 91; 72% female; 74% spouses/SO; 26% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  aSignificant improvement in total SE score following two online interventions. Change in SE scores for video group predicted change in distress.  57. Sadak and colleagues (2015)  USA/English  N = 130; 80% female; 63% spouse/SO; 25% adult children  Support concurrent validity of PBH-LCI:D scale  α = .90  Correlation between RSCSE and PBH-LCI:D nonsignificant  58. Wang, Yip, and Chang (2016)  Taiwan/Chinese  N = 72; 78% female; 21% spouse/SO; 79% adult children  Test SE as a mediator of the relationship between stressors and depression.  Not reported  aSE:CT partially mediated relationship between stressors and depression.  aIndicates findings support hypothesized function of RSCSE in study. bPre–post design without a comparison group. View Large Table 2. Predictive Studies and RCTs Using Self-Report Format of Revised Scale for Caregiving Self-Efficacy (n = 12)a Author (publication year)  Country/language  Sample  Use of measure  Alpha (α)  Findingsa  47. Easom, Alston, and Coleman (2013)  USA/English  N = 85; 78% female; 49% adult children  bQuasi-experimental study outcome  Not reported  No intervention effect for a total RSCSE score. Improved SE for worry about future (one item from SE:CT).  48. Farran and colleagues (2011)  USA/English  N = 82; 77% female; 55% spouse, 35% adult children  Support validity of Caregiver Assessment of Behavioral Skill- Self-Report (CAB-SR)  Not reported  aSE:CT subscale correlated with four of the seven CAB-SR subscales  49. Glueckauf, Ketterson, Loomis, and Dages (2004)  USA/English  N = 21; 86% female; 62% spouses/SO; 38% adult children  bPilot quasi-experimental study outcome  Not reported  aSignificant pre–post intervention improvement in all three subscales  50. Glueckauf and colleagues (2007)  USA/English  N = 14; 71% female; 29% spouses/SO; 57% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  aSignificant pre–post intervention improvement in SE:OR and SE:MB for treatment compared to control  51. Hou and colleagues (2014)  China (Hong Kong)/ Cantonese  N = 141; 83% female; 40% spouses/SO; 45% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  aMindfulness-based stress reduction intervention showed greater improvement in SE:CT relative to control  52. Kwok and colleagues (2013)  China (Hong Kong)/ Cantonese  N = 38; 74% female; 10% spouses/SO; 87% adult children  RCT outcome  SE:OR α = .90; SE:MB α = .93; SE:CT α = .92  aPsychoeducation administered by telephone showed greater improvement in SE:OR relative to control. SE:MB showed nonsignificant trend for intervention impact.  53. Kwok and colleagues (2014)  China (Hong Kong)/ Cantonese  N = 36; 72% female; 16% spouses/SO; 78% adult children  bQuasi-experimental study outcome  SE:MB α = .95; SE:CT α = .91  aDementia severity moderated impact of online CBT intervention on SE:CT  54. Lorig and colleagues (2012)  USA/English  N = 60; 82% female; 62% spouses/SO; 68% caring for dementia patients  bQuasi-experimental study outcome  Not reported  aSignificant improvement in total SE score following online intervention  55. MacDougall and Steffen (2017)  USA/English  N = 158; 100% female; 17% spouse; 60% adult children  Predict emotional eating  SE:CT α = .90  aSE:CT predicted lower rates of emotional eating after controlling for other predictors  56. Marziali and Garcia (2011)  Canada/English and French  N = 91; 72% female; 74% spouses/SO; 26% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  aSignificant improvement in total SE score following two online interventions. Change in SE scores for video group predicted change in distress.  57. Sadak and colleagues (2015)  USA/English  N = 130; 80% female; 63% spouse/SO; 25% adult children  Support concurrent validity of PBH-LCI:D scale  α = .90  Correlation between RSCSE and PBH-LCI:D nonsignificant  58. Wang, Yip, and Chang (2016)  Taiwan/Chinese  N = 72; 78% female; 21% spouse/SO; 79% adult children  Test SE as a mediator of the relationship between stressors and depression.  Not reported  aSE:CT partially mediated relationship between stressors and depression.  Author (publication year)  Country/language  Sample  Use of measure  Alpha (α)  Findingsa  47. Easom, Alston, and Coleman (2013)  USA/English  N = 85; 78% female; 49% adult children  bQuasi-experimental study outcome  Not reported  No intervention effect for a total RSCSE score. Improved SE for worry about future (one item from SE:CT).  48. Farran and colleagues (2011)  USA/English  N = 82; 77% female; 55% spouse, 35% adult children  Support validity of Caregiver Assessment of Behavioral Skill- Self-Report (CAB-SR)  Not reported  aSE:CT subscale correlated with four of the seven CAB-SR subscales  49. Glueckauf, Ketterson, Loomis, and Dages (2004)  USA/English  N = 21; 86% female; 62% spouses/SO; 38% adult children  bPilot quasi-experimental study outcome  Not reported  aSignificant pre–post intervention improvement in all three subscales  50. Glueckauf and colleagues (2007)  USA/English  N = 14; 71% female; 29% spouses/SO; 57% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  aSignificant pre–post intervention improvement in SE:OR and SE:MB for treatment compared to control  51. Hou and colleagues (2014)  China (Hong Kong)/ Cantonese  N = 141; 83% female; 40% spouses/SO; 45% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  aMindfulness-based stress reduction intervention showed greater improvement in SE:CT relative to control  52. Kwok and colleagues (2013)  China (Hong Kong)/ Cantonese  N = 38; 74% female; 10% spouses/SO; 87% adult children  RCT outcome  SE:OR α = .90; SE:MB α = .93; SE:CT α = .92  aPsychoeducation administered by telephone showed greater improvement in SE:OR relative to control. SE:MB showed nonsignificant trend for intervention impact.  53. Kwok and colleagues (2014)  China (Hong Kong)/ Cantonese  N = 36; 72% female; 16% spouses/SO; 78% adult children  bQuasi-experimental study outcome  SE:MB α = .95; SE:CT α = .91  aDementia severity moderated impact of online CBT intervention on SE:CT  54. Lorig and colleagues (2012)  USA/English  N = 60; 82% female; 62% spouses/SO; 68% caring for dementia patients  bQuasi-experimental study outcome  Not reported  aSignificant improvement in total SE score following online intervention  55. MacDougall and Steffen (2017)  USA/English  N = 158; 100% female; 17% spouse; 60% adult children  Predict emotional eating  SE:CT α = .90  aSE:CT predicted lower rates of emotional eating after controlling for other predictors  56. Marziali and Garcia (2011)  Canada/English and French  N = 91; 72% female; 74% spouses/SO; 26% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  aSignificant improvement in total SE score following two online interventions. Change in SE scores for video group predicted change in distress.  57. Sadak and colleagues (2015)  USA/English  N = 130; 80% female; 63% spouse/SO; 25% adult children  Support concurrent validity of PBH-LCI:D scale  α = .90  Correlation between RSCSE and PBH-LCI:D nonsignificant  58. Wang, Yip, and Chang (2016)  Taiwan/Chinese  N = 72; 78% female; 21% spouse/SO; 79% adult children  Test SE as a mediator of the relationship between stressors and depression.  Not reported  aSE:CT partially mediated relationship between stressors and depression.  aIndicates findings support hypothesized function of RSCSE in study. bPre–post design without a comparison group. View Large Information about the scale’s performance has been organized with attention to translation procedures, psychometric properties, factor structure, validity, and utility within a cross-cultural perspective. Our review of these selected works has been organized by the function served by the RSCSE within the published research: (a) evaluating the scale’s psychometrics and factor structure, (b) conceptual model testing (predictors of RSCSE scores, or RSCSE scores as predictors of physical and mental health indices), and (c) as outcomes within interventions (i.e., providing support for the scale’s construct validity and sensitivity to change). Within these specific functions, works are identified in subscript by the number corresponding with their position in the review tables, and provided in brackets following the relevant citation. We pay particular attention to translation procedures and support for validity of non-English translations of the scale. Translation Strategies The World Health Organization (WHO, 2017) recommends a process of translating instruments for research purposes to achieve different language versions that are conceptually equivalent—rather than linguistically or literally equivalent. WHO guidelines include the following steps: (a) forward translation by a native speaker of the target language; (b) bilingual expert panel back translation; (c) pretesting; and (d) final version. In a methods review of the instrument translation process by Maneesriwongul and Dixon (2004), strengths and weaknesses of these various steps have been explored. From that review, the instruments below meet the criteria for proper translation procedures to produce conceptually equivalent versions of the RSCSE. Of the 58 studies identified in this review as using the RSCSE, almost three-fourths (n = 42; 72%) have used non-English translations. Arabic (n = 1) There is one published study reporting use of an Arabic translation of the RSCSE (Séoud & Ducharme, 2015)[38], conducted in Lebanon. The authors report following the translation processes recommended by Haccoun (1987), including parallel back-translation. Chinese (n = 15) For participants preferring Chinese language materials in studies conducted in the USA, Gallagher-Thompson and colleagues (Gallagher-Thompson et al., 2007,[19]; Holland et al., 2010,[25]) followed the WHO guidelines (WHO, 2017). WHO steps 1 and 2 were followed by pilot testing in the target groups to ensure that the meaning of the questions and the response options were accurately preserved. Au and colleagues (Au et al., 2009,[1]; Au, Lau, et al., 2010,[2]; Au, Li, et al., 2010,[3]) piloted the above Chinese translation with dementia caregivers in Hong Kong, and reported that no changes were deemed necessary. Cheng and colleagues (2013, 2014, 2016, 2017)[5–8] performed their Chinese translation, back-translation, and piloting of the English-language scale independently of Gallagher-Thompson’s and Au’s research groups. These authors also reported not encountering any problems with the translation and that the items have been relevant for Hong Kong Chinese caregivers. Studies using Chinese translations of the scale have been conducted in China ((Au et al., 2009,[1]; Au, Lau, et al., 2010,[2]; Au, Li, et al., 2010,[3]; Au et al., 2014,[4]; Cheng et al., 2013,[5], 2014,[6], 2016,[7], 2017,[8]; Hou et al., 2014,[51]; Kwok et al., 2013,[52], 2014,[53]; Liu & Huang, 2016,[26]; Wang et al., 2016,[58]) and the USA (Gallagher-Thompson et al., 2007,[19]; Holland et al., 2010[25]). French (n = 9) Cristancho-Lacroix and colleagues (2015,[12]) reported using the French Canadian translation of the RSCSE (Marziali & Garcia, 2011)[56] with Parisian caregivers using face-to-face interviews. To adapt verbal expressions from French Canadian to Metropolitan French, several words were replaced. The authors reported that a few of the SE:CT items were considered “not applicable” by some participants, possibly due to cultural and religious issues. For instance, some French participants originating from Asiatic and Maghreb countries rejected SE:CT items that referred to thinking about caregiving situations as unpleasant or unfair. A few SE:MB items were considered too similar by some participants and interviewers had to explain to clarify them. Ducharme, Lévesque, Lachance, Kergoat, and Coulombe (2011),[14] reported using a parallel-back translation procedure described by Haccoun (1987) for their French Canadian translation of the RSCSE, which was then used for subsequent projects. Studies using French translations of the scale were conducted in Canada (Ducharme, Lévesque, Lachance, Kergoat, & Coulombe, 2011,[14]; Ducharme, Lévesque, Lachance, Kergoat, Legault, et al., 2011,[15]; Ducharme et al., 2012,[16]; Ducharme, Lachance, Kergoat, et al., 2015,[17]; Ducharme, Lachance, Lévesque, et al., 2015,[18]; Marziali & Garcia, 2011,[56]) and France (Cristancho-Lacroix et al., 2015,[12]; Wawrziczny et al., 2017a,[44], 2017b[45]). Italian (n = 1) There is one published study reporting use of an Italian translation of the RSCSE (Grano et al., 2017)[24]; translation details were provided in an article published in an Italian-language journal. Spanish (n = 16) The first known Spanish translation was developed by Gallagher-Thompson and colleagues for participants in the United States using WHO (2017) guidelines (Depp et al., 2005,[13]; Montoro-Rodriguez & Gallagher-Thompson, 2009,[30]; Rabinowitz et al., 2007,[33], 2009,[34], 2011,[35]; Waelde et al., 2004,[43]). Márquez-González and colleagues (2009),[28] described a Spanish version of the RSCSE for studies in Spain, following recommendations for adapting tests (Hambleton & Patsula, 1998) similar to WHO guidelines. The researchers did not report difficulties applying the scale to Spanish populations, as the concept of SE exists in the Spanish culture with the same meaning it has in Anglo-Saxon language and culture. Thus, construct equivalence was assumed; four translators highly proficient in both English and Spanish languages and familiar with both cultures translated and back-translated the instrument. In a separate process, Crespo and Fernández-Lansac (2014) developed another Spanish translation of the scale. Two researchers from their group translated the RSCSE without substantive changes from the published English language version, including the instructions, items content, and order or response choices. This version was later revised and edited by two other members of the research group. The final draft was finally reviewed and piloted by Spanish-speaking people with no knowledge of the English version to ascertain that the meaning in Spanish was close enough to the original version in its entirety. Studies using Spanish translations of the scale have been conducted in Spain (Crespo & Fernández-Lansac, 2014,[11]; Lopez et al., 2012,[27]; Márquez-González et al., 2009,[28]; Nogales-González et al., 2015,[31]; Peñacoba et al., 2008,[32]; Romero-Moreno et al., 2011,[36], 2012,[37]) and the United States (Depp et al., 2005,[13]; Gallagher-Thompson et al., 2007,[19]; Gonyea et al., 2016,[23]; Holland et al., 2010,[25]; Montoro-Rodriguez & Gallagher-Thompson, 2009,[30]; Rabinowitz et al., 2007,[33], 2009,[34], 2011,[35]; Waelde et al., 2017[42]). RSCSE Psychometrics and Factor Structure As shown in Table 1, internal reliabilities for interview administrations of the RSCSE have been strong: SE:OR α = .84–.95; SE:MB α = .79–.95; SE:CT α = .75–.92. The original scale developers presented the RSCSE as multidimensional and recommended against averaging scores across all three domains; some investigators have nonetheless treated the scale as unidimensional (full-scale α = .70–.92). Although not as frequently reported, reliability indices for RSCSE collected via self-report have been similar; these are reported in Table 2 (SE:OR α = .90; SE:MB α = .93–.95; SE:CT α = .91–.92; full-scale: α = .90). Two confirmatory factor analytic studies support the three-factor structure identified in the original development article. Using a sample of caregivers from Hong Kong and a Chinese translation of the scale, Cheng and colleagues (2013),[5] performed a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), analyzing the covariance matrix of the items using maximum likelihood estimation for CFA. The three-factor model fit the data very well, resulting in a nonsignificant chi square after letting the residuals of two items load freely. The fit of the original three-factor model for one of the Spanish translations was assessed by Peñacoba and colleagues (2008)[32] through CFA. A good fit of the data to the original three-factor structure of the scale was obtained by allowing a covariance between the errors from items 4 and 5 (both items from the SE:OR subscale). For the remainder of this review, relevant works are listed and then described within Tables 1 and 2. More complete descriptions of the studies and key findings are provided in the Supplementary Appendix A. Predictors of Self-Efficacy Several studies conducted in the United States and Canada have examined demographic (i.e., ethnicity, kinship, gender) and caregiving-context predictors of self-efficacy among English, French, and Spanish-speaking caregivers (Depp et al., 2005,[13]; Ducharme, Lévesque, Lachance, Kergoat, & Coulombe, 2011,[14]; Ducharme, Lachance, Kergoat, et al., 2015,[17]; Montoro-Rodriguez & Gallagher-Thompson, 2009,[30]; Wawrziczny et al., 2017b[45]). Ethnicity (i.e., being Hispanic/Latino), kinship (e.g., being a daughter/daughter-in-law), gender (e.g., male), and onset (e.g., late onset) have been found to be directly related to caregivers’ level of self-efficacy. Caregiving Self-Efficacy as a Predictor of Physical Health Several studies have utilized the RSCSE to predict variables related to physical health, including research conducted in Hong Kong (Au, Lau, et al., 2010,[2]) and in the United States (George & Steffen, 2014,[21]; Holland et al., 2010,[25]; MacDougall & Steffen, 2017,[55]; Rabinowitz et al., 2007,[33], 2011)[35]. Across these, data suggest complex bi-directional relationships between self-efficacy, depression, and health risk. Specifically, SE:CT has been found to be positively associated with better health behaviors, health-related quality of life, emotional eating, along with less utilization of psychotropic medications. Caregiving Self-Efficacy as a Predictor of Mental Health The RSCSE has been used as a predictor of mental health outcomes in caregivers. Although the majority of the studies focused on depressed mood/depressive symptoms, some examined perceived burden, anger, and positive indices such as resilience. Direct effects between self-efficacy and mental health outcomes have been found in research conducted in Canada, Italy, Lebanon, Spain, Taiwan, and the United States (Crespo & Fernández-Lansac, 2014,[11]; Gilliam & Steffen, 2006,[22]; Liu & Huang, 2016,[26]; Lopez et al., 2012,[27]; Marziali et al., 2010,[29]; Romero-Moreno et al., 2012,[37]; Séoud & Ducharme, 2015,[38]). Mediational relationships have been found in China (Au et al.,2009,[1]; Wang et al., 2016,[58]), Taiwan (Liu & Huang, 2016)[26], and Italy (Grano et al. 2017)[24]. Wawrziczny and colleagues (2017a),[44] did not find that the subscales contributed to the final model of spousal distress (i.e., depression, health problems, disrupted schedule, and psychological distress) in French spousal caregivers. Moderating effects of specific RSCSE subscales have received support in the literature, in Hong Kong by Cheng and colleagues (2013,[5]), in Spain (Márquez-González et al., 2009,[28]; Nogales-González et al., 2015,[31]; Romero-Moreno et al., 2011,[36]) and in the United States (Rabinowitz et al., 2009[34]). In general terms, results from different studies show that SE:MB and SE:CT moderate the impact of stressors on distress (i.e., burden, depressive, and anxiety symptoms), buffering the effects of stressors. Intervention Research In our review of interventions reporting use of the RSCSE, nine randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and five quasi-experimental studies designated the RSCSE as a primary outcome measure, with an additional five RCTs reporting results for the RSCSE as a secondary measure of outcome or as a mediator or moderator of outcome. No publications used a cut-off score to determine eligibility for inclusion, and there was support for RSCSE being sensitive to change with statistically significant findings in most reports (Au, Li, et al., 2010,[3]; Cheng et al., 2016,[7], 2017; Coon et al., 2003,[9]; Ducharme, Lévesque, Lachance, Kergoat, Legault, et al., 2011,[15]; Ducharme et al., 2012,[16]; Ducharme, Lachance, Lévesque, et al., 2015,[18]; Gallagher-Thompson et al., 2007,[19]; Gant et al., 2007,[20]; Glueckauf et al., 2004,[49], 2007,[50]; Gonyea et al., 2016,[23]; Hou et al., 2014,[51]; Kwok et al., 2013,[52], 2014,[53]; Lorig et al., 2012,[54]; Marziali & Garcia, 2011,[56]; Steffen, 2000,[39]; Steffen & Gant, 2015[41]). Five studies reported nonsignificant findings for the RSCSE (Au et al., 2014,[4]; Cristancho-Lacroix et al., 2015,[12]; Easom et al., 2013,[47]; Waelde et al., 2017,[42]; Williams et al., 2010[46]). Pretreatment subscale means varied across the publications (ranges SE:OR 47.0–70.7; SE:MB 55.5–72.9; SE:CT 54.2–70.0; Total score 53.0–71.8), as did post-treatment means (ranges SE:OR 54.7–74.4; SE:MB 59.8–81.1; SE:CT 59.7–81.0; Total score 62.0–78.3). Several quasi-experimental studies, utilizing single group pre–post designs, have included the RSCSE as a measure of intervention impact. Of these five studies, four reported intervention effects on RSCSE scores (Glueckauf et al., 2004,[49]; Kwok et al., 2014,[53]; Lorig et al., 2012,[54]; Waelde et al., 2004,[43]) while one examined effects on a RSCSE total score and did not (Easom et al., 2013)[47]. Due to the lack of control or comparison groups, the results of those studies should be interpreted with caution. We present them as pilot studies worth some consideration due to the novel components of either the sample or approach to intervention delivery. In summary, our review of the 21 published intervention studies utilizing the RSCSE as a primary or secondary outcome variable concludes that 17 (81%) reported that significant changes were observed in the RSCSE subscales or total score, suggesting that the scale can be used as a measure of outcome or as a mediator or moderator of treatment effects. Discussion The construct of SE appears to be relevant and readily measurable in diverse cultures. Considering our first aim of identifying published studies using the RSCSE, a number of empirical studies (58) have been found that have used the scale, with translations in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Italian, and Spanish. In response to our second aim, all of the reviewed studies support the internal reliability of the subscales (Cronbach’s alpha ranging from .79 to .95). Although the majority of studies followed Steffen and colleagues’ (2002) recommendations for collecting data via interview, a sufficient number of studies have reported strong reliabilities and outcomes to justify self-report administration as well. In terms of the factor structure of the RSCSE, cross-national researchers were able to include the same items in the three subscales, which translated fairly well across multiple languages and cultures. In addition, the three-factor structure addressing respite, disruptive behaviors and upsetting thoughts has been confirmed for Chinese (Cheng et al., 2013)[4] and Spanish (Peñacoba et al., 2008)[30] caregivers. From the reviewed studies conducted in individualistic (e.g., the United States) and more collectivistic (e.g., China) cultures, these findings provide preliminary support for the cross-national utility of the scale. Despite the above, the Depp and colleagues (2005)[13] study conducted in the United States suggests possible differences by ethnicity in SE mean scores. Specifically, when compared to Caucasian participants, Hispanic/Latina caregivers reported higher self-efficacy on two of the three subscales (SE:MB, SE:CT). Future studies should examine measurement invariance before using the RSCSE for comparisons across cultural or ethnic groups. The impact of culture in the caregiving process has been recognized by models such as the socio-cultural stress and coping model (Aranda & Knight, 1997; Losada et al., 2010). Constructs such as coping and familism (i.e., placing priority of family needs over individual ones) vary in presentation or play a different role in the stress and coping process depending on the cultural or ethnic background of caregivers. Differences in predictors or effects of SE in different cultural groups are plausible. Several components of SE may play a greater role or may be more relevant as treatment targets in one culture compared with others (e.g., asking a friend/relative to stay with the care–recipient for a day when the caregiver needs a break may be more difficult for those from a collectivist cultural background than for someone from an individualistic cultural background). Being aware of these differences could result in greater cultural sensitivity when designing and delivering interventions. In addition to analyzing the functioning of the RSCSE scale in different cultures, another needed area of further research has to do with examining differences in RSCSE scores by gender. Only the study by Ducharme, Lévesque, Lachance, Kergoat, and Coulombe (2011) analyzed gender differences in the RSCSE, finding lower SE ratings for women than for men. This was echoed by Gant and colleagues’ (2007) study[20], whose sample of male-only caregivers reported relatively high SE scores at baseline. Self-efficacy is domain specific, such that SE in one domain does not suggest SE in other domains. Therefore, gender differences in SE are likely different depending on the specific domain assessed. Investigators who include male caregivers are encouraged to report data separated by gender. Moreover, there is a need to address the cultural basis of such gender differences as they are likely influenced by gender stereotyping and modeling opportunities for caregiving behaviors. Steffen and colleagues (2002) recommended against averaging all items together as a total score. A number of studies confirm this point; the three subscales show differential associations with physical and mental health indices and respond differentially to select interventions. Although some have successfully used a total RSCSE score to demonstrate treatment effects (Ducharme, Lévesque, Lachance, Kergoat, Legault, et al., 2011,[15], Ducharme, Lachance, Lévesque, et al., 2015,[18]; Gonyea et al., 2016,[23]; Lorig et al., 2012,[54]; Marziali & Garcia, 2011,[56]), one study using a total score resulted in null findings (Easom et al., 2013[47]). To limit the number of variables, we suggest targeting a specific RSCSE subscale a priori for analysis. There are some valid concerns regarding score distribution and ceiling effects, as relatively high pretreatment means for the SE:MB and the SE:CT subscales have been reported by some of the studies in this review. To improve sensitivity to change, we encourage investigators to add higher challenge items and continue measurement development work. An important limitation of this measure is related to its development within the context of mid-stage Alzheimer disease. The three subscales reflect specific domains that were considered key to supporting caregivers of an individual experiencing significant dementia-related impairment. There may well be additional caregiving domains that are important to capture in SE assessment (e.g., communicating with other family members, planning for the future). The SE:OR subscale is limited in not applying to caregivers of persons in early-stage dementia who can be safely left alone, or when the patient resides with another family member or care provider. Similarly, the SE:MB subscale is entirely specific to moderate levels of cognitive impairment, and highly questionable for use in other caregiving situations (i.e., level of cognitive impairment that are severe, mild, or nonexistent.) Although the SE:CT subscale is the least specific to the caregiving situation, and thus the most generalizable, that subscale also comes with limitations and cautions. There is a risk that caregivers may have difficulty understanding instructions and resort to rating the frequency of negative cognitions rather than their ability to control them. For example, Romero-Moreno and colleagues (2011),[36] recommend paying special attention during interview administration of this subscale, to confirm caregiver understanding of the items. Similarly, Cristancho-Lacroix and colleagues (2015),[12] note that not all items in the SE:CT subscale translated well conceptually for some participants from Asiatic or Maghreb countries. The focus on “controlling” thoughts is also more consistent with second-wave cognitive therapies (e.g., cognitive therapy, Beck’s Cognitive Behavioral Therapy), as opposed to third-wave interventions that focus on changing the function of cognitions rather than the content of the thought (e.g., acceptance and commitment therapy, Mindfulness-based CBT). Thus, future scale development could usefully lead to a cognitively focused subscale with revised items or a revised instruction that is more compatible with mindfulness-oriented interventions. Overall, given the support for use of the SE-CT subscale with dementia caregivers (Cheng et al., 2013,[5]; Crellin, Orrell, et al., 2014) and its applicability within other caregiving situations, we continue to see utility for this subscale but call for careful attention to way it is administrated. By virtue of its brevity, short administration time, and sensitivity to change following relevant interventions, the RSCSE has utility for a number of clinical applications. The three domains can function as targeted areas within multicomponent interventions. The subscale(s) having the lowest rating can guide therapists or facilitators of intervention groups to the area(s) of focus, while serving as indicators for monitoring responsiveness to the intervention. The literature does not yet support use of a specific cut-off score or clinically meaningful change score. Our tentative recommendation based on experience with samples of help-seeking caregivers is that subscale mean scores below 70 merit attention within treatment settings, with 10-point improvements signifying important gains in confidence to manage important aspects of caregiving. Investigators should explore cut-off scores and indicators of clinically significant change in future research. All these considerations stem from the present review, which, though extensive, has limitations that are worthy of attention. Because our review focused solely on works published in English language journals, we have omitted several translations and adaptations of the RSCSE that may be useful to potential users. Moreover, the inclusion criteria established for our review precluded consideration of adaptations for use with caregivers of other conditions besides dementia. Taking these limitations into account, we must be cautious about generalizing the conclusions to broader samples of caregivers. In summary, the reliability and validity of different translations of the Revised Scale for Caregiving Self-Efficacy appears solid and supports continued use of this measure with cross-national samples of dementia family caregivers. The use of the scale shows significant benefit within the caregiver intervention research literature; this is important given the growth of caregiver interventions across the cross-national community (Gallagher-Thompson et al., 2012). Supplementary Material Supplementary data are available at The Gerontologist online. Funding None reported. Acknowledgments The authors declare no conflict of interest in the research reported in this manuscript. References Anderson, E. S., Winett, R. A., & Wojcik, J. R. ( 2007). Self-regulation, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and social support: Social cognitive theory and nutrition behavior. Annals of Behavioral Medicine , 34, 304– 312. doi: 10.1007/BF02874555 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Aranda, M. P., & Knight, B. G. ( 1997). The influence of ethnicity and culture on the caregiver stress and coping process: A sociocultural review and analysis. The Gerontologist , 37, 342– 354. doi: 10.1093/geront/37.3.342 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Au, A., Lai, M. K., Lau, K. M., Pan, P. C., Lam, L., Thompson, L., & Gallagher-Thompson, D. ( 2009). Social support and well-being in dementia family caregivers: The mediating role of self-efficacy. Aging & Mental Health , 13, 761– 768. doi: 10.1080/13607860902918223 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Au, A., Lau, K., Sit, E., Cheung, G., Lai, M., Wong, S. K. A., & Fok, D. ( 2010). The role of self-efficacy in the Alzheimer’s family caregiver stress process: A partial mediator between physical health and depressive symptoms. Clinical Gerontologist , 33, 298– 315. doi: 10.1080/07317115.2010.502817 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Au, A., Li, S., Lee, K., Leung, P., Pan, P. C., Thompson, L., & Gallagher-Thompson, D. ( 2010). The coping with caregiving group program for Chinese caregivers of patients with Alzheimer’s disease in Hong Kong. Patient Education and Counseling , 78, 256– 260. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.06.005 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Au, A., Wong, M. K., Leung, L. M., Leung, P., & Wong, A. ( 2014). Telephone-assisted pleasant-event scheduling to enhance well-being of caregivers of people with dementia: A randomised controlled trial. Hong Kong Medical Journal = Xianggang yi xue za zhi , 20( 3 Suppl. 3), 30– 33. Bandura, A. ( 1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control . New York: W H Freeman/Times Books/ Henry Holt & Co. Bandura, A. ( 2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied Psychology: An International Review , 51, 269– 290. doi: 10.1111/1464-0597.00092 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Bandura, A. ( 2006), Guide to constructing self-efficacy scales. In Pajares F. & Urdan T.(Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents  (pp. 307– 337). Charlotte: Information Publishing. Bandura, A. ( 2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of Management , 38, 9– 44. doi: 10.1177/0149206311410606 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Betz, N. E. ( 2013). Assessment of self-efficacy. In K. F. Geisinger, B. A. Bracken, J. F. Carlson et al.  (Eds.), APA handbook of testing and assessment in psychology, Vol. 2: Testing and assessment in clinical and counseling psychology  (pp. 379– 391). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/14048-022 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Cheng, S. T., Fung, H. H., Chan, W. C., & Lam, L. C. ( 2016). Short-term effects of a gain-focused reappraisal intervention for dementia caregivers: A double-blind cluster-randomized controlled trial. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry , 24, 740– 750. doi: 10.1016/j.jagp.2016.04.012 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Cheng, S. T., Kwok, T., & Lam, L. C. W. ( 2014). Dimensionality of burden in Alzheimer caregivers: Confirmatory factor analysis and correlates of the Zarit Burden interview. International Psychogeriatrics , 26, 1455– 1463. doi:10.1017/S104161021400101X Cheng, S.T., Lam, L. W., Kwok, T., Ng, N. S., & Fung, A. T. ( 2013). Self-efficacy is associated with less burden and more gains from behavioral problems of Alzheimer’s disease in Hong Kong Chinese caregivers. The Gerontologist , 53, 71– 80. doi: 10.1093/geront/gns062 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Cheng, S., Mak, E. M., Fung, H. H., Kwok, T., Lee, D. F., & Lam, L. W. ( 2017). Benefit-finding and effect on caregiver depression: A double-blind randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 85, 521–529. doi: 10.1037/ccp0000176 Coon, D. W., Thompson, L., Steffen, A., Sorocco, K., & Gallagher-Thompson, D. ( 2003). Anger and depression management: Psychoeducational skill training interventions for women caregivers of a relative with dementia. The Gerontologist , 43, 678– 689. doi: 10.1093/geront/43.5.678 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Crellin, N., Charlesworth, G., & Orrell, M. ( 2014). Measuring family caregiver efficacy for managing behavioral and psychological symptoms in dementia: A psychometric evaluation. International Psychogeriatrics , 26, 93– 103. doi: 10.1017/S1041610213001646 Crellin, N. E., Orrell, M., McDermott, O., & Charlesworth, G. ( 2014). Self-efficacy and health-related quality of life in family carers of people with dementia: A systematic review. Aging & Mental Health , 18, 954– 969. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2014.915921 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Crespo, M., & Fernández-Lansac, V. ( 2014). Factors associated with anger and anger expression in caregivers of elderly relatives. Aging & Mental Health , 18, 454– 462. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2013.856857 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Cristancho-Lacroix, V., Wrobel, J., Cantegreil-Kallen, I., Dub, T., Rouquette, A., & Rigaud, A. S. ( 2015). A web-based psychoeducational program for informal caregivers of patients with Alzheimer’s disease: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research , 17, e117. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3717 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Depp, C., Sorocco, K., Kasl-Godley, J., Thompson, L., Rabinowitz, Y., & Gallagher-Thompson, D. ( 2005). Caregiver self-efficacy, ethnicity, and kinship differences in dementia caregivers. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry , 13, 787– 794. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajgp.13.9.787 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Ducharme, F. C., Lachance, L. M., Lévesque, L. L., Kergoat, M., & Zarit, S. H. ( 2012). Persistant and delayed effects of a psycho-educational program for family caregivers at disclosure of a dementia diagnosis in a relative: A six-month follow-up study. Healthy Aging Research , 1, 1– 11. doi:10.12715/har.2012.1.2 Ducharme, F., Lachance, L., Kergoat, M. J., Coulombe, R., Antoine, P., & Pasquier, F. ( 2015). A comparative descriptive study of characteristics of early- and late-onset dementia family caregivers. American Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease and Other Dementias , 31, 48– 56. doi: 10.1177/1533317515578255 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Ducharme, F., Lachance, L., Lévesque, L., Zarit, S. H., & Kergoat, M. J. ( 2015). Maintaining the potential of a psycho-educational program: Efficacy of a booster session after an intervention offered family caregivers at disclosure of a relative’s dementia diagnosis. Aging & Mental Health , 19, 207– 216. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2014.922527 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Ducharme, F., Lévesque, L., Lachance, L., Kergoat, M. J., & Coulombe, R. ( 2011). Challenges associated with transition to caregiver role following diagnostic disclosure of Alzheimer disease: A descriptive study. International Journal of Nursing Studies , 48, 1109– 1119. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.02.011 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Ducharme, F. C., Lévesque, L. L., Lachance, L. M., Kergoat, M. J., Legault, A. J., Beaudet, L. M., & Zarit, S. H. ( 2011). “Learning to become a family caregiver” efficacy of an intervention program for caregivers following diagnosis of dementia in a relative. The Gerontologist , 51, 484– 494. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnr014 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Easom, L. R., Alston, G., & Coleman, R. ( 2013). A rural community translation of a dementia caregiving intervention. Online Journal of Rural Nursing and Health Care , 13, 66– 91. Farran, C. J., Fogg, L. G., McCann, J. J., Etkin, C., Dong, X., & Barnes, L. L. ( 2011). Assessing family caregiver skill in managing behavioral symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease. Aging & Mental Health , 15, 510– 521. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2010.536140 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Fortinsky, R. H. ( 2001). Health care triads and dementia care: Integrative framework and future directions. Aging & Mental Health , 5 ( Suppl. 1), S35– S48. doi:10.1080/713649999 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Gallagher-Thompson, D., Gray, H. L., Tang, P. C., Pu, C. Y., Leung, L. Y., Wang, P. C., … Thompson, L. W. ( 2007). Impact of in-home behavioral management versus telephone support to reduce depressive symptoms and perceived stress in Chinese caregivers: Results of a pilot study. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry , 15, 425– 434. doi: 10.1097/JGP.0b013e3180312028 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Gallagher-Thompson, D., Tzuang, Y., Au, A., Brodaty, H., Charlesworth, G., Gupta, R., … Shyu, Y. ( 2012). Cross-national perspectives on nonpharmacological best practices for dementia family caregivers: A review. Clinical Gerontologist: The Journal of Aging and Mental Health , 35, 316– 355. doi: 10.1080/07317115.2012.678190 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Gant, J. R., Steffen, A. M., & Lauderdale, S. A. ( 2007). Comparative outcomes of two distance-based interventions for male caregivers of family members with dementia. American Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease and Other Dementias , 22, 120– 128. doi: 10.1177/1533317506298880 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   George, N. R., & Steffen, A. ( 2014). Physical and mental health correlates of self-efficacy in dementia family caregivers. Journal of Women & Aging , 26, 319– 331. doi: 10.1080/08952841.2014.906873 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Gilliam, C. M., & Steffen, A. M. ( 2006). The relationship between caregiving self-efficacy and depressive symptoms in dementia family caregivers. Aging & Mental Health , 10, 79– 86. doi: 10.1080/13607860500310658 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Glueckauf, R. L., Ketterson, T. U., Loomis, J. S., & Dages, P. ( 2004). Online support and education for dementia caregivers: Overview, utilization, and initial program evaluation. Telemedicine Journal and E-Health , 10, 223– 232. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2004.10.223 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Glueckauf, R. L., Sharma, D., Davis, W. S., Byrd, V., Stine, C., Jeffers, S. B., … Martin, C. ( 2007). Telephone-based cognitive-behavioral intervention for distressed rural dementia caregivers: Initial findings. Clinical Gerontologist , 31, 21– 41. doi: 10.1300/J018v31n01_03 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Gonyea, J. G., López, L. M., & Velásquez, E. H. ( 2016). The effectiveness of a culturally sensitive cognitive behavioral group intervention for latino Alzheimer’s Caregivers. The Gerontologist , 56, 292– 302. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnu045 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Grano, C., Lucidi, F., & Violani, C. ( 2017). The relationship between caregiving self-efficacy and depressive symptoms in family caregivers of patients with Alzheimer disease: A longitudinal study. International Psychogeriatrics , 29, 1095– 1103. doi: 10.1017/S1041610217000059 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Haccoun, R. R. ( 1987) Une nouvelle technique de vértification de l’équivalence de mesures psychologiques traduites [A new technique for verifying the equivalence of translated psychological measures]. Revue Québécoise De Psychologie , 8, 30– 39. Hambleton, R. K., & Patsula, L. ( 1998). Adapting tests for use in multiple languages and cultures. Social Indicators Research , 45, 153– 171. doi:10.1023/A:1006941729637 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Harvey, K., Catty, J., Langman, A., Winfield, H., Clement, S., Burns, E., … Burns, T. ( 2008). A review of instruments developed to measure outcomes for carers of people with mental health problems. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica , 117, 164– 176. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.2007.01148.x Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Holland, J. M., Thompson, L. W., Tzuang, M., & Gallagher-Thompson, D. ( 2010). Psychosocial factors among Chinese American women dementia caregivers and their association with salivary cortisol: Results of an exploratory study. Ageing International , 35, 109– 127. doi: 10.1007/s12126-010-9057-0 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Hou, R. J., Wong, S. Y., Yip, B. H., Hung, A. T., Lo, H. H., Chan, P. H., … Ma, S. H. ( 2014). The effects of mindfulness-based stress reduction program on the mental health of family caregivers: A randomized controlled trial. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics , 83, 45– 53. doi: 10.1159/000353278 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Kwok, T., Au, A., Wong, B., Ip, I., Mak, V., & Ho, F. ( 2014). Effectiveness of online cognitive behavioral therapy on family caregivers of people with dementia. Clinical Interventions in Aging , 9, 631– 636. doi: 10.2147/CIA.S56337 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Kwok, T., Wong, B., Ip, I., Chui, K., Young, D., & Ho, F. ( 2013). Telephone-delivered psychoeducational intervention for Hong Kong Chinese dementia caregivers: A single-blinded randomized controlled trial. Clinical Interventions in Aging , 8, 1191– 1197. doi: 10.2147/CIA.S48264 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Liu, H., & Huang, L. ( 2016). The relationship between family functioning and caregiving appraisal of dementia family caregivers: Caregiving self-efficacy as a mediator. Aging & Mental Health , 1– 10. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2016.1269148 Lopez, J., Romero-Moreno, R., Marquez-González, M., & Losada, A. ( 2012). Spirituality and self-efficacy in dementia family caregiving: Trust in God and in yourself. International Psychogeriatrics , 24, 1943– 1952. doi: 10.1017/S1041610212001287 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Lorig, K., Thompson-Gallagher, D., Traylor, L., Ritter, P. L., Laurent, D. D., Plant, K., … Hahn, T. J. ( 2012). Building better caregivers: A pilot online support workshop for family caregivers of cognitively impaired adults. Journal of Applied Gerontology , 31, 423– 437. doi: 10.1177/0733464810389806 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Losada, A., Marquez-Gonzalez, M., Knight, B. G., Yanguas, J., Sayegh, P., & Romero-Moreno, R. ( 2010). Psychosocial factors and caregivers’ distress: Effects of familism and dysfunctional thoughts. Aging & Mental Health , 14, 193– 202. doi: 10.1080/13607860903167838 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Losada, A., Robinson Shurgot, G., Knight, B. G., Márquez, M., Montorio, I., Izal, M., & Ruiz, M. A. ( 2006). Cross-cultural study comparing the association of familism with burden and depressive symptoms in two samples of Hispanic dementia caregivers. Aging & Mental Health , 10, 69– 76. doi: 10.1080/13607860500307647 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   MacDougall, M., & Steffen, A. ( 2017). Self-efficacy for controlling upsetting thoughts and emotional eating in family caregivers. Aging & Mental Health , 21, 1058– 1064. doi:10.1080/13607863.2016.1196335 Maneesriwongul, W., & Dixon, J. K. ( 2004). Instrument translation process: A methods review. Journal of Advanced Nursing , 48, 175– 186. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03185.x Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Márquez-González, M., Losada, A., López, J., & Peñacoba, C. ( 2009). Reliability and validity of the Spanish version of the revised scale for caregiving self-efficacy. Clinical Gerontologist: The Journal of Aging and Mental Health , 32, 347– 357. doi: 10.1080/07317110903110419 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Marziali, E., & Garcia, L. J. ( 2011). Dementia caregivers’ responses to 2 Internet-based intervention programs. American Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease and Other Dementias , 26, 36– 43. doi: 10.1177/1533317510387586 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Marziali, E., McCleary, L., & Streiner, D. L. ( 2010). Evaluation of an assessment battery for estimating dementia caregiver needs for health and social care services. American Journal Of Alzheimer’s Disease And Other Dementias , 25, 446– 454. doi: 10.1177/1533317510370958 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   McKechnie, V., Barker, C., & Stott, J. ( 2014). Effectiveness of computer-mediated interventions for informal carers of people with dementia—A systematic review. International Psychogeriatrics , 26, 1619– 1637. doi: 10.1017/S1041610214001045 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Montoro-Rodriguez, J., & Gallagher-Thompson, D. ( 2009). The role of resources and appraisals in predicting burden among Latina and non-Hispanic white female caregivers: A test of an expanded socio-cultural model of stress and coping. Aging & Mental Health , 13, 648– 658. doi: 10.1080/13607860802534658 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Nogales-González, C., Romero-Moreno, R., Losada, A., Márquez-González, M., & Zarit, S. H. ( 2015). Moderating effect of self-efficacy on the relation between behavior problems in persons with dementia and the distress they cause in caregivers. Aging & Mental Health , 19, 1022– 1030. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2014.995593 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Peñacoba, C., Losada, A., López, J., & Márquez-González, M. ( 2008). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Revised Scale for Caregiving Self-Efficacy in a sample of dementia caregivers. International Psychogeriatrics , 20, 1291– 1293. doi: 10.1017/S104161020800759X Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Plotnikoff, R. C., Lippke, S., Courneya, K. S., Birkett, N., & Sigal, R. J. ( 2008). Physical activity and social cognitive theory: A test in a population sample of adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Applied Psychology: An International Review , 57, 628– 643. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00344.x Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Rabinowitz, Y. G., Mausbach, B. T., & Gallagher-Thompson, D. ( 2009). Self-efficacy as a moderator of the relationship between care recipient memory and behavioral problems and caregiver depression in female dementia caregivers. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders , 23, 389– 394. doi: 10.1097/WAD.0b013e3181b6f74d Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Rabinowitz, Y. G., Mausbach, B. T., Thompson, L. W., & Gallagher-Thompson, D. ( 2007). The relationship between self-efficacy and cumulative health risk associated with health behavior patterns in female caregivers of elderly relatives with Alzheimer’s dementia. Journal of Aging and Health , 19, 946– 964. doi: 10.1177/0898264307308559 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Rabinowitz, Y. G., Saenz, E. C., Thompson, L. W., & Gallagher-Thompson, D. ( 2011). Understanding caregiver health behaviors: Depressive symptoms mediate caregiver self-efficacy and health behavior patterns. American Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease and Other Dementias , 26, 310– 316. doi: 10.1177/1533317511410557 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Romero-Moreno, R., Márquez-González, M., Mausbach, B. T., & Losada, A. ( 2012). Variables modulating depression in dementia caregivers: A longitudinal study. International Psychogeriatrics , 24, 1316– 1324. doi: 10.1017/S1041610211002237 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Romero-Moreno, R., Losada, A., Mausbach, B. T., Márquez-González, M., Patterson, T. L., & López, J. ( 2011). Analysis of the moderating effect of self-efficacy domains in different points of the dementia caregiving process. Aging & Mental Health , 15, 221– 231. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2010.505231 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Sadak, T., Korpak, A., & Borson, S. ( 2015). Measuring caregiver activation for health care: Validation of PBH-LCI:D. Geriatric Nursing , 36, 284– 292. doi: 10.1016/j.gerinurse.2015.03.003 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Séoud, J. N., & Ducharme, F. ( 2015). Factors associated with resilience among female family caregivers of a functionally or cognitively impaired aging relative in Lebanon: A correlational study. Journal of Research in Nursing , 20, 567– 579. doi: 10.1177/1744987115599672 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Stansfeld, J., Stoner, C. R., Wenborn, J., Vernooij-Dassen, M., Moniz-Cook, E., & Orrell, M. ( 2017). Positive psychology outcome measures for family caregivers of people living with dementia: A systematic review. International Psychogeriatrics , 29, 1281– 1296. doi: 10.1017/S1041610217000655 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Steffen, A. M. ( 2000). Anger management for dementia caregivers: A preliminary study using video and telephone interventions. Behavior Therapy , 31, 281– 299. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7894(00)80016–7 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Steffen, A. M., & Gant, J. R. ( 2016). A telehealth behavioral coaching intervention for neurocognitive disorder family carers. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry , 31, 195– 203. doi: 10.1002/gps.4312 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Steffen, A. M., McKibbin, C., Zeiss, A. M., Gallagher-Thompson, D., & Bandura, A. ( 2002). The revised scale for caregiving self-efficacy: Reliability and validity studies. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences , 57, P74– P86. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Waelde, L. C., Meyer, H., Thompson, J. M., Thompson, L., & Gallagher-Thompson, D. ( 2017). Randomized controlled trial of inner resources meditation for family dementia caregivers. Journal of Clinical Psychology , 73, 1629– 1641. doi: 10.1002/jclp.22470 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Waelde, L. C., Thompson, L., & Gallagher-Thompson, D. ( 2004). A pilot study of a yoga and meditation intervention for dementia caregiver stress. Journal of Clinical Psychology , 60, 677– 687. doi: 10.1002/jclp.10259 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Wang, P. C., Yip, P. K., & Chang, Y. ( 2016). Self-efficacy and sleep quality as mediators of perceived stress and memory and behavior problems in the link to dementia caregivers’ depression in Taiwan. Clinical Gerontologist , 39, 222– 239. doi: 10.1080/07317115.2015.1128503 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Wawrziczny, E., Berna, G., Ducharme, F., Kergoat, M. J., Pasquier, F., & Antoine, P. ( 2017a). Modeling the distress of spousal caregivers of people with dementia. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease , 55, 703– 716. doi: 10.3233/JAD-160558 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Wawrziczny, E., Berna, G., Ducharme, F., Kergoat, M., Pasquier, F., & Antoine, P. ( 2017b). Characteristics of the spouse caregiver experience: Comparison between early- and late-onset dementia. Aging & Mental Health . doi: 10.1080/13607863.2017.1339777 Williams, V. P., Bishop-Fitzpatrick, L., Lane, J. D., Gwyther, L. P., Ballard, E. L., Vendittelli, A. P., … Williams, R. B. ( 2010). Video-based coping skills to reduce health risk and improve psychological and physical well-being in Alzheimer’s disease family caregivers. Psychosomatic Medicine , 72, 897– 904. doi: 10.1097/PSY.0b013e3181fc2d09 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   World Health Organization. ( 2017). Process of translation and adaptation of instruments. Retrieved January 16, 2017 from https://www.who.int/substance_abuse/research_tools/translation/en/ Yeo, G., & Gallagher-Thompson, D. ( 2006). Ethnicity and the dementias  ( 2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Zeiss, A., Gallagher-Thompson, D., Lovett, S., Rose, J., & McKibbin, C. ( 1999). Self-efficacy as a mediator of caregiver coping: Development and testing of an assessment model. Journal of Clinical Geropsychology , 5, 221– 230. doi: 10.1023/A:1022955817074 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png The Gerontologist Oxford University Press

Loading next page...
 
/lp/ou_press/validating-the-revised-scale-for-caregiving-self-efficacy-a-cross-8ZcnCgtpFv
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
ISSN
0016-9013
eISSN
1758-5341
D.O.I.
10.1093/geront/gny004
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract Background and Objectives This article reviews an instrument used in cross-national research with dementia family caregivers—the Revised Scale for Caregiving Self-Efficacy (RSCSE). Although the RSCSE has been translated into multiple languages, few studies have examined scale performance across samples. We examine congruence of psychometric, reliability, and validity data to inform research and practice. Methods We conducted citation searches using Scopus, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and PsycINFO. Identified dementia caregiving studies cited the original RSCSE article and described results of English and/or non-English translations of the scale. Results Peer-reviewed published studies (N = 58) of dementia family caregivers included data for Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Italian, and Spanish translations of the RSCSE; the majority (72%) reported use of non-English translations. Studies utilizing confirmatory factor analytic approaches reported findings consistent with the original development study. Internal consistency, convergent/discriminant validity, and criterion validity indices were congruent across diverse cross-national caregiving samples assessed with different translations. Data supported the RSCSE’s sensitivity to change following specific psychosocial caregiving interventions. Discussion The reliability and validity of different translations of the RSCSE support continued use with cross-national samples of dementia family caregivers. Limitations of the scale point to the need for further self-efficacy measurement development within caregiving domains. Consistent with Bandura’s discussion of social cognitive theory in cultural contexts, personal agency for caregiving challenges remains generalizable to cross-national populations. This review discusses the implications for cross-cultural research and practice. Dementia, Intervention Outcome, Measurement, Psychometrics The construct of self-efficacy has been useful in advancing psychosocial research and practice with dementia family caregivers. Grounded in Bandura’s (1997, 2002, 2012) social cognitive theory, self-efficacy beliefs reflect confidence in the ability to execute specific behaviors in response to situational demands. Unlike general constructs such as mastery or self-esteem, self-efficacy varies across multifaceted task demands. Self-efficacy beliefs have been demonstrated to influence the initiation of coping, expenditure of effort, and the degree that behaviors are sustained in challenging situations (Bandura, 1997). Relevant to family caregiving, self-efficacy beliefs show strong predictive validity across health conditions and domains of health behaviors (Anderson, Winett, & Wojcik, 2007; Plotnikoff, Lippke, Courneya, Birkett, & Sigal, 2008). Careful attention to measurement is needed when applying the self-efficacy construct to caregiving responses and change processes. Bandura (2006) recommends that self-efficacy scales focus on specific functional domains and include behaviorally detailed items that progressively increase in difficulty. Items should reflect multifaceted task demands and gradations of challenges or impediments, allowing for assessment of patterns of strengths and limitations in perceived capability. Two scales were originally developed to assess family caregiving self-efficacy in the domains of problem-solving and self-care (Zeiss, Gallagher-Thompson, Lovett, Rose, & McKibbin, 1999). These scales demonstrated good internal consistencies, test–retest reliabilities, and were related to measures of depression and burden. Data from independent samples of dementia caregivers were then used to revise and extend these scales, leading to development of the Revised Scale for Caregiving Self-Efficacy (RSCSE; Steffen, McKibbin, Zeiss, Gallagher-Thompson, & Bandura, 2002). The RSCSE assesses caregivers’ confidence in responding to three high challenge domains of dementia caregiving: Obtaining Respite (SE:OR; e.g., ‘…ask a friend or family member to stay with NAME for a day when you need time for yourself?’); Managing Disruptive Behaviors (SE:MB; e.g., ‘When NAME forgets your daily routine and asks when lunch is right after you’ve eaten … answer without raising your voice?’); and Controlling Upsetting Thoughts (SE:CT; e.g., ‘…control worrying about future problems that might come up with NAME?’). These three domains reflect distinct and common behavioral and cognitive challenges for dementia family caregivers. Following Bandura’s (2006) guidelines, domain-specific items are presented in order from lower to greater challenge (based on mean scores in the development sample) and represent gradations of challenges or impediments to successful performance. Items reflecting self-esteem, locus of control, or outcome expectations are avoided. Confirmatory factor analyses supported the purported three-factor structure, with data consistent with subscale reliability and convergent/discriminant validity (Steffen et al., 2002). The final version of the RSCSE consists of 15 items (5 items per subscale). Due to the domain specificity of the self-efficacy construct and the differing relationships between subscale scores and other coping and health outcome variables, no total score was examined or recommended by the scale developers. The RSCSE has been evaluated in several reviews of caregiving-specific instruments. In a selective review of self-efficacy measures (Betz, 2013), scale development for the RSCSE was described as exemplifying high research standards. A separate evaluation of caregiving measures rated the RSCSE as within the top third of scales meeting 10 criteria (Harvey et al., 2008). The scale has also been discussed in dementia-specific reviews of conceptual models of stress and health (Crellin, Orrell, McDermott, & Charlesworth, 2014), health care triads (i.e., primary care physicians, family caregivers, and persons with dementia; Fortinsky, 2001), and within the international caregiving intervention research literature (McKechnie, Barker, & Stott, 2014). A recent review of positive psychology scales for family dementia caregivers evaluated measurement studies on seven criteria and evaluated the original RSCSE article as moderate in quality (Stansfeld et al., 2017). Specifically, quality of data and methodology within the Steffen and colleagues (2002) study was described as well-designed and reported for content validity, internal consistency, construct validity, and agreement (test–retest reliability). The original study was evaluated as lacking information in several key measurement domains (e.g., criterion validity, responsiveness, floor and ceiling effects, and interpretability; Stansfeld et al., 2017), pointing to the value of investigators reporting additional information about the scale. Self-efficacy beliefs have been demonstrated to predict caregiving physical and mental health outcomes (Crellin, Orrell, et al., 2014) and are sensitive to the impact of relevant psychosocial interventions (McKechnie et al., 2014). Dementia caregiving research and clinical practice with diverse (Yeo & Gallagher-Thompson, 2006) and cross-national populations (Losada et al., 2006) has significantly expanded. As a part of these developments, the RSCSE has been used in published studies by investigators across North America, Europe, the Middle East, and Asia representing a range of disciplines (e.g., human development, medicine, nursing, occupational therapy, psychiatry, psychology, public health, social work, and sociology). The RSCSE has been translated into multiple languages, however, few studies have examined scale performance across samples. Although other measures of caregiving self-efficacy are available in the literature, the RSCSE has been cited with sufficient frequency to merit a review examining the reliability, validity, and utility of the published translations. In this article, we aim to: (1) Identify published studies utilizing the RSCSE, (2) Describe data on RSCSE reliability and validity, including factor structure, reported for the English version and published translations of the scale, (3) Reflect on further research developments using the RSCSE, and (4) Provide recommendations about the utility of the RSCSE in research and practice settings. Method Inclusion criteria consisted of (a) empirical studies reporting use of the RSCSE in data collection with (b) dementia family caregivers (i.e., Alzheimer disease, other neurocognitive disorders, cognitively impaired) of (c) older adults living in a (d) range of community and residential care settings, with the (e) studies published in English language professional journals, and excluding (f) case studies and research with very small sample sizes (N < 10). Citations listed for the Steffen and colleagues (2002) measurement article in Scopus (n = 159), Web of Science (n = 70), and Google Scholar (n = 312) were identified and exported into bibliographic management software (i.e., EndNote). Two different search processes were used within PsycINFO (n = 109); first, the name of the scale was inserted as a phrase in double quotes with and without a hyphen (“Revised Scale for Caregiving Self-Efficacy,” “Revised Scale for Caregiving Self Efficacy”) searching within all text. The second PsycINFO search used the Cited References feature, specifying author, year and the phrase search “Revised Scale for Caregiving Self-Efficacy” in double quotes. Citations from all of the combined above procedures (N = 650) were exported into EndNote, with duplicates identified and removed by EndNote. Figure 1 depicts the outcomes for the various steps in the extraction process, which were completed by the first author. Facets of study quality are noted in the review, including attention to sample size and research design (e.g., discussion of intervention studies separated by those utilizing randomized clinical trial (RCT) versus quasi-experimental (pre–post) design). Figure 1. View largeDownload slide Flow chart of review process. Figure 1. View largeDownload slide Flow chart of review process. Results A total of 58 published articles were identified as eligible for inclusion and are presented in Tables 1 and 2 in alphabetical order by first author. Table 1 displays the published works for the scale administered via interview (n = 46), and Table 2 displays studies using self-report data collection strategies (n = 12). Table 1. Predictive Studies and RCTs Using Interview Format of Revised Scale for Caregiving Self-Efficacy (n = 48) Author (publication year)  Country/language  Sample  Use of measure  Alpha (α)  Findingsa  1. Au and colleagues (2009)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 134; 75% female; 58% adult children  Predict depressive symptoms  SE:OR α = .89; SE:MB α = .91; SE:CT α = .90  aRSCSE subscales partially mediated the path between social support and depression  2. Au, Lau, and colleagues (2010)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 134; 75% female; 58% adult children  Predict depressive symptoms  SE:OR α = .89; SE:MB α = .91; SE:CT α = .90  aSE:CT mediated link between perceived physical health support and depression  3. Au, Li, and colleagues (2010)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese/ Cantonese  N = 27;100% female; 34% spouses/SO; 52% adult children  RCT outcome  SE:OR α = .92; SE:MB α = .95; SE:CT α = .86  aSE:MB and SE:CT improved in treatment group compared to control group  4. Au and colleagues (2014)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese/ Cantonese  N = 60; 76.7% female; 38.3% spouses; 60% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  No differences in SE:OR or SE:CT change following intervention, relative to comparison group  5. Cheng, Lam, Kwok, Ng, and Fung (2013)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 99; 71% female; 55% adult children  Measurement refinement and validation  SE:ORα = .92; SE:MB α = .86; SE:CT α = .75  aCFA of shortened scale supported three-factor model (χ2 = 29.09, df = 23, ns; RMSEA = .05)  SE:CT moderated relationship between challenging behaviors and role overload and burden  6. Cheng, Kwok, and Lam (2014)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 395; Data originating from two studies; 86% female; 27% spouse/sibling; 73% intergenerational  To support concurrent validity of Zarit Burden Interview  SE:OR α = .95; SE:MB α = .87; SE:CT α = .77  aRSCSE subscales negatively correlated with three of the four factors for Zarit Burden Interview  7. Cheng, Fung, Chan, and Lam (2016)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 129; 81% female; 27% spouse; 71% adult children  Mediate outcome of RCT  SE:OR α = .94; SE:MB α = .88; SE:CT α = .80  a3-item version of SE:CT subscale was primary mediator of outcome for a benefit-finding intervention  8. Cheng and colleagues (2017)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 96; 87% female; 24% spouse; 76% younger generation  Mediate outcome of RCT  SE:OR α = .96; SE:MB α = .84; SE:CT α = .75  a3-item version of SE:CT subscale was mediator of outcomes for a benefit- finding intervention  9. Coon, Thompson, Steffen, Sorocco, and Gallagher- Thompson (2003)  USA/English  N = 169; 100% female; 57% spouse; 43% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  aIntervention effect for both SE:MB and SE:CT relative to waitlist control. SE:CT partially mediated intervention impact on both anger and depressed mood.  10. Crellin, Charlesworth, and Orrell (2014)  England (UK)/English  N = 245; 71% female; 62% spouse; 29% adult children  To support concurrent validity of Caregiver Efficacy Scale  Not reported  aRSCSE subscales significantly correlated with Caregiver Efficacy Scale assessing confidence in dealing with behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia  11. Crespo and Fernández-Lansac (2014)  Spain/Spanish  N = 111; 74% female; 51% adult children  Predict well-being  SE:OR α = .87; SE:MB α = .93; SE:CT α = .90  aSupport for convergent and discriminant validity, with predicted varying relationships between the three subscales and depression, anxiety, anger, burden, and self-esteem  12. Cristancho-Lacroix and colleagues (2015)  France/French  N = 49; 65% female; 59% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  No intervention effect for RSCSE subscales  13. Depp and colleagues (2005)  USA/English and Spanish  N = 238; 100% female; 42% spouses/SOs; 58% adult children  Impact of ethnicity and kinship status on self-efficacy  Caucasian: SE:OR α = .89; SE:MB α = .90; SE:CT α = .89  aLevel of acculturation did not relate strongly with self- efficacy. Hispanic/Latinos higher on two of the three self-efficacy scales than Caucasian caregivers.  Hispanic/Latino: SE:OR α = .88; SE:MB α = .88; SE:CT α = .85  14. Ducharme, Lévesque, Lachance, Kergoat, and Coulombe (2011)  Canada (Québec)/French  N = 122; 78% female; 36% spouses/SOs; 64% adult children  Descriptive study of caregiving characteristics within 9 months of Alzheimer’s diagnosis  α = .86–.90  aSelf-efficacy differences by gender (lower scores for women) and by kinship (lower scores for spouses)  15. Ducharme, Lévesque, Lachance, Kergoat, Legault, and colleagues (2011)  Canada (Québec)/French  N = 111; 79% female; 34% spouses/SOs; 52% adult children  RCT outcome  α = .86  aIntervention effect for a total RSCSE score relative to waitlist control  16. Ducharme, Lachance, Lévesque, Kergoat, and Zarit (2012)  Canada (Québec)/French  N = 97; 81% female; 36% spouses/SOs; 55% adult children  RCT outcome at 6 months  Baseline α = .89; Follow-up α = .91  aIntervention effect for a total RSCSE score relative to waitlist control, ηp2 = .04  17. Ducharme, Lachance, Kergoat, and colleagues (2015)  Canada (Québec)/French  N = 96; 79% female; 66% spouses/SOs; 25% adult children  Comparison of caregivers for early- and late- onset dementia patients  α = .74–.92  No differences as hypothesized between caregivers of early- and late-onset caregivers in the three RSCSE subscales  18. Ducharme, Lachance, Lévesque, Zarit, and Kergoat (2015)  Canada (Québec)/French  N = 89; 80% female; 49% adult children  RCT outcome  α = .90  aIntervention effect for a total RSCSE score relative to waitlist control, for participants with and without an added booster session  19. Gallagher- Thompson and colleagues (2007)  USA/Mandarin, Cantonese, and English  N = 45; 100% female; 31% spouse  RCT outcome  Reported mean α = .90  aSE moderated treatment impact. Participants low in SE improved most for in-home behavior management intervention.  20. Gant, Steffen, and Lauderdale (2007)  USA/English  N = 32; 100% male; 88% spouse  RCT outcome  Not reported  Improvement pre to post for both conditions. No differential improvement for more intensive intervention.  21. George and Steffen (2014)  USA/English  N = 52; 100% female; 57% spouses/SO; 38% adult children  Longitudinal model predicting physical and mental health  Not reported  aSE:CT predicted better SF-12 physical health indices and lower psychoactive medication usage at 18 months postintervention  22. Gilliam and Steffen (2006)  USA/English  N = 74; 100% female; 52% spouses/SO; 43% adult children  Predict depressive symptoms  SE:MB α = .88  aSE-MB negatively correlated with depressive symptoms, after controlling for number of behavior problems and level of cognitive impairment  23. Gonyea, López, and Velásquez (2016)  USA/Spanish  N = 67; 95% female; 25% spouse; 57% adult children  RCT outcome  Total score α = .86  aCBT intervention effect for a total RSCSE score relative to psychoeducational control  24. Grano, Lucidi, and Violani (2017)  Italy/Italian  N = 108;57% female; 50% spouse; 47% adult children  Predict depressive symptoms using SEM with longitudinal data  SE:OR α = .86; SE:MB α = .92; SE:CT α = .86  aSE:CT partially mediated link between perceived physical health support and depression  25. Holland, Thompson, Tzuang, and Gallagher- Thompson (2010)  USA/Mandarin, Cantonese, and English  N = 47; 100% female; 39% spouses/SO; 61% adult children  Predict diurnal cortisol patterns  Total RSCSE α = .90  aBelief in Asian values associated with more normal cortisol patterns and with higher RSCSE scores  26. Liu and Huang (2016)  Taiwan/Chinese/Mandarin  N = 115; 66% female; 26% spouse; 71% adult children  Predict burden and self-esteem  SE:OR α = .94; SE:MB α = .96; SE:CT α = .96  aSE:OR partially mediated link between family functioning and burden. Other paths were nonsignificant.  27. Lopez, Romero- Moreno, Marquez- González, and Losada (2012)  Spain/Spanish  N = 122; 80% female;36% spouses; 57% adult children  Interaction with spirituality to predict well-being  Cited Peñacoba, Losada, López, and Márquez-González (2008) CFA which supports three-factor model, loadings ranged from .45–.94, α = .84.  aSpirituality and self- efficacy had additive effect on well-being. High self-efficacy and high spirituality group had lower levels of depression.  28. Márquez-González, Losada, López, and Peñacoba (2009)  Spain/Spanish  N = 180; 78% female; 57% adult children  Validation study of Spanish translation  SE:OR α = .86; SE:MB α = .79; SE:CT α = .82  aSupport for reliability and convergent/discriminant validity of Spanish translation  29. Marziali and colleagues (2010)  Canada/English  N = 232; 75% female; 56% spouses; 36% adult children  Evaluate assessment battery  α = .70–.90  aSupport for inclusion of scale within standardized assessment battery. SE significantly predicted self-reported physical and mental health, and plan for institutionalization.  30. Montoro-Rodriguez and Gallagher-Thompson (2009)  USA/Spanish and English  N = 185; 100% female; 39% spouse/SO  Evaluate socio- cultural model of stress and caregiver burden  α = .81–85  aSE:CT inversely related to burden scores. Ethnicity had direct and indirect influence on burden via SE:CT.  31. Nogales-González, Romero- Moreno, Losada, Márquez- González, and Zarit (2015)  Spain/Spanish  N = 231; 79% female; 58% adult children  Predict well-being  SE:MB α = .80  aSE:MB partially moderated the relationship between patient behavior problems and caregiver reactions. High SE caregivers were less upset by increasing number of disruptive and depressive behaviors.  32. Peñacoba and colleagues (2008)  Spain/Spanish  N = 202; 78% female; 36% spouses; 57% adult children  Measurement study  Not reported  aCFA supported three-factor model (χ2 = 120.86, df = 87; GFI = 0.93; IFI = 0.97; CFI = 0.97; RMSEA = .04). Factor loadings ranged 0.45–0.94.  33. Rabinowitz, Mausbach, Thompson, and Gallagher- Thompson (2007)  USA/English and Spanish  N = 256; 100% female; 38% spouses/SOs; 52% adult children  Predict cumulative health risk  SE:OR α = .84; SE:MB α = .89; SE:CT α = .89  aSE:OR and SE:CT associated with fewer caregiver health risk behaviors; SE:CT associated with improved dietary practices  34. Rabinowitz, Mausbach, and Gallagher-Thompson (2009)  USA/English and Spanish  N = 256; 100% female; 61% spouses/SOs  Test model of caregiver depression  SE:OR α = .89; SE:MB α = .89; SE:CT α = .88  aSE:MB and SE:CT had direct inverse relationship with depressive symptoms. SE:MB moderated relationship between patient behavior problems and caregiver depression.  35. Rabinowitz, Saenz, Thompson, and Gallagher- Thompson (2011)  USA/English and Spanish  N = 256; 100% female; 61% spouses/SOs  Test model predicting health risk  SE:OR α = .89; SE:MB α = .89; SE:CT α = .88  aDepressive symptoms mediated the relationship between self- efficacy (SE:OR, SE:CT) and cumulative health risk  36. Romero-Moreno and colleagues (2011)  Spain/Spanish  N = 167; 77.20% female; 34.30% spouses; 60.20% adult children  Test SE as moderator of the relationship between stressors and distress  SE:MB α = .80; SE:CT α = .82  aSE:MB did not moderate the relationship between patient behavior problems and burden; SE:CT moderated the relationship between burden and distress (depression and anxiety). Support for construct validity of scale, showing inverse relationships between SE:MB and burden; and between SE:CT and depression/anxiety  37. Romero-Moreno, Márquez-González, Mausbach, and Losada (2012)  Spain/Spanish  N = 130; 83.08 female; 34.62% spouses; 61.53% adult children; (n = 116 at 3 month f/u; n = 82 at 12 month f/u)  Conceptual model testing; predict depression longitudinally  SE:CT α = .78 (sole domain used in study)  aLongitudinal analyses demonstrate that increases in SE:CT predicted decreases in depression over time  38. Séoud and Ducharme (2015)  Lebanon/Arabic  N = 140; 100% female; 18.6% wives; 69.3 adult daughters  Predict resilience  Total RSCSE α = .91  aRSCSE total score associated with a measure of resilience after accounting for control variables  39. Steffen (2000)  USA/English  N = 33; 75.8% female; 54.5% spouses; 36.4% adults children  RCT outcome  SE:MB = .84  aSE:MB scores were improved following both in-home and group-based interventions relative to control condition  40. Steffen and colleagues (2002)  USA/English  Study 1: N = 169; 100% female; 57% wives; 39% adult daughters  Measurement development  Study 1: SE:OR α = .88; SE:MB α = .84; SE:CT α = .86  aOriginal measurement development article. First sample used for scale refinement and exploratory factor analysis. Second sample used for CFA. Support for concurrent and discriminant validity examined with both data sets.  Study 2: N = 145;80% female; 46% spouse; 46% adult children  Study 2: SE:OR α = .85; SE:MB α = .82; SE:CT α = .85  41. Steffen and Gant (2015)  USA/English  N = 74; 100% female; 52% wives; 43% adult daughters  RCT outcome  Not reported  aTelehealth behavioral coaching showed greater improvement in SE:OR and SE:MB relative to comparison condition  42. Waelde, Meyer, Thompson, Thompson, and Gallagher- Thompson (2017)  USA/English  N = 31; 100% female  RCT outcome  SE:CT α = .80  SE:CT did not improve in meditation intervention group, relative to comparison condition  43. Waelde, Thompson, and Gallagher-Thompson (2004)  USA/English and Spanish  N = 12; 100% female; 50% wives; 50% adult daughters  bQuasi- experimental study outcome  Not reported  aSignificant improvement in SE:CT scores following yoga- meditation intervention  44. Wawrziczny and colleagues (2017a)  France/French  N = 125; 60% female; 100% spouses  Modeling distress  SE:OR α = .83; SE:MB α = .90; SE:CT α = .83  SE subscales did not show strong relationships with other variables and were excluded from the final model.  45. Wawrziczny and colleagues (2017b)  France/French  N = 150; 59.3% female; 100% spouses  Describe characteristics of cgs for early- and later-onset patients  Early onset: SE:OR α = .86; SE:MB α = .86; SE:CT α = .84  aSpouse cgs of early onset patients had lower average SE:CT scores compared to spouses of late onset individuals  Late onset: SE:OR α = .83; SE:MB α = .89; SE:CT α = .83  46. Williams and colleagues (2010)  USA/English  N = 116; 78% female; 40% spouses; 50% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  No improvement in SE subscale scores following video-based skills intervention relative to wait list control  Author (publication year)  Country/language  Sample  Use of measure  Alpha (α)  Findingsa  1. Au and colleagues (2009)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 134; 75% female; 58% adult children  Predict depressive symptoms  SE:OR α = .89; SE:MB α = .91; SE:CT α = .90  aRSCSE subscales partially mediated the path between social support and depression  2. Au, Lau, and colleagues (2010)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 134; 75% female; 58% adult children  Predict depressive symptoms  SE:OR α = .89; SE:MB α = .91; SE:CT α = .90  aSE:CT mediated link between perceived physical health support and depression  3. Au, Li, and colleagues (2010)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese/ Cantonese  N = 27;100% female; 34% spouses/SO; 52% adult children  RCT outcome  SE:OR α = .92; SE:MB α = .95; SE:CT α = .86  aSE:MB and SE:CT improved in treatment group compared to control group  4. Au and colleagues (2014)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese/ Cantonese  N = 60; 76.7% female; 38.3% spouses; 60% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  No differences in SE:OR or SE:CT change following intervention, relative to comparison group  5. Cheng, Lam, Kwok, Ng, and Fung (2013)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 99; 71% female; 55% adult children  Measurement refinement and validation  SE:ORα = .92; SE:MB α = .86; SE:CT α = .75  aCFA of shortened scale supported three-factor model (χ2 = 29.09, df = 23, ns; RMSEA = .05)  SE:CT moderated relationship between challenging behaviors and role overload and burden  6. Cheng, Kwok, and Lam (2014)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 395; Data originating from two studies; 86% female; 27% spouse/sibling; 73% intergenerational  To support concurrent validity of Zarit Burden Interview  SE:OR α = .95; SE:MB α = .87; SE:CT α = .77  aRSCSE subscales negatively correlated with three of the four factors for Zarit Burden Interview  7. Cheng, Fung, Chan, and Lam (2016)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 129; 81% female; 27% spouse; 71% adult children  Mediate outcome of RCT  SE:OR α = .94; SE:MB α = .88; SE:CT α = .80  a3-item version of SE:CT subscale was primary mediator of outcome for a benefit-finding intervention  8. Cheng and colleagues (2017)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 96; 87% female; 24% spouse; 76% younger generation  Mediate outcome of RCT  SE:OR α = .96; SE:MB α = .84; SE:CT α = .75  a3-item version of SE:CT subscale was mediator of outcomes for a benefit- finding intervention  9. Coon, Thompson, Steffen, Sorocco, and Gallagher- Thompson (2003)  USA/English  N = 169; 100% female; 57% spouse; 43% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  aIntervention effect for both SE:MB and SE:CT relative to waitlist control. SE:CT partially mediated intervention impact on both anger and depressed mood.  10. Crellin, Charlesworth, and Orrell (2014)  England (UK)/English  N = 245; 71% female; 62% spouse; 29% adult children  To support concurrent validity of Caregiver Efficacy Scale  Not reported  aRSCSE subscales significantly correlated with Caregiver Efficacy Scale assessing confidence in dealing with behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia  11. Crespo and Fernández-Lansac (2014)  Spain/Spanish  N = 111; 74% female; 51% adult children  Predict well-being  SE:OR α = .87; SE:MB α = .93; SE:CT α = .90  aSupport for convergent and discriminant validity, with predicted varying relationships between the three subscales and depression, anxiety, anger, burden, and self-esteem  12. Cristancho-Lacroix and colleagues (2015)  France/French  N = 49; 65% female; 59% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  No intervention effect for RSCSE subscales  13. Depp and colleagues (2005)  USA/English and Spanish  N = 238; 100% female; 42% spouses/SOs; 58% adult children  Impact of ethnicity and kinship status on self-efficacy  Caucasian: SE:OR α = .89; SE:MB α = .90; SE:CT α = .89  aLevel of acculturation did not relate strongly with self- efficacy. Hispanic/Latinos higher on two of the three self-efficacy scales than Caucasian caregivers.  Hispanic/Latino: SE:OR α = .88; SE:MB α = .88; SE:CT α = .85  14. Ducharme, Lévesque, Lachance, Kergoat, and Coulombe (2011)  Canada (Québec)/French  N = 122; 78% female; 36% spouses/SOs; 64% adult children  Descriptive study of caregiving characteristics within 9 months of Alzheimer’s diagnosis  α = .86–.90  aSelf-efficacy differences by gender (lower scores for women) and by kinship (lower scores for spouses)  15. Ducharme, Lévesque, Lachance, Kergoat, Legault, and colleagues (2011)  Canada (Québec)/French  N = 111; 79% female; 34% spouses/SOs; 52% adult children  RCT outcome  α = .86  aIntervention effect for a total RSCSE score relative to waitlist control  16. Ducharme, Lachance, Lévesque, Kergoat, and Zarit (2012)  Canada (Québec)/French  N = 97; 81% female; 36% spouses/SOs; 55% adult children  RCT outcome at 6 months  Baseline α = .89; Follow-up α = .91  aIntervention effect for a total RSCSE score relative to waitlist control, ηp2 = .04  17. Ducharme, Lachance, Kergoat, and colleagues (2015)  Canada (Québec)/French  N = 96; 79% female; 66% spouses/SOs; 25% adult children  Comparison of caregivers for early- and late- onset dementia patients  α = .74–.92  No differences as hypothesized between caregivers of early- and late-onset caregivers in the three RSCSE subscales  18. Ducharme, Lachance, Lévesque, Zarit, and Kergoat (2015)  Canada (Québec)/French  N = 89; 80% female; 49% adult children  RCT outcome  α = .90  aIntervention effect for a total RSCSE score relative to waitlist control, for participants with and without an added booster session  19. Gallagher- Thompson and colleagues (2007)  USA/Mandarin, Cantonese, and English  N = 45; 100% female; 31% spouse  RCT outcome  Reported mean α = .90  aSE moderated treatment impact. Participants low in SE improved most for in-home behavior management intervention.  20. Gant, Steffen, and Lauderdale (2007)  USA/English  N = 32; 100% male; 88% spouse  RCT outcome  Not reported  Improvement pre to post for both conditions. No differential improvement for more intensive intervention.  21. George and Steffen (2014)  USA/English  N = 52; 100% female; 57% spouses/SO; 38% adult children  Longitudinal model predicting physical and mental health  Not reported  aSE:CT predicted better SF-12 physical health indices and lower psychoactive medication usage at 18 months postintervention  22. Gilliam and Steffen (2006)  USA/English  N = 74; 100% female; 52% spouses/SO; 43% adult children  Predict depressive symptoms  SE:MB α = .88  aSE-MB negatively correlated with depressive symptoms, after controlling for number of behavior problems and level of cognitive impairment  23. Gonyea, López, and Velásquez (2016)  USA/Spanish  N = 67; 95% female; 25% spouse; 57% adult children  RCT outcome  Total score α = .86  aCBT intervention effect for a total RSCSE score relative to psychoeducational control  24. Grano, Lucidi, and Violani (2017)  Italy/Italian  N = 108;57% female; 50% spouse; 47% adult children  Predict depressive symptoms using SEM with longitudinal data  SE:OR α = .86; SE:MB α = .92; SE:CT α = .86  aSE:CT partially mediated link between perceived physical health support and depression  25. Holland, Thompson, Tzuang, and Gallagher- Thompson (2010)  USA/Mandarin, Cantonese, and English  N = 47; 100% female; 39% spouses/SO; 61% adult children  Predict diurnal cortisol patterns  Total RSCSE α = .90  aBelief in Asian values associated with more normal cortisol patterns and with higher RSCSE scores  26. Liu and Huang (2016)  Taiwan/Chinese/Mandarin  N = 115; 66% female; 26% spouse; 71% adult children  Predict burden and self-esteem  SE:OR α = .94; SE:MB α = .96; SE:CT α = .96  aSE:OR partially mediated link between family functioning and burden. Other paths were nonsignificant.  27. Lopez, Romero- Moreno, Marquez- González, and Losada (2012)  Spain/Spanish  N = 122; 80% female;36% spouses; 57% adult children  Interaction with spirituality to predict well-being  Cited Peñacoba, Losada, López, and Márquez-González (2008) CFA which supports three-factor model, loadings ranged from .45–.94, α = .84.  aSpirituality and self- efficacy had additive effect on well-being. High self-efficacy and high spirituality group had lower levels of depression.  28. Márquez-González, Losada, López, and Peñacoba (2009)  Spain/Spanish  N = 180; 78% female; 57% adult children  Validation study of Spanish translation  SE:OR α = .86; SE:MB α = .79; SE:CT α = .82  aSupport for reliability and convergent/discriminant validity of Spanish translation  29. Marziali and colleagues (2010)  Canada/English  N = 232; 75% female; 56% spouses; 36% adult children  Evaluate assessment battery  α = .70–.90  aSupport for inclusion of scale within standardized assessment battery. SE significantly predicted self-reported physical and mental health, and plan for institutionalization.  30. Montoro-Rodriguez and Gallagher-Thompson (2009)  USA/Spanish and English  N = 185; 100% female; 39% spouse/SO  Evaluate socio- cultural model of stress and caregiver burden  α = .81–85  aSE:CT inversely related to burden scores. Ethnicity had direct and indirect influence on burden via SE:CT.  31. Nogales-González, Romero- Moreno, Losada, Márquez- González, and Zarit (2015)  Spain/Spanish  N = 231; 79% female; 58% adult children  Predict well-being  SE:MB α = .80  aSE:MB partially moderated the relationship between patient behavior problems and caregiver reactions. High SE caregivers were less upset by increasing number of disruptive and depressive behaviors.  32. Peñacoba and colleagues (2008)  Spain/Spanish  N = 202; 78% female; 36% spouses; 57% adult children  Measurement study  Not reported  aCFA supported three-factor model (χ2 = 120.86, df = 87; GFI = 0.93; IFI = 0.97; CFI = 0.97; RMSEA = .04). Factor loadings ranged 0.45–0.94.  33. Rabinowitz, Mausbach, Thompson, and Gallagher- Thompson (2007)  USA/English and Spanish  N = 256; 100% female; 38% spouses/SOs; 52% adult children  Predict cumulative health risk  SE:OR α = .84; SE:MB α = .89; SE:CT α = .89  aSE:OR and SE:CT associated with fewer caregiver health risk behaviors; SE:CT associated with improved dietary practices  34. Rabinowitz, Mausbach, and Gallagher-Thompson (2009)  USA/English and Spanish  N = 256; 100% female; 61% spouses/SOs  Test model of caregiver depression  SE:OR α = .89; SE:MB α = .89; SE:CT α = .88  aSE:MB and SE:CT had direct inverse relationship with depressive symptoms. SE:MB moderated relationship between patient behavior problems and caregiver depression.  35. Rabinowitz, Saenz, Thompson, and Gallagher- Thompson (2011)  USA/English and Spanish  N = 256; 100% female; 61% spouses/SOs  Test model predicting health risk  SE:OR α = .89; SE:MB α = .89; SE:CT α = .88  aDepressive symptoms mediated the relationship between self- efficacy (SE:OR, SE:CT) and cumulative health risk  36. Romero-Moreno and colleagues (2011)  Spain/Spanish  N = 167; 77.20% female; 34.30% spouses; 60.20% adult children  Test SE as moderator of the relationship between stressors and distress  SE:MB α = .80; SE:CT α = .82  aSE:MB did not moderate the relationship between patient behavior problems and burden; SE:CT moderated the relationship between burden and distress (depression and anxiety). Support for construct validity of scale, showing inverse relationships between SE:MB and burden; and between SE:CT and depression/anxiety  37. Romero-Moreno, Márquez-González, Mausbach, and Losada (2012)  Spain/Spanish  N = 130; 83.08 female; 34.62% spouses; 61.53% adult children; (n = 116 at 3 month f/u; n = 82 at 12 month f/u)  Conceptual model testing; predict depression longitudinally  SE:CT α = .78 (sole domain used in study)  aLongitudinal analyses demonstrate that increases in SE:CT predicted decreases in depression over time  38. Séoud and Ducharme (2015)  Lebanon/Arabic  N = 140; 100% female; 18.6% wives; 69.3 adult daughters  Predict resilience  Total RSCSE α = .91  aRSCSE total score associated with a measure of resilience after accounting for control variables  39. Steffen (2000)  USA/English  N = 33; 75.8% female; 54.5% spouses; 36.4% adults children  RCT outcome  SE:MB = .84  aSE:MB scores were improved following both in-home and group-based interventions relative to control condition  40. Steffen and colleagues (2002)  USA/English  Study 1: N = 169; 100% female; 57% wives; 39% adult daughters  Measurement development  Study 1: SE:OR α = .88; SE:MB α = .84; SE:CT α = .86  aOriginal measurement development article. First sample used for scale refinement and exploratory factor analysis. Second sample used for CFA. Support for concurrent and discriminant validity examined with both data sets.  Study 2: N = 145;80% female; 46% spouse; 46% adult children  Study 2: SE:OR α = .85; SE:MB α = .82; SE:CT α = .85  41. Steffen and Gant (2015)  USA/English  N = 74; 100% female; 52% wives; 43% adult daughters  RCT outcome  Not reported  aTelehealth behavioral coaching showed greater improvement in SE:OR and SE:MB relative to comparison condition  42. Waelde, Meyer, Thompson, Thompson, and Gallagher- Thompson (2017)  USA/English  N = 31; 100% female  RCT outcome  SE:CT α = .80  SE:CT did not improve in meditation intervention group, relative to comparison condition  43. Waelde, Thompson, and Gallagher-Thompson (2004)  USA/English and Spanish  N = 12; 100% female; 50% wives; 50% adult daughters  bQuasi- experimental study outcome  Not reported  aSignificant improvement in SE:CT scores following yoga- meditation intervention  44. Wawrziczny and colleagues (2017a)  France/French  N = 125; 60% female; 100% spouses  Modeling distress  SE:OR α = .83; SE:MB α = .90; SE:CT α = .83  SE subscales did not show strong relationships with other variables and were excluded from the final model.  45. Wawrziczny and colleagues (2017b)  France/French  N = 150; 59.3% female; 100% spouses  Describe characteristics of cgs for early- and later-onset patients  Early onset: SE:OR α = .86; SE:MB α = .86; SE:CT α = .84  aSpouse cgs of early onset patients had lower average SE:CT scores compared to spouses of late onset individuals  Late onset: SE:OR α = .83; SE:MB α = .89; SE:CT α = .83  46. Williams and colleagues (2010)  USA/English  N = 116; 78% female; 40% spouses; 50% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  No improvement in SE subscale scores following video-based skills intervention relative to wait list control  aIndicates findings support hypothesized function of RSCSE in study. bPre–post design without a comparison group. View Large Table 1. Predictive Studies and RCTs Using Interview Format of Revised Scale for Caregiving Self-Efficacy (n = 48) Author (publication year)  Country/language  Sample  Use of measure  Alpha (α)  Findingsa  1. Au and colleagues (2009)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 134; 75% female; 58% adult children  Predict depressive symptoms  SE:OR α = .89; SE:MB α = .91; SE:CT α = .90  aRSCSE subscales partially mediated the path between social support and depression  2. Au, Lau, and colleagues (2010)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 134; 75% female; 58% adult children  Predict depressive symptoms  SE:OR α = .89; SE:MB α = .91; SE:CT α = .90  aSE:CT mediated link between perceived physical health support and depression  3. Au, Li, and colleagues (2010)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese/ Cantonese  N = 27;100% female; 34% spouses/SO; 52% adult children  RCT outcome  SE:OR α = .92; SE:MB α = .95; SE:CT α = .86  aSE:MB and SE:CT improved in treatment group compared to control group  4. Au and colleagues (2014)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese/ Cantonese  N = 60; 76.7% female; 38.3% spouses; 60% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  No differences in SE:OR or SE:CT change following intervention, relative to comparison group  5. Cheng, Lam, Kwok, Ng, and Fung (2013)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 99; 71% female; 55% adult children  Measurement refinement and validation  SE:ORα = .92; SE:MB α = .86; SE:CT α = .75  aCFA of shortened scale supported three-factor model (χ2 = 29.09, df = 23, ns; RMSEA = .05)  SE:CT moderated relationship between challenging behaviors and role overload and burden  6. Cheng, Kwok, and Lam (2014)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 395; Data originating from two studies; 86% female; 27% spouse/sibling; 73% intergenerational  To support concurrent validity of Zarit Burden Interview  SE:OR α = .95; SE:MB α = .87; SE:CT α = .77  aRSCSE subscales negatively correlated with three of the four factors for Zarit Burden Interview  7. Cheng, Fung, Chan, and Lam (2016)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 129; 81% female; 27% spouse; 71% adult children  Mediate outcome of RCT  SE:OR α = .94; SE:MB α = .88; SE:CT α = .80  a3-item version of SE:CT subscale was primary mediator of outcome for a benefit-finding intervention  8. Cheng and colleagues (2017)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 96; 87% female; 24% spouse; 76% younger generation  Mediate outcome of RCT  SE:OR α = .96; SE:MB α = .84; SE:CT α = .75  a3-item version of SE:CT subscale was mediator of outcomes for a benefit- finding intervention  9. Coon, Thompson, Steffen, Sorocco, and Gallagher- Thompson (2003)  USA/English  N = 169; 100% female; 57% spouse; 43% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  aIntervention effect for both SE:MB and SE:CT relative to waitlist control. SE:CT partially mediated intervention impact on both anger and depressed mood.  10. Crellin, Charlesworth, and Orrell (2014)  England (UK)/English  N = 245; 71% female; 62% spouse; 29% adult children  To support concurrent validity of Caregiver Efficacy Scale  Not reported  aRSCSE subscales significantly correlated with Caregiver Efficacy Scale assessing confidence in dealing with behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia  11. Crespo and Fernández-Lansac (2014)  Spain/Spanish  N = 111; 74% female; 51% adult children  Predict well-being  SE:OR α = .87; SE:MB α = .93; SE:CT α = .90  aSupport for convergent and discriminant validity, with predicted varying relationships between the three subscales and depression, anxiety, anger, burden, and self-esteem  12. Cristancho-Lacroix and colleagues (2015)  France/French  N = 49; 65% female; 59% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  No intervention effect for RSCSE subscales  13. Depp and colleagues (2005)  USA/English and Spanish  N = 238; 100% female; 42% spouses/SOs; 58% adult children  Impact of ethnicity and kinship status on self-efficacy  Caucasian: SE:OR α = .89; SE:MB α = .90; SE:CT α = .89  aLevel of acculturation did not relate strongly with self- efficacy. Hispanic/Latinos higher on two of the three self-efficacy scales than Caucasian caregivers.  Hispanic/Latino: SE:OR α = .88; SE:MB α = .88; SE:CT α = .85  14. Ducharme, Lévesque, Lachance, Kergoat, and Coulombe (2011)  Canada (Québec)/French  N = 122; 78% female; 36% spouses/SOs; 64% adult children  Descriptive study of caregiving characteristics within 9 months of Alzheimer’s diagnosis  α = .86–.90  aSelf-efficacy differences by gender (lower scores for women) and by kinship (lower scores for spouses)  15. Ducharme, Lévesque, Lachance, Kergoat, Legault, and colleagues (2011)  Canada (Québec)/French  N = 111; 79% female; 34% spouses/SOs; 52% adult children  RCT outcome  α = .86  aIntervention effect for a total RSCSE score relative to waitlist control  16. Ducharme, Lachance, Lévesque, Kergoat, and Zarit (2012)  Canada (Québec)/French  N = 97; 81% female; 36% spouses/SOs; 55% adult children  RCT outcome at 6 months  Baseline α = .89; Follow-up α = .91  aIntervention effect for a total RSCSE score relative to waitlist control, ηp2 = .04  17. Ducharme, Lachance, Kergoat, and colleagues (2015)  Canada (Québec)/French  N = 96; 79% female; 66% spouses/SOs; 25% adult children  Comparison of caregivers for early- and late- onset dementia patients  α = .74–.92  No differences as hypothesized between caregivers of early- and late-onset caregivers in the three RSCSE subscales  18. Ducharme, Lachance, Lévesque, Zarit, and Kergoat (2015)  Canada (Québec)/French  N = 89; 80% female; 49% adult children  RCT outcome  α = .90  aIntervention effect for a total RSCSE score relative to waitlist control, for participants with and without an added booster session  19. Gallagher- Thompson and colleagues (2007)  USA/Mandarin, Cantonese, and English  N = 45; 100% female; 31% spouse  RCT outcome  Reported mean α = .90  aSE moderated treatment impact. Participants low in SE improved most for in-home behavior management intervention.  20. Gant, Steffen, and Lauderdale (2007)  USA/English  N = 32; 100% male; 88% spouse  RCT outcome  Not reported  Improvement pre to post for both conditions. No differential improvement for more intensive intervention.  21. George and Steffen (2014)  USA/English  N = 52; 100% female; 57% spouses/SO; 38% adult children  Longitudinal model predicting physical and mental health  Not reported  aSE:CT predicted better SF-12 physical health indices and lower psychoactive medication usage at 18 months postintervention  22. Gilliam and Steffen (2006)  USA/English  N = 74; 100% female; 52% spouses/SO; 43% adult children  Predict depressive symptoms  SE:MB α = .88  aSE-MB negatively correlated with depressive symptoms, after controlling for number of behavior problems and level of cognitive impairment  23. Gonyea, López, and Velásquez (2016)  USA/Spanish  N = 67; 95% female; 25% spouse; 57% adult children  RCT outcome  Total score α = .86  aCBT intervention effect for a total RSCSE score relative to psychoeducational control  24. Grano, Lucidi, and Violani (2017)  Italy/Italian  N = 108;57% female; 50% spouse; 47% adult children  Predict depressive symptoms using SEM with longitudinal data  SE:OR α = .86; SE:MB α = .92; SE:CT α = .86  aSE:CT partially mediated link between perceived physical health support and depression  25. Holland, Thompson, Tzuang, and Gallagher- Thompson (2010)  USA/Mandarin, Cantonese, and English  N = 47; 100% female; 39% spouses/SO; 61% adult children  Predict diurnal cortisol patterns  Total RSCSE α = .90  aBelief in Asian values associated with more normal cortisol patterns and with higher RSCSE scores  26. Liu and Huang (2016)  Taiwan/Chinese/Mandarin  N = 115; 66% female; 26% spouse; 71% adult children  Predict burden and self-esteem  SE:OR α = .94; SE:MB α = .96; SE:CT α = .96  aSE:OR partially mediated link between family functioning and burden. Other paths were nonsignificant.  27. Lopez, Romero- Moreno, Marquez- González, and Losada (2012)  Spain/Spanish  N = 122; 80% female;36% spouses; 57% adult children  Interaction with spirituality to predict well-being  Cited Peñacoba, Losada, López, and Márquez-González (2008) CFA which supports three-factor model, loadings ranged from .45–.94, α = .84.  aSpirituality and self- efficacy had additive effect on well-being. High self-efficacy and high spirituality group had lower levels of depression.  28. Márquez-González, Losada, López, and Peñacoba (2009)  Spain/Spanish  N = 180; 78% female; 57% adult children  Validation study of Spanish translation  SE:OR α = .86; SE:MB α = .79; SE:CT α = .82  aSupport for reliability and convergent/discriminant validity of Spanish translation  29. Marziali and colleagues (2010)  Canada/English  N = 232; 75% female; 56% spouses; 36% adult children  Evaluate assessment battery  α = .70–.90  aSupport for inclusion of scale within standardized assessment battery. SE significantly predicted self-reported physical and mental health, and plan for institutionalization.  30. Montoro-Rodriguez and Gallagher-Thompson (2009)  USA/Spanish and English  N = 185; 100% female; 39% spouse/SO  Evaluate socio- cultural model of stress and caregiver burden  α = .81–85  aSE:CT inversely related to burden scores. Ethnicity had direct and indirect influence on burden via SE:CT.  31. Nogales-González, Romero- Moreno, Losada, Márquez- González, and Zarit (2015)  Spain/Spanish  N = 231; 79% female; 58% adult children  Predict well-being  SE:MB α = .80  aSE:MB partially moderated the relationship between patient behavior problems and caregiver reactions. High SE caregivers were less upset by increasing number of disruptive and depressive behaviors.  32. Peñacoba and colleagues (2008)  Spain/Spanish  N = 202; 78% female; 36% spouses; 57% adult children  Measurement study  Not reported  aCFA supported three-factor model (χ2 = 120.86, df = 87; GFI = 0.93; IFI = 0.97; CFI = 0.97; RMSEA = .04). Factor loadings ranged 0.45–0.94.  33. Rabinowitz, Mausbach, Thompson, and Gallagher- Thompson (2007)  USA/English and Spanish  N = 256; 100% female; 38% spouses/SOs; 52% adult children  Predict cumulative health risk  SE:OR α = .84; SE:MB α = .89; SE:CT α = .89  aSE:OR and SE:CT associated with fewer caregiver health risk behaviors; SE:CT associated with improved dietary practices  34. Rabinowitz, Mausbach, and Gallagher-Thompson (2009)  USA/English and Spanish  N = 256; 100% female; 61% spouses/SOs  Test model of caregiver depression  SE:OR α = .89; SE:MB α = .89; SE:CT α = .88  aSE:MB and SE:CT had direct inverse relationship with depressive symptoms. SE:MB moderated relationship between patient behavior problems and caregiver depression.  35. Rabinowitz, Saenz, Thompson, and Gallagher- Thompson (2011)  USA/English and Spanish  N = 256; 100% female; 61% spouses/SOs  Test model predicting health risk  SE:OR α = .89; SE:MB α = .89; SE:CT α = .88  aDepressive symptoms mediated the relationship between self- efficacy (SE:OR, SE:CT) and cumulative health risk  36. Romero-Moreno and colleagues (2011)  Spain/Spanish  N = 167; 77.20% female; 34.30% spouses; 60.20% adult children  Test SE as moderator of the relationship between stressors and distress  SE:MB α = .80; SE:CT α = .82  aSE:MB did not moderate the relationship between patient behavior problems and burden; SE:CT moderated the relationship between burden and distress (depression and anxiety). Support for construct validity of scale, showing inverse relationships between SE:MB and burden; and between SE:CT and depression/anxiety  37. Romero-Moreno, Márquez-González, Mausbach, and Losada (2012)  Spain/Spanish  N = 130; 83.08 female; 34.62% spouses; 61.53% adult children; (n = 116 at 3 month f/u; n = 82 at 12 month f/u)  Conceptual model testing; predict depression longitudinally  SE:CT α = .78 (sole domain used in study)  aLongitudinal analyses demonstrate that increases in SE:CT predicted decreases in depression over time  38. Séoud and Ducharme (2015)  Lebanon/Arabic  N = 140; 100% female; 18.6% wives; 69.3 adult daughters  Predict resilience  Total RSCSE α = .91  aRSCSE total score associated with a measure of resilience after accounting for control variables  39. Steffen (2000)  USA/English  N = 33; 75.8% female; 54.5% spouses; 36.4% adults children  RCT outcome  SE:MB = .84  aSE:MB scores were improved following both in-home and group-based interventions relative to control condition  40. Steffen and colleagues (2002)  USA/English  Study 1: N = 169; 100% female; 57% wives; 39% adult daughters  Measurement development  Study 1: SE:OR α = .88; SE:MB α = .84; SE:CT α = .86  aOriginal measurement development article. First sample used for scale refinement and exploratory factor analysis. Second sample used for CFA. Support for concurrent and discriminant validity examined with both data sets.  Study 2: N = 145;80% female; 46% spouse; 46% adult children  Study 2: SE:OR α = .85; SE:MB α = .82; SE:CT α = .85  41. Steffen and Gant (2015)  USA/English  N = 74; 100% female; 52% wives; 43% adult daughters  RCT outcome  Not reported  aTelehealth behavioral coaching showed greater improvement in SE:OR and SE:MB relative to comparison condition  42. Waelde, Meyer, Thompson, Thompson, and Gallagher- Thompson (2017)  USA/English  N = 31; 100% female  RCT outcome  SE:CT α = .80  SE:CT did not improve in meditation intervention group, relative to comparison condition  43. Waelde, Thompson, and Gallagher-Thompson (2004)  USA/English and Spanish  N = 12; 100% female; 50% wives; 50% adult daughters  bQuasi- experimental study outcome  Not reported  aSignificant improvement in SE:CT scores following yoga- meditation intervention  44. Wawrziczny and colleagues (2017a)  France/French  N = 125; 60% female; 100% spouses  Modeling distress  SE:OR α = .83; SE:MB α = .90; SE:CT α = .83  SE subscales did not show strong relationships with other variables and were excluded from the final model.  45. Wawrziczny and colleagues (2017b)  France/French  N = 150; 59.3% female; 100% spouses  Describe characteristics of cgs for early- and later-onset patients  Early onset: SE:OR α = .86; SE:MB α = .86; SE:CT α = .84  aSpouse cgs of early onset patients had lower average SE:CT scores compared to spouses of late onset individuals  Late onset: SE:OR α = .83; SE:MB α = .89; SE:CT α = .83  46. Williams and colleagues (2010)  USA/English  N = 116; 78% female; 40% spouses; 50% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  No improvement in SE subscale scores following video-based skills intervention relative to wait list control  Author (publication year)  Country/language  Sample  Use of measure  Alpha (α)  Findingsa  1. Au and colleagues (2009)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 134; 75% female; 58% adult children  Predict depressive symptoms  SE:OR α = .89; SE:MB α = .91; SE:CT α = .90  aRSCSE subscales partially mediated the path between social support and depression  2. Au, Lau, and colleagues (2010)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 134; 75% female; 58% adult children  Predict depressive symptoms  SE:OR α = .89; SE:MB α = .91; SE:CT α = .90  aSE:CT mediated link between perceived physical health support and depression  3. Au, Li, and colleagues (2010)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese/ Cantonese  N = 27;100% female; 34% spouses/SO; 52% adult children  RCT outcome  SE:OR α = .92; SE:MB α = .95; SE:CT α = .86  aSE:MB and SE:CT improved in treatment group compared to control group  4. Au and colleagues (2014)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese/ Cantonese  N = 60; 76.7% female; 38.3% spouses; 60% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  No differences in SE:OR or SE:CT change following intervention, relative to comparison group  5. Cheng, Lam, Kwok, Ng, and Fung (2013)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 99; 71% female; 55% adult children  Measurement refinement and validation  SE:ORα = .92; SE:MB α = .86; SE:CT α = .75  aCFA of shortened scale supported three-factor model (χ2 = 29.09, df = 23, ns; RMSEA = .05)  SE:CT moderated relationship between challenging behaviors and role overload and burden  6. Cheng, Kwok, and Lam (2014)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 395; Data originating from two studies; 86% female; 27% spouse/sibling; 73% intergenerational  To support concurrent validity of Zarit Burden Interview  SE:OR α = .95; SE:MB α = .87; SE:CT α = .77  aRSCSE subscales negatively correlated with three of the four factors for Zarit Burden Interview  7. Cheng, Fung, Chan, and Lam (2016)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 129; 81% female; 27% spouse; 71% adult children  Mediate outcome of RCT  SE:OR α = .94; SE:MB α = .88; SE:CT α = .80  a3-item version of SE:CT subscale was primary mediator of outcome for a benefit-finding intervention  8. Cheng and colleagues (2017)  China (Hong Kong)/Chinese  N = 96; 87% female; 24% spouse; 76% younger generation  Mediate outcome of RCT  SE:OR α = .96; SE:MB α = .84; SE:CT α = .75  a3-item version of SE:CT subscale was mediator of outcomes for a benefit- finding intervention  9. Coon, Thompson, Steffen, Sorocco, and Gallagher- Thompson (2003)  USA/English  N = 169; 100% female; 57% spouse; 43% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  aIntervention effect for both SE:MB and SE:CT relative to waitlist control. SE:CT partially mediated intervention impact on both anger and depressed mood.  10. Crellin, Charlesworth, and Orrell (2014)  England (UK)/English  N = 245; 71% female; 62% spouse; 29% adult children  To support concurrent validity of Caregiver Efficacy Scale  Not reported  aRSCSE subscales significantly correlated with Caregiver Efficacy Scale assessing confidence in dealing with behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia  11. Crespo and Fernández-Lansac (2014)  Spain/Spanish  N = 111; 74% female; 51% adult children  Predict well-being  SE:OR α = .87; SE:MB α = .93; SE:CT α = .90  aSupport for convergent and discriminant validity, with predicted varying relationships between the three subscales and depression, anxiety, anger, burden, and self-esteem  12. Cristancho-Lacroix and colleagues (2015)  France/French  N = 49; 65% female; 59% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  No intervention effect for RSCSE subscales  13. Depp and colleagues (2005)  USA/English and Spanish  N = 238; 100% female; 42% spouses/SOs; 58% adult children  Impact of ethnicity and kinship status on self-efficacy  Caucasian: SE:OR α = .89; SE:MB α = .90; SE:CT α = .89  aLevel of acculturation did not relate strongly with self- efficacy. Hispanic/Latinos higher on two of the three self-efficacy scales than Caucasian caregivers.  Hispanic/Latino: SE:OR α = .88; SE:MB α = .88; SE:CT α = .85  14. Ducharme, Lévesque, Lachance, Kergoat, and Coulombe (2011)  Canada (Québec)/French  N = 122; 78% female; 36% spouses/SOs; 64% adult children  Descriptive study of caregiving characteristics within 9 months of Alzheimer’s diagnosis  α = .86–.90  aSelf-efficacy differences by gender (lower scores for women) and by kinship (lower scores for spouses)  15. Ducharme, Lévesque, Lachance, Kergoat, Legault, and colleagues (2011)  Canada (Québec)/French  N = 111; 79% female; 34% spouses/SOs; 52% adult children  RCT outcome  α = .86  aIntervention effect for a total RSCSE score relative to waitlist control  16. Ducharme, Lachance, Lévesque, Kergoat, and Zarit (2012)  Canada (Québec)/French  N = 97; 81% female; 36% spouses/SOs; 55% adult children  RCT outcome at 6 months  Baseline α = .89; Follow-up α = .91  aIntervention effect for a total RSCSE score relative to waitlist control, ηp2 = .04  17. Ducharme, Lachance, Kergoat, and colleagues (2015)  Canada (Québec)/French  N = 96; 79% female; 66% spouses/SOs; 25% adult children  Comparison of caregivers for early- and late- onset dementia patients  α = .74–.92  No differences as hypothesized between caregivers of early- and late-onset caregivers in the three RSCSE subscales  18. Ducharme, Lachance, Lévesque, Zarit, and Kergoat (2015)  Canada (Québec)/French  N = 89; 80% female; 49% adult children  RCT outcome  α = .90  aIntervention effect for a total RSCSE score relative to waitlist control, for participants with and without an added booster session  19. Gallagher- Thompson and colleagues (2007)  USA/Mandarin, Cantonese, and English  N = 45; 100% female; 31% spouse  RCT outcome  Reported mean α = .90  aSE moderated treatment impact. Participants low in SE improved most for in-home behavior management intervention.  20. Gant, Steffen, and Lauderdale (2007)  USA/English  N = 32; 100% male; 88% spouse  RCT outcome  Not reported  Improvement pre to post for both conditions. No differential improvement for more intensive intervention.  21. George and Steffen (2014)  USA/English  N = 52; 100% female; 57% spouses/SO; 38% adult children  Longitudinal model predicting physical and mental health  Not reported  aSE:CT predicted better SF-12 physical health indices and lower psychoactive medication usage at 18 months postintervention  22. Gilliam and Steffen (2006)  USA/English  N = 74; 100% female; 52% spouses/SO; 43% adult children  Predict depressive symptoms  SE:MB α = .88  aSE-MB negatively correlated with depressive symptoms, after controlling for number of behavior problems and level of cognitive impairment  23. Gonyea, López, and Velásquez (2016)  USA/Spanish  N = 67; 95% female; 25% spouse; 57% adult children  RCT outcome  Total score α = .86  aCBT intervention effect for a total RSCSE score relative to psychoeducational control  24. Grano, Lucidi, and Violani (2017)  Italy/Italian  N = 108;57% female; 50% spouse; 47% adult children  Predict depressive symptoms using SEM with longitudinal data  SE:OR α = .86; SE:MB α = .92; SE:CT α = .86  aSE:CT partially mediated link between perceived physical health support and depression  25. Holland, Thompson, Tzuang, and Gallagher- Thompson (2010)  USA/Mandarin, Cantonese, and English  N = 47; 100% female; 39% spouses/SO; 61% adult children  Predict diurnal cortisol patterns  Total RSCSE α = .90  aBelief in Asian values associated with more normal cortisol patterns and with higher RSCSE scores  26. Liu and Huang (2016)  Taiwan/Chinese/Mandarin  N = 115; 66% female; 26% spouse; 71% adult children  Predict burden and self-esteem  SE:OR α = .94; SE:MB α = .96; SE:CT α = .96  aSE:OR partially mediated link between family functioning and burden. Other paths were nonsignificant.  27. Lopez, Romero- Moreno, Marquez- González, and Losada (2012)  Spain/Spanish  N = 122; 80% female;36% spouses; 57% adult children  Interaction with spirituality to predict well-being  Cited Peñacoba, Losada, López, and Márquez-González (2008) CFA which supports three-factor model, loadings ranged from .45–.94, α = .84.  aSpirituality and self- efficacy had additive effect on well-being. High self-efficacy and high spirituality group had lower levels of depression.  28. Márquez-González, Losada, López, and Peñacoba (2009)  Spain/Spanish  N = 180; 78% female; 57% adult children  Validation study of Spanish translation  SE:OR α = .86; SE:MB α = .79; SE:CT α = .82  aSupport for reliability and convergent/discriminant validity of Spanish translation  29. Marziali and colleagues (2010)  Canada/English  N = 232; 75% female; 56% spouses; 36% adult children  Evaluate assessment battery  α = .70–.90  aSupport for inclusion of scale within standardized assessment battery. SE significantly predicted self-reported physical and mental health, and plan for institutionalization.  30. Montoro-Rodriguez and Gallagher-Thompson (2009)  USA/Spanish and English  N = 185; 100% female; 39% spouse/SO  Evaluate socio- cultural model of stress and caregiver burden  α = .81–85  aSE:CT inversely related to burden scores. Ethnicity had direct and indirect influence on burden via SE:CT.  31. Nogales-González, Romero- Moreno, Losada, Márquez- González, and Zarit (2015)  Spain/Spanish  N = 231; 79% female; 58% adult children  Predict well-being  SE:MB α = .80  aSE:MB partially moderated the relationship between patient behavior problems and caregiver reactions. High SE caregivers were less upset by increasing number of disruptive and depressive behaviors.  32. Peñacoba and colleagues (2008)  Spain/Spanish  N = 202; 78% female; 36% spouses; 57% adult children  Measurement study  Not reported  aCFA supported three-factor model (χ2 = 120.86, df = 87; GFI = 0.93; IFI = 0.97; CFI = 0.97; RMSEA = .04). Factor loadings ranged 0.45–0.94.  33. Rabinowitz, Mausbach, Thompson, and Gallagher- Thompson (2007)  USA/English and Spanish  N = 256; 100% female; 38% spouses/SOs; 52% adult children  Predict cumulative health risk  SE:OR α = .84; SE:MB α = .89; SE:CT α = .89  aSE:OR and SE:CT associated with fewer caregiver health risk behaviors; SE:CT associated with improved dietary practices  34. Rabinowitz, Mausbach, and Gallagher-Thompson (2009)  USA/English and Spanish  N = 256; 100% female; 61% spouses/SOs  Test model of caregiver depression  SE:OR α = .89; SE:MB α = .89; SE:CT α = .88  aSE:MB and SE:CT had direct inverse relationship with depressive symptoms. SE:MB moderated relationship between patient behavior problems and caregiver depression.  35. Rabinowitz, Saenz, Thompson, and Gallagher- Thompson (2011)  USA/English and Spanish  N = 256; 100% female; 61% spouses/SOs  Test model predicting health risk  SE:OR α = .89; SE:MB α = .89; SE:CT α = .88  aDepressive symptoms mediated the relationship between self- efficacy (SE:OR, SE:CT) and cumulative health risk  36. Romero-Moreno and colleagues (2011)  Spain/Spanish  N = 167; 77.20% female; 34.30% spouses; 60.20% adult children  Test SE as moderator of the relationship between stressors and distress  SE:MB α = .80; SE:CT α = .82  aSE:MB did not moderate the relationship between patient behavior problems and burden; SE:CT moderated the relationship between burden and distress (depression and anxiety). Support for construct validity of scale, showing inverse relationships between SE:MB and burden; and between SE:CT and depression/anxiety  37. Romero-Moreno, Márquez-González, Mausbach, and Losada (2012)  Spain/Spanish  N = 130; 83.08 female; 34.62% spouses; 61.53% adult children; (n = 116 at 3 month f/u; n = 82 at 12 month f/u)  Conceptual model testing; predict depression longitudinally  SE:CT α = .78 (sole domain used in study)  aLongitudinal analyses demonstrate that increases in SE:CT predicted decreases in depression over time  38. Séoud and Ducharme (2015)  Lebanon/Arabic  N = 140; 100% female; 18.6% wives; 69.3 adult daughters  Predict resilience  Total RSCSE α = .91  aRSCSE total score associated with a measure of resilience after accounting for control variables  39. Steffen (2000)  USA/English  N = 33; 75.8% female; 54.5% spouses; 36.4% adults children  RCT outcome  SE:MB = .84  aSE:MB scores were improved following both in-home and group-based interventions relative to control condition  40. Steffen and colleagues (2002)  USA/English  Study 1: N = 169; 100% female; 57% wives; 39% adult daughters  Measurement development  Study 1: SE:OR α = .88; SE:MB α = .84; SE:CT α = .86  aOriginal measurement development article. First sample used for scale refinement and exploratory factor analysis. Second sample used for CFA. Support for concurrent and discriminant validity examined with both data sets.  Study 2: N = 145;80% female; 46% spouse; 46% adult children  Study 2: SE:OR α = .85; SE:MB α = .82; SE:CT α = .85  41. Steffen and Gant (2015)  USA/English  N = 74; 100% female; 52% wives; 43% adult daughters  RCT outcome  Not reported  aTelehealth behavioral coaching showed greater improvement in SE:OR and SE:MB relative to comparison condition  42. Waelde, Meyer, Thompson, Thompson, and Gallagher- Thompson (2017)  USA/English  N = 31; 100% female  RCT outcome  SE:CT α = .80  SE:CT did not improve in meditation intervention group, relative to comparison condition  43. Waelde, Thompson, and Gallagher-Thompson (2004)  USA/English and Spanish  N = 12; 100% female; 50% wives; 50% adult daughters  bQuasi- experimental study outcome  Not reported  aSignificant improvement in SE:CT scores following yoga- meditation intervention  44. Wawrziczny and colleagues (2017a)  France/French  N = 125; 60% female; 100% spouses  Modeling distress  SE:OR α = .83; SE:MB α = .90; SE:CT α = .83  SE subscales did not show strong relationships with other variables and were excluded from the final model.  45. Wawrziczny and colleagues (2017b)  France/French  N = 150; 59.3% female; 100% spouses  Describe characteristics of cgs for early- and later-onset patients  Early onset: SE:OR α = .86; SE:MB α = .86; SE:CT α = .84  aSpouse cgs of early onset patients had lower average SE:CT scores compared to spouses of late onset individuals  Late onset: SE:OR α = .83; SE:MB α = .89; SE:CT α = .83  46. Williams and colleagues (2010)  USA/English  N = 116; 78% female; 40% spouses; 50% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  No improvement in SE subscale scores following video-based skills intervention relative to wait list control  aIndicates findings support hypothesized function of RSCSE in study. bPre–post design without a comparison group. View Large Table 2. Predictive Studies and RCTs Using Self-Report Format of Revised Scale for Caregiving Self-Efficacy (n = 12)a Author (publication year)  Country/language  Sample  Use of measure  Alpha (α)  Findingsa  47. Easom, Alston, and Coleman (2013)  USA/English  N = 85; 78% female; 49% adult children  bQuasi-experimental study outcome  Not reported  No intervention effect for a total RSCSE score. Improved SE for worry about future (one item from SE:CT).  48. Farran and colleagues (2011)  USA/English  N = 82; 77% female; 55% spouse, 35% adult children  Support validity of Caregiver Assessment of Behavioral Skill- Self-Report (CAB-SR)  Not reported  aSE:CT subscale correlated with four of the seven CAB-SR subscales  49. Glueckauf, Ketterson, Loomis, and Dages (2004)  USA/English  N = 21; 86% female; 62% spouses/SO; 38% adult children  bPilot quasi-experimental study outcome  Not reported  aSignificant pre–post intervention improvement in all three subscales  50. Glueckauf and colleagues (2007)  USA/English  N = 14; 71% female; 29% spouses/SO; 57% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  aSignificant pre–post intervention improvement in SE:OR and SE:MB for treatment compared to control  51. Hou and colleagues (2014)  China (Hong Kong)/ Cantonese  N = 141; 83% female; 40% spouses/SO; 45% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  aMindfulness-based stress reduction intervention showed greater improvement in SE:CT relative to control  52. Kwok and colleagues (2013)  China (Hong Kong)/ Cantonese  N = 38; 74% female; 10% spouses/SO; 87% adult children  RCT outcome  SE:OR α = .90; SE:MB α = .93; SE:CT α = .92  aPsychoeducation administered by telephone showed greater improvement in SE:OR relative to control. SE:MB showed nonsignificant trend for intervention impact.  53. Kwok and colleagues (2014)  China (Hong Kong)/ Cantonese  N = 36; 72% female; 16% spouses/SO; 78% adult children  bQuasi-experimental study outcome  SE:MB α = .95; SE:CT α = .91  aDementia severity moderated impact of online CBT intervention on SE:CT  54. Lorig and colleagues (2012)  USA/English  N = 60; 82% female; 62% spouses/SO; 68% caring for dementia patients  bQuasi-experimental study outcome  Not reported  aSignificant improvement in total SE score following online intervention  55. MacDougall and Steffen (2017)  USA/English  N = 158; 100% female; 17% spouse; 60% adult children  Predict emotional eating  SE:CT α = .90  aSE:CT predicted lower rates of emotional eating after controlling for other predictors  56. Marziali and Garcia (2011)  Canada/English and French  N = 91; 72% female; 74% spouses/SO; 26% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  aSignificant improvement in total SE score following two online interventions. Change in SE scores for video group predicted change in distress.  57. Sadak and colleagues (2015)  USA/English  N = 130; 80% female; 63% spouse/SO; 25% adult children  Support concurrent validity of PBH-LCI:D scale  α = .90  Correlation between RSCSE and PBH-LCI:D nonsignificant  58. Wang, Yip, and Chang (2016)  Taiwan/Chinese  N = 72; 78% female; 21% spouse/SO; 79% adult children  Test SE as a mediator of the relationship between stressors and depression.  Not reported  aSE:CT partially mediated relationship between stressors and depression.  Author (publication year)  Country/language  Sample  Use of measure  Alpha (α)  Findingsa  47. Easom, Alston, and Coleman (2013)  USA/English  N = 85; 78% female; 49% adult children  bQuasi-experimental study outcome  Not reported  No intervention effect for a total RSCSE score. Improved SE for worry about future (one item from SE:CT).  48. Farran and colleagues (2011)  USA/English  N = 82; 77% female; 55% spouse, 35% adult children  Support validity of Caregiver Assessment of Behavioral Skill- Self-Report (CAB-SR)  Not reported  aSE:CT subscale correlated with four of the seven CAB-SR subscales  49. Glueckauf, Ketterson, Loomis, and Dages (2004)  USA/English  N = 21; 86% female; 62% spouses/SO; 38% adult children  bPilot quasi-experimental study outcome  Not reported  aSignificant pre–post intervention improvement in all three subscales  50. Glueckauf and colleagues (2007)  USA/English  N = 14; 71% female; 29% spouses/SO; 57% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  aSignificant pre–post intervention improvement in SE:OR and SE:MB for treatment compared to control  51. Hou and colleagues (2014)  China (Hong Kong)/ Cantonese  N = 141; 83% female; 40% spouses/SO; 45% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  aMindfulness-based stress reduction intervention showed greater improvement in SE:CT relative to control  52. Kwok and colleagues (2013)  China (Hong Kong)/ Cantonese  N = 38; 74% female; 10% spouses/SO; 87% adult children  RCT outcome  SE:OR α = .90; SE:MB α = .93; SE:CT α = .92  aPsychoeducation administered by telephone showed greater improvement in SE:OR relative to control. SE:MB showed nonsignificant trend for intervention impact.  53. Kwok and colleagues (2014)  China (Hong Kong)/ Cantonese  N = 36; 72% female; 16% spouses/SO; 78% adult children  bQuasi-experimental study outcome  SE:MB α = .95; SE:CT α = .91  aDementia severity moderated impact of online CBT intervention on SE:CT  54. Lorig and colleagues (2012)  USA/English  N = 60; 82% female; 62% spouses/SO; 68% caring for dementia patients  bQuasi-experimental study outcome  Not reported  aSignificant improvement in total SE score following online intervention  55. MacDougall and Steffen (2017)  USA/English  N = 158; 100% female; 17% spouse; 60% adult children  Predict emotional eating  SE:CT α = .90  aSE:CT predicted lower rates of emotional eating after controlling for other predictors  56. Marziali and Garcia (2011)  Canada/English and French  N = 91; 72% female; 74% spouses/SO; 26% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  aSignificant improvement in total SE score following two online interventions. Change in SE scores for video group predicted change in distress.  57. Sadak and colleagues (2015)  USA/English  N = 130; 80% female; 63% spouse/SO; 25% adult children  Support concurrent validity of PBH-LCI:D scale  α = .90  Correlation between RSCSE and PBH-LCI:D nonsignificant  58. Wang, Yip, and Chang (2016)  Taiwan/Chinese  N = 72; 78% female; 21% spouse/SO; 79% adult children  Test SE as a mediator of the relationship between stressors and depression.  Not reported  aSE:CT partially mediated relationship between stressors and depression.  aIndicates findings support hypothesized function of RSCSE in study. bPre–post design without a comparison group. View Large Table 2. Predictive Studies and RCTs Using Self-Report Format of Revised Scale for Caregiving Self-Efficacy (n = 12)a Author (publication year)  Country/language  Sample  Use of measure  Alpha (α)  Findingsa  47. Easom, Alston, and Coleman (2013)  USA/English  N = 85; 78% female; 49% adult children  bQuasi-experimental study outcome  Not reported  No intervention effect for a total RSCSE score. Improved SE for worry about future (one item from SE:CT).  48. Farran and colleagues (2011)  USA/English  N = 82; 77% female; 55% spouse, 35% adult children  Support validity of Caregiver Assessment of Behavioral Skill- Self-Report (CAB-SR)  Not reported  aSE:CT subscale correlated with four of the seven CAB-SR subscales  49. Glueckauf, Ketterson, Loomis, and Dages (2004)  USA/English  N = 21; 86% female; 62% spouses/SO; 38% adult children  bPilot quasi-experimental study outcome  Not reported  aSignificant pre–post intervention improvement in all three subscales  50. Glueckauf and colleagues (2007)  USA/English  N = 14; 71% female; 29% spouses/SO; 57% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  aSignificant pre–post intervention improvement in SE:OR and SE:MB for treatment compared to control  51. Hou and colleagues (2014)  China (Hong Kong)/ Cantonese  N = 141; 83% female; 40% spouses/SO; 45% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  aMindfulness-based stress reduction intervention showed greater improvement in SE:CT relative to control  52. Kwok and colleagues (2013)  China (Hong Kong)/ Cantonese  N = 38; 74% female; 10% spouses/SO; 87% adult children  RCT outcome  SE:OR α = .90; SE:MB α = .93; SE:CT α = .92  aPsychoeducation administered by telephone showed greater improvement in SE:OR relative to control. SE:MB showed nonsignificant trend for intervention impact.  53. Kwok and colleagues (2014)  China (Hong Kong)/ Cantonese  N = 36; 72% female; 16% spouses/SO; 78% adult children  bQuasi-experimental study outcome  SE:MB α = .95; SE:CT α = .91  aDementia severity moderated impact of online CBT intervention on SE:CT  54. Lorig and colleagues (2012)  USA/English  N = 60; 82% female; 62% spouses/SO; 68% caring for dementia patients  bQuasi-experimental study outcome  Not reported  aSignificant improvement in total SE score following online intervention  55. MacDougall and Steffen (2017)  USA/English  N = 158; 100% female; 17% spouse; 60% adult children  Predict emotional eating  SE:CT α = .90  aSE:CT predicted lower rates of emotional eating after controlling for other predictors  56. Marziali and Garcia (2011)  Canada/English and French  N = 91; 72% female; 74% spouses/SO; 26% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  aSignificant improvement in total SE score following two online interventions. Change in SE scores for video group predicted change in distress.  57. Sadak and colleagues (2015)  USA/English  N = 130; 80% female; 63% spouse/SO; 25% adult children  Support concurrent validity of PBH-LCI:D scale  α = .90  Correlation between RSCSE and PBH-LCI:D nonsignificant  58. Wang, Yip, and Chang (2016)  Taiwan/Chinese  N = 72; 78% female; 21% spouse/SO; 79% adult children  Test SE as a mediator of the relationship between stressors and depression.  Not reported  aSE:CT partially mediated relationship between stressors and depression.  Author (publication year)  Country/language  Sample  Use of measure  Alpha (α)  Findingsa  47. Easom, Alston, and Coleman (2013)  USA/English  N = 85; 78% female; 49% adult children  bQuasi-experimental study outcome  Not reported  No intervention effect for a total RSCSE score. Improved SE for worry about future (one item from SE:CT).  48. Farran and colleagues (2011)  USA/English  N = 82; 77% female; 55% spouse, 35% adult children  Support validity of Caregiver Assessment of Behavioral Skill- Self-Report (CAB-SR)  Not reported  aSE:CT subscale correlated with four of the seven CAB-SR subscales  49. Glueckauf, Ketterson, Loomis, and Dages (2004)  USA/English  N = 21; 86% female; 62% spouses/SO; 38% adult children  bPilot quasi-experimental study outcome  Not reported  aSignificant pre–post intervention improvement in all three subscales  50. Glueckauf and colleagues (2007)  USA/English  N = 14; 71% female; 29% spouses/SO; 57% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  aSignificant pre–post intervention improvement in SE:OR and SE:MB for treatment compared to control  51. Hou and colleagues (2014)  China (Hong Kong)/ Cantonese  N = 141; 83% female; 40% spouses/SO; 45% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  aMindfulness-based stress reduction intervention showed greater improvement in SE:CT relative to control  52. Kwok and colleagues (2013)  China (Hong Kong)/ Cantonese  N = 38; 74% female; 10% spouses/SO; 87% adult children  RCT outcome  SE:OR α = .90; SE:MB α = .93; SE:CT α = .92  aPsychoeducation administered by telephone showed greater improvement in SE:OR relative to control. SE:MB showed nonsignificant trend for intervention impact.  53. Kwok and colleagues (2014)  China (Hong Kong)/ Cantonese  N = 36; 72% female; 16% spouses/SO; 78% adult children  bQuasi-experimental study outcome  SE:MB α = .95; SE:CT α = .91  aDementia severity moderated impact of online CBT intervention on SE:CT  54. Lorig and colleagues (2012)  USA/English  N = 60; 82% female; 62% spouses/SO; 68% caring for dementia patients  bQuasi-experimental study outcome  Not reported  aSignificant improvement in total SE score following online intervention  55. MacDougall and Steffen (2017)  USA/English  N = 158; 100% female; 17% spouse; 60% adult children  Predict emotional eating  SE:CT α = .90  aSE:CT predicted lower rates of emotional eating after controlling for other predictors  56. Marziali and Garcia (2011)  Canada/English and French  N = 91; 72% female; 74% spouses/SO; 26% adult children  RCT outcome  Not reported  aSignificant improvement in total SE score following two online interventions. Change in SE scores for video group predicted change in distress.  57. Sadak and colleagues (2015)  USA/English  N = 130; 80% female; 63% spouse/SO; 25% adult children  Support concurrent validity of PBH-LCI:D scale  α = .90  Correlation between RSCSE and PBH-LCI:D nonsignificant  58. Wang, Yip, and Chang (2016)  Taiwan/Chinese  N = 72; 78% female; 21% spouse/SO; 79% adult children  Test SE as a mediator of the relationship between stressors and depression.  Not reported  aSE:CT partially mediated relationship between stressors and depression.  aIndicates findings support hypothesized function of RSCSE in study. bPre–post design without a comparison group. View Large Information about the scale’s performance has been organized with attention to translation procedures, psychometric properties, factor structure, validity, and utility within a cross-cultural perspective. Our review of these selected works has been organized by the function served by the RSCSE within the published research: (a) evaluating the scale’s psychometrics and factor structure, (b) conceptual model testing (predictors of RSCSE scores, or RSCSE scores as predictors of physical and mental health indices), and (c) as outcomes within interventions (i.e., providing support for the scale’s construct validity and sensitivity to change). Within these specific functions, works are identified in subscript by the number corresponding with their position in the review tables, and provided in brackets following the relevant citation. We pay particular attention to translation procedures and support for validity of non-English translations of the scale. Translation Strategies The World Health Organization (WHO, 2017) recommends a process of translating instruments for research purposes to achieve different language versions that are conceptually equivalent—rather than linguistically or literally equivalent. WHO guidelines include the following steps: (a) forward translation by a native speaker of the target language; (b) bilingual expert panel back translation; (c) pretesting; and (d) final version. In a methods review of the instrument translation process by Maneesriwongul and Dixon (2004), strengths and weaknesses of these various steps have been explored. From that review, the instruments below meet the criteria for proper translation procedures to produce conceptually equivalent versions of the RSCSE. Of the 58 studies identified in this review as using the RSCSE, almost three-fourths (n = 42; 72%) have used non-English translations. Arabic (n = 1) There is one published study reporting use of an Arabic translation of the RSCSE (Séoud & Ducharme, 2015)[38], conducted in Lebanon. The authors report following the translation processes recommended by Haccoun (1987), including parallel back-translation. Chinese (n = 15) For participants preferring Chinese language materials in studies conducted in the USA, Gallagher-Thompson and colleagues (Gallagher-Thompson et al., 2007,[19]; Holland et al., 2010,[25]) followed the WHO guidelines (WHO, 2017). WHO steps 1 and 2 were followed by pilot testing in the target groups to ensure that the meaning of the questions and the response options were accurately preserved. Au and colleagues (Au et al., 2009,[1]; Au, Lau, et al., 2010,[2]; Au, Li, et al., 2010,[3]) piloted the above Chinese translation with dementia caregivers in Hong Kong, and reported that no changes were deemed necessary. Cheng and colleagues (2013, 2014, 2016, 2017)[5–8] performed their Chinese translation, back-translation, and piloting of the English-language scale independently of Gallagher-Thompson’s and Au’s research groups. These authors also reported not encountering any problems with the translation and that the items have been relevant for Hong Kong Chinese caregivers. Studies using Chinese translations of the scale have been conducted in China ((Au et al., 2009,[1]; Au, Lau, et al., 2010,[2]; Au, Li, et al., 2010,[3]; Au et al., 2014,[4]; Cheng et al., 2013,[5], 2014,[6], 2016,[7], 2017,[8]; Hou et al., 2014,[51]; Kwok et al., 2013,[52], 2014,[53]; Liu & Huang, 2016,[26]; Wang et al., 2016,[58]) and the USA (Gallagher-Thompson et al., 2007,[19]; Holland et al., 2010[25]). French (n = 9) Cristancho-Lacroix and colleagues (2015,[12]) reported using the French Canadian translation of the RSCSE (Marziali & Garcia, 2011)[56] with Parisian caregivers using face-to-face interviews. To adapt verbal expressions from French Canadian to Metropolitan French, several words were replaced. The authors reported that a few of the SE:CT items were considered “not applicable” by some participants, possibly due to cultural and religious issues. For instance, some French participants originating from Asiatic and Maghreb countries rejected SE:CT items that referred to thinking about caregiving situations as unpleasant or unfair. A few SE:MB items were considered too similar by some participants and interviewers had to explain to clarify them. Ducharme, Lévesque, Lachance, Kergoat, and Coulombe (2011),[14] reported using a parallel-back translation procedure described by Haccoun (1987) for their French Canadian translation of the RSCSE, which was then used for subsequent projects. Studies using French translations of the scale were conducted in Canada (Ducharme, Lévesque, Lachance, Kergoat, & Coulombe, 2011,[14]; Ducharme, Lévesque, Lachance, Kergoat, Legault, et al., 2011,[15]; Ducharme et al., 2012,[16]; Ducharme, Lachance, Kergoat, et al., 2015,[17]; Ducharme, Lachance, Lévesque, et al., 2015,[18]; Marziali & Garcia, 2011,[56]) and France (Cristancho-Lacroix et al., 2015,[12]; Wawrziczny et al., 2017a,[44], 2017b[45]). Italian (n = 1) There is one published study reporting use of an Italian translation of the RSCSE (Grano et al., 2017)[24]; translation details were provided in an article published in an Italian-language journal. Spanish (n = 16) The first known Spanish translation was developed by Gallagher-Thompson and colleagues for participants in the United States using WHO (2017) guidelines (Depp et al., 2005,[13]; Montoro-Rodriguez & Gallagher-Thompson, 2009,[30]; Rabinowitz et al., 2007,[33], 2009,[34], 2011,[35]; Waelde et al., 2004,[43]). Márquez-González and colleagues (2009),[28] described a Spanish version of the RSCSE for studies in Spain, following recommendations for adapting tests (Hambleton & Patsula, 1998) similar to WHO guidelines. The researchers did not report difficulties applying the scale to Spanish populations, as the concept of SE exists in the Spanish culture with the same meaning it has in Anglo-Saxon language and culture. Thus, construct equivalence was assumed; four translators highly proficient in both English and Spanish languages and familiar with both cultures translated and back-translated the instrument. In a separate process, Crespo and Fernández-Lansac (2014) developed another Spanish translation of the scale. Two researchers from their group translated the RSCSE without substantive changes from the published English language version, including the instructions, items content, and order or response choices. This version was later revised and edited by two other members of the research group. The final draft was finally reviewed and piloted by Spanish-speaking people with no knowledge of the English version to ascertain that the meaning in Spanish was close enough to the original version in its entirety. Studies using Spanish translations of the scale have been conducted in Spain (Crespo & Fernández-Lansac, 2014,[11]; Lopez et al., 2012,[27]; Márquez-González et al., 2009,[28]; Nogales-González et al., 2015,[31]; Peñacoba et al., 2008,[32]; Romero-Moreno et al., 2011,[36], 2012,[37]) and the United States (Depp et al., 2005,[13]; Gallagher-Thompson et al., 2007,[19]; Gonyea et al., 2016,[23]; Holland et al., 2010,[25]; Montoro-Rodriguez & Gallagher-Thompson, 2009,[30]; Rabinowitz et al., 2007,[33], 2009,[34], 2011,[35]; Waelde et al., 2017[42]). RSCSE Psychometrics and Factor Structure As shown in Table 1, internal reliabilities for interview administrations of the RSCSE have been strong: SE:OR α = .84–.95; SE:MB α = .79–.95; SE:CT α = .75–.92. The original scale developers presented the RSCSE as multidimensional and recommended against averaging scores across all three domains; some investigators have nonetheless treated the scale as unidimensional (full-scale α = .70–.92). Although not as frequently reported, reliability indices for RSCSE collected via self-report have been similar; these are reported in Table 2 (SE:OR α = .90; SE:MB α = .93–.95; SE:CT α = .91–.92; full-scale: α = .90). Two confirmatory factor analytic studies support the three-factor structure identified in the original development article. Using a sample of caregivers from Hong Kong and a Chinese translation of the scale, Cheng and colleagues (2013),[5] performed a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), analyzing the covariance matrix of the items using maximum likelihood estimation for CFA. The three-factor model fit the data very well, resulting in a nonsignificant chi square after letting the residuals of two items load freely. The fit of the original three-factor model for one of the Spanish translations was assessed by Peñacoba and colleagues (2008)[32] through CFA. A good fit of the data to the original three-factor structure of the scale was obtained by allowing a covariance between the errors from items 4 and 5 (both items from the SE:OR subscale). For the remainder of this review, relevant works are listed and then described within Tables 1 and 2. More complete descriptions of the studies and key findings are provided in the Supplementary Appendix A. Predictors of Self-Efficacy Several studies conducted in the United States and Canada have examined demographic (i.e., ethnicity, kinship, gender) and caregiving-context predictors of self-efficacy among English, French, and Spanish-speaking caregivers (Depp et al., 2005,[13]; Ducharme, Lévesque, Lachance, Kergoat, & Coulombe, 2011,[14]; Ducharme, Lachance, Kergoat, et al., 2015,[17]; Montoro-Rodriguez & Gallagher-Thompson, 2009,[30]; Wawrziczny et al., 2017b[45]). Ethnicity (i.e., being Hispanic/Latino), kinship (e.g., being a daughter/daughter-in-law), gender (e.g., male), and onset (e.g., late onset) have been found to be directly related to caregivers’ level of self-efficacy. Caregiving Self-Efficacy as a Predictor of Physical Health Several studies have utilized the RSCSE to predict variables related to physical health, including research conducted in Hong Kong (Au, Lau, et al., 2010,[2]) and in the United States (George & Steffen, 2014,[21]; Holland et al., 2010,[25]; MacDougall & Steffen, 2017,[55]; Rabinowitz et al., 2007,[33], 2011)[35]. Across these, data suggest complex bi-directional relationships between self-efficacy, depression, and health risk. Specifically, SE:CT has been found to be positively associated with better health behaviors, health-related quality of life, emotional eating, along with less utilization of psychotropic medications. Caregiving Self-Efficacy as a Predictor of Mental Health The RSCSE has been used as a predictor of mental health outcomes in caregivers. Although the majority of the studies focused on depressed mood/depressive symptoms, some examined perceived burden, anger, and positive indices such as resilience. Direct effects between self-efficacy and mental health outcomes have been found in research conducted in Canada, Italy, Lebanon, Spain, Taiwan, and the United States (Crespo & Fernández-Lansac, 2014,[11]; Gilliam & Steffen, 2006,[22]; Liu & Huang, 2016,[26]; Lopez et al., 2012,[27]; Marziali et al., 2010,[29]; Romero-Moreno et al., 2012,[37]; Séoud & Ducharme, 2015,[38]). Mediational relationships have been found in China (Au et al.,2009,[1]; Wang et al., 2016,[58]), Taiwan (Liu & Huang, 2016)[26], and Italy (Grano et al. 2017)[24]. Wawrziczny and colleagues (2017a),[44] did not find that the subscales contributed to the final model of spousal distress (i.e., depression, health problems, disrupted schedule, and psychological distress) in French spousal caregivers. Moderating effects of specific RSCSE subscales have received support in the literature, in Hong Kong by Cheng and colleagues (2013,[5]), in Spain (Márquez-González et al., 2009,[28]; Nogales-González et al., 2015,[31]; Romero-Moreno et al., 2011,[36]) and in the United States (Rabinowitz et al., 2009[34]). In general terms, results from different studies show that SE:MB and SE:CT moderate the impact of stressors on distress (i.e., burden, depressive, and anxiety symptoms), buffering the effects of stressors. Intervention Research In our review of interventions reporting use of the RSCSE, nine randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and five quasi-experimental studies designated the RSCSE as a primary outcome measure, with an additional five RCTs reporting results for the RSCSE as a secondary measure of outcome or as a mediator or moderator of outcome. No publications used a cut-off score to determine eligibility for inclusion, and there was support for RSCSE being sensitive to change with statistically significant findings in most reports (Au, Li, et al., 2010,[3]; Cheng et al., 2016,[7], 2017; Coon et al., 2003,[9]; Ducharme, Lévesque, Lachance, Kergoat, Legault, et al., 2011,[15]; Ducharme et al., 2012,[16]; Ducharme, Lachance, Lévesque, et al., 2015,[18]; Gallagher-Thompson et al., 2007,[19]; Gant et al., 2007,[20]; Glueckauf et al., 2004,[49], 2007,[50]; Gonyea et al., 2016,[23]; Hou et al., 2014,[51]; Kwok et al., 2013,[52], 2014,[53]; Lorig et al., 2012,[54]; Marziali & Garcia, 2011,[56]; Steffen, 2000,[39]; Steffen & Gant, 2015[41]). Five studies reported nonsignificant findings for the RSCSE (Au et al., 2014,[4]; Cristancho-Lacroix et al., 2015,[12]; Easom et al., 2013,[47]; Waelde et al., 2017,[42]; Williams et al., 2010[46]). Pretreatment subscale means varied across the publications (ranges SE:OR 47.0–70.7; SE:MB 55.5–72.9; SE:CT 54.2–70.0; Total score 53.0–71.8), as did post-treatment means (ranges SE:OR 54.7–74.4; SE:MB 59.8–81.1; SE:CT 59.7–81.0; Total score 62.0–78.3). Several quasi-experimental studies, utilizing single group pre–post designs, have included the RSCSE as a measure of intervention impact. Of these five studies, four reported intervention effects on RSCSE scores (Glueckauf et al., 2004,[49]; Kwok et al., 2014,[53]; Lorig et al., 2012,[54]; Waelde et al., 2004,[43]) while one examined effects on a RSCSE total score and did not (Easom et al., 2013)[47]. Due to the lack of control or comparison groups, the results of those studies should be interpreted with caution. We present them as pilot studies worth some consideration due to the novel components of either the sample or approach to intervention delivery. In summary, our review of the 21 published intervention studies utilizing the RSCSE as a primary or secondary outcome variable concludes that 17 (81%) reported that significant changes were observed in the RSCSE subscales or total score, suggesting that the scale can be used as a measure of outcome or as a mediator or moderator of treatment effects. Discussion The construct of SE appears to be relevant and readily measurable in diverse cultures. Considering our first aim of identifying published studies using the RSCSE, a number of empirical studies (58) have been found that have used the scale, with translations in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Italian, and Spanish. In response to our second aim, all of the reviewed studies support the internal reliability of the subscales (Cronbach’s alpha ranging from .79 to .95). Although the majority of studies followed Steffen and colleagues’ (2002) recommendations for collecting data via interview, a sufficient number of studies have reported strong reliabilities and outcomes to justify self-report administration as well. In terms of the factor structure of the RSCSE, cross-national researchers were able to include the same items in the three subscales, which translated fairly well across multiple languages and cultures. In addition, the three-factor structure addressing respite, disruptive behaviors and upsetting thoughts has been confirmed for Chinese (Cheng et al., 2013)[4] and Spanish (Peñacoba et al., 2008)[30] caregivers. From the reviewed studies conducted in individualistic (e.g., the United States) and more collectivistic (e.g., China) cultures, these findings provide preliminary support for the cross-national utility of the scale. Despite the above, the Depp and colleagues (2005)[13] study conducted in the United States suggests possible differences by ethnicity in SE mean scores. Specifically, when compared to Caucasian participants, Hispanic/Latina caregivers reported higher self-efficacy on two of the three subscales (SE:MB, SE:CT). Future studies should examine measurement invariance before using the RSCSE for comparisons across cultural or ethnic groups. The impact of culture in the caregiving process has been recognized by models such as the socio-cultural stress and coping model (Aranda & Knight, 1997; Losada et al., 2010). Constructs such as coping and familism (i.e., placing priority of family needs over individual ones) vary in presentation or play a different role in the stress and coping process depending on the cultural or ethnic background of caregivers. Differences in predictors or effects of SE in different cultural groups are plausible. Several components of SE may play a greater role or may be more relevant as treatment targets in one culture compared with others (e.g., asking a friend/relative to stay with the care–recipient for a day when the caregiver needs a break may be more difficult for those from a collectivist cultural background than for someone from an individualistic cultural background). Being aware of these differences could result in greater cultural sensitivity when designing and delivering interventions. In addition to analyzing the functioning of the RSCSE scale in different cultures, another needed area of further research has to do with examining differences in RSCSE scores by gender. Only the study by Ducharme, Lévesque, Lachance, Kergoat, and Coulombe (2011) analyzed gender differences in the RSCSE, finding lower SE ratings for women than for men. This was echoed by Gant and colleagues’ (2007) study[20], whose sample of male-only caregivers reported relatively high SE scores at baseline. Self-efficacy is domain specific, such that SE in one domain does not suggest SE in other domains. Therefore, gender differences in SE are likely different depending on the specific domain assessed. Investigators who include male caregivers are encouraged to report data separated by gender. Moreover, there is a need to address the cultural basis of such gender differences as they are likely influenced by gender stereotyping and modeling opportunities for caregiving behaviors. Steffen and colleagues (2002) recommended against averaging all items together as a total score. A number of studies confirm this point; the three subscales show differential associations with physical and mental health indices and respond differentially to select interventions. Although some have successfully used a total RSCSE score to demonstrate treatment effects (Ducharme, Lévesque, Lachance, Kergoat, Legault, et al., 2011,[15], Ducharme, Lachance, Lévesque, et al., 2015,[18]; Gonyea et al., 2016,[23]; Lorig et al., 2012,[54]; Marziali & Garcia, 2011,[56]), one study using a total score resulted in null findings (Easom et al., 2013[47]). To limit the number of variables, we suggest targeting a specific RSCSE subscale a priori for analysis. There are some valid concerns regarding score distribution and ceiling effects, as relatively high pretreatment means for the SE:MB and the SE:CT subscales have been reported by some of the studies in this review. To improve sensitivity to change, we encourage investigators to add higher challenge items and continue measurement development work. An important limitation of this measure is related to its development within the context of mid-stage Alzheimer disease. The three subscales reflect specific domains that were considered key to supporting caregivers of an individual experiencing significant dementia-related impairment. There may well be additional caregiving domains that are important to capture in SE assessment (e.g., communicating with other family members, planning for the future). The SE:OR subscale is limited in not applying to caregivers of persons in early-stage dementia who can be safely left alone, or when the patient resides with another family member or care provider. Similarly, the SE:MB subscale is entirely specific to moderate levels of cognitive impairment, and highly questionable for use in other caregiving situations (i.e., level of cognitive impairment that are severe, mild, or nonexistent.) Although the SE:CT subscale is the least specific to the caregiving situation, and thus the most generalizable, that subscale also comes with limitations and cautions. There is a risk that caregivers may have difficulty understanding instructions and resort to rating the frequency of negative cognitions rather than their ability to control them. For example, Romero-Moreno and colleagues (2011),[36] recommend paying special attention during interview administration of this subscale, to confirm caregiver understanding of the items. Similarly, Cristancho-Lacroix and colleagues (2015),[12] note that not all items in the SE:CT subscale translated well conceptually for some participants from Asiatic or Maghreb countries. The focus on “controlling” thoughts is also more consistent with second-wave cognitive therapies (e.g., cognitive therapy, Beck’s Cognitive Behavioral Therapy), as opposed to third-wave interventions that focus on changing the function of cognitions rather than the content of the thought (e.g., acceptance and commitment therapy, Mindfulness-based CBT). Thus, future scale development could usefully lead to a cognitively focused subscale with revised items or a revised instruction that is more compatible with mindfulness-oriented interventions. Overall, given the support for use of the SE-CT subscale with dementia caregivers (Cheng et al., 2013,[5]; Crellin, Orrell, et al., 2014) and its applicability within other caregiving situations, we continue to see utility for this subscale but call for careful attention to way it is administrated. By virtue of its brevity, short administration time, and sensitivity to change following relevant interventions, the RSCSE has utility for a number of clinical applications. The three domains can function as targeted areas within multicomponent interventions. The subscale(s) having the lowest rating can guide therapists or facilitators of intervention groups to the area(s) of focus, while serving as indicators for monitoring responsiveness to the intervention. The literature does not yet support use of a specific cut-off score or clinically meaningful change score. Our tentative recommendation based on experience with samples of help-seeking caregivers is that subscale mean scores below 70 merit attention within treatment settings, with 10-point improvements signifying important gains in confidence to manage important aspects of caregiving. Investigators should explore cut-off scores and indicators of clinically significant change in future research. All these considerations stem from the present review, which, though extensive, has limitations that are worthy of attention. Because our review focused solely on works published in English language journals, we have omitted several translations and adaptations of the RSCSE that may be useful to potential users. Moreover, the inclusion criteria established for our review precluded consideration of adaptations for use with caregivers of other conditions besides dementia. Taking these limitations into account, we must be cautious about generalizing the conclusions to broader samples of caregivers. In summary, the reliability and validity of different translations of the Revised Scale for Caregiving Self-Efficacy appears solid and supports continued use of this measure with cross-national samples of dementia family caregivers. The use of the scale shows significant benefit within the caregiver intervention research literature; this is important given the growth of caregiver interventions across the cross-national community (Gallagher-Thompson et al., 2012). Supplementary Material Supplementary data are available at The Gerontologist online. Funding None reported. Acknowledgments The authors declare no conflict of interest in the research reported in this manuscript. References Anderson, E. S., Winett, R. A., & Wojcik, J. R. ( 2007). Self-regulation, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and social support: Social cognitive theory and nutrition behavior. Annals of Behavioral Medicine , 34, 304– 312. doi: 10.1007/BF02874555 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Aranda, M. P., & Knight, B. G. ( 1997). The influence of ethnicity and culture on the caregiver stress and coping process: A sociocultural review and analysis. The Gerontologist , 37, 342– 354. doi: 10.1093/geront/37.3.342 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Au, A., Lai, M. K., Lau, K. M., Pan, P. C., Lam, L., Thompson, L., & Gallagher-Thompson, D. ( 2009). Social support and well-being in dementia family caregivers: The mediating role of self-efficacy. Aging & Mental Health , 13, 761– 768. doi: 10.1080/13607860902918223 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Au, A., Lau, K., Sit, E., Cheung, G., Lai, M., Wong, S. K. A., & Fok, D. ( 2010). The role of self-efficacy in the Alzheimer’s family caregiver stress process: A partial mediator between physical health and depressive symptoms. Clinical Gerontologist , 33, 298– 315. doi: 10.1080/07317115.2010.502817 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Au, A., Li, S., Lee, K., Leung, P., Pan, P. C., Thompson, L., & Gallagher-Thompson, D. ( 2010). The coping with caregiving group program for Chinese caregivers of patients with Alzheimer’s disease in Hong Kong. Patient Education and Counseling , 78, 256– 260. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.06.005 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Au, A., Wong, M. K., Leung, L. M., Leung, P., & Wong, A. ( 2014). Telephone-assisted pleasant-event scheduling to enhance well-being of caregivers of people with dementia: A randomised controlled trial. Hong Kong Medical Journal = Xianggang yi xue za zhi , 20( 3 Suppl. 3), 30– 33. Bandura, A. ( 1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control . New York: W H Freeman/Times Books/ Henry Holt & Co. Bandura, A. ( 2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied Psychology: An International Review , 51, 269– 290. doi: 10.1111/1464-0597.00092 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Bandura, A. ( 2006), Guide to constructing self-efficacy scales. In Pajares F. & Urdan T.(Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents  (pp. 307– 337). Charlotte: Information Publishing. Bandura, A. ( 2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of Management , 38, 9– 44. doi: 10.1177/0149206311410606 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Betz, N. E. ( 2013). Assessment of self-efficacy. In K. F. Geisinger, B. A. Bracken, J. F. Carlson et al.  (Eds.), APA handbook of testing and assessment in psychology, Vol. 2: Testing and assessment in clinical and counseling psychology  (pp. 379– 391). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/14048-022 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Cheng, S. T., Fung, H. H., Chan, W. C., & Lam, L. C. ( 2016). Short-term effects of a gain-focused reappraisal intervention for dementia caregivers: A double-blind cluster-randomized controlled trial. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry , 24, 740– 750. doi: 10.1016/j.jagp.2016.04.012 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Cheng, S. T., Kwok, T., & Lam, L. C. W. ( 2014). Dimensionality of burden in Alzheimer caregivers: Confirmatory factor analysis and correlates of the Zarit Burden interview. International Psychogeriatrics , 26, 1455– 1463. doi:10.1017/S104161021400101X Cheng, S.T., Lam, L. W., Kwok, T., Ng, N. S., & Fung, A. T. ( 2013). Self-efficacy is associated with less burden and more gains from behavioral problems of Alzheimer’s disease in Hong Kong Chinese caregivers. The Gerontologist , 53, 71– 80. doi: 10.1093/geront/gns062 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Cheng, S., Mak, E. M., Fung, H. H., Kwok, T., Lee, D. F., & Lam, L. W. ( 2017). Benefit-finding and effect on caregiver depression: A double-blind randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 85, 521–529. doi: 10.1037/ccp0000176 Coon, D. W., Thompson, L., Steffen, A., Sorocco, K., & Gallagher-Thompson, D. ( 2003). Anger and depression management: Psychoeducational skill training interventions for women caregivers of a relative with dementia. The Gerontologist , 43, 678– 689. doi: 10.1093/geront/43.5.678 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Crellin, N., Charlesworth, G., & Orrell, M. ( 2014). Measuring family caregiver efficacy for managing behavioral and psychological symptoms in dementia: A psychometric evaluation. International Psychogeriatrics , 26, 93– 103. doi: 10.1017/S1041610213001646 Crellin, N. E., Orrell, M., McDermott, O., & Charlesworth, G. ( 2014). Self-efficacy and health-related quality of life in family carers of people with dementia: A systematic review. Aging & Mental Health , 18, 954– 969. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2014.915921 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Crespo, M., & Fernández-Lansac, V. ( 2014). Factors associated with anger and anger expression in caregivers of elderly relatives. Aging & Mental Health , 18, 454– 462. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2013.856857 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Cristancho-Lacroix, V., Wrobel, J., Cantegreil-Kallen, I., Dub, T., Rouquette, A., & Rigaud, A. S. ( 2015). A web-based psychoeducational program for informal caregivers of patients with Alzheimer’s disease: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research , 17, e117. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3717 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Depp, C., Sorocco, K., Kasl-Godley, J., Thompson, L., Rabinowitz, Y., & Gallagher-Thompson, D. ( 2005). Caregiver self-efficacy, ethnicity, and kinship differences in dementia caregivers. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry , 13, 787– 794. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajgp.13.9.787 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Ducharme, F. C., Lachance, L. M., Lévesque, L. L., Kergoat, M., & Zarit, S. H. ( 2012). Persistant and delayed effects of a psycho-educational program for family caregivers at disclosure of a dementia diagnosis in a relative: A six-month follow-up study. Healthy Aging Research , 1, 1– 11. doi:10.12715/har.2012.1.2 Ducharme, F., Lachance, L., Kergoat, M. J., Coulombe, R., Antoine, P., & Pasquier, F. ( 2015). A comparative descriptive study of characteristics of early- and late-onset dementia family caregivers. American Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease and Other Dementias , 31, 48– 56. doi: 10.1177/1533317515578255 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Ducharme, F., Lachance, L., Lévesque, L., Zarit, S. H., & Kergoat, M. J. ( 2015). Maintaining the potential of a psycho-educational program: Efficacy of a booster session after an intervention offered family caregivers at disclosure of a relative’s dementia diagnosis. Aging & Mental Health , 19, 207– 216. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2014.922527 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Ducharme, F., Lévesque, L., Lachance, L., Kergoat, M. J., & Coulombe, R. ( 2011). Challenges associated with transition to caregiver role following diagnostic disclosure of Alzheimer disease: A descriptive study. International Journal of Nursing Studies , 48, 1109– 1119. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.02.011 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Ducharme, F. C., Lévesque, L. L., Lachance, L. M., Kergoat, M. J., Legault, A. J., Beaudet, L. M., & Zarit, S. H. ( 2011). “Learning to become a family caregiver” efficacy of an intervention program for caregivers following diagnosis of dementia in a relative. The Gerontologist , 51, 484– 494. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnr014 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Easom, L. R., Alston, G., & Coleman, R. ( 2013). A rural community translation of a dementia caregiving intervention. Online Journal of Rural Nursing and Health Care , 13, 66– 91. Farran, C. J., Fogg, L. G., McCann, J. J., Etkin, C., Dong, X., & Barnes, L. L. ( 2011). Assessing family caregiver skill in managing behavioral symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease. Aging & Mental Health , 15, 510– 521. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2010.536140 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Fortinsky, R. H. ( 2001). Health care triads and dementia care: Integrative framework and future directions. Aging & Mental Health , 5 ( Suppl. 1), S35– S48. doi:10.1080/713649999 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Gallagher-Thompson, D., Gray, H. L., Tang, P. C., Pu, C. Y., Leung, L. Y., Wang, P. C., … Thompson, L. W. ( 2007). Impact of in-home behavioral management versus telephone support to reduce depressive symptoms and perceived stress in Chinese caregivers: Results of a pilot study. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry , 15, 425– 434. doi: 10.1097/JGP.0b013e3180312028 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Gallagher-Thompson, D., Tzuang, Y., Au, A., Brodaty, H., Charlesworth, G., Gupta, R., … Shyu, Y. ( 2012). Cross-national perspectives on nonpharmacological best practices for dementia family caregivers: A review. Clinical Gerontologist: The Journal of Aging and Mental Health , 35, 316– 355. doi: 10.1080/07317115.2012.678190 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Gant, J. R., Steffen, A. M., & Lauderdale, S. A. ( 2007). Comparative outcomes of two distance-based interventions for male caregivers of family members with dementia. American Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease and Other Dementias , 22, 120– 128. doi: 10.1177/1533317506298880 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   George, N. R., & Steffen, A. ( 2014). Physical and mental health correlates of self-efficacy in dementia family caregivers. Journal of Women & Aging , 26, 319– 331. doi: 10.1080/08952841.2014.906873 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Gilliam, C. M., & Steffen, A. M. ( 2006). The relationship between caregiving self-efficacy and depressive symptoms in dementia family caregivers. Aging & Mental Health , 10, 79– 86. doi: 10.1080/13607860500310658 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Glueckauf, R. L., Ketterson, T. U., Loomis, J. S., & Dages, P. ( 2004). Online support and education for dementia caregivers: Overview, utilization, and initial program evaluation. Telemedicine Journal and E-Health , 10, 223– 232. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2004.10.223 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Glueckauf, R. L., Sharma, D., Davis, W. S., Byrd, V., Stine, C., Jeffers, S. B., … Martin, C. ( 2007). Telephone-based cognitive-behavioral intervention for distressed rural dementia caregivers: Initial findings. Clinical Gerontologist , 31, 21– 41. doi: 10.1300/J018v31n01_03 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Gonyea, J. G., López, L. M., & Velásquez, E. H. ( 2016). The effectiveness of a culturally sensitive cognitive behavioral group intervention for latino Alzheimer’s Caregivers. The Gerontologist , 56, 292– 302. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnu045 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Grano, C., Lucidi, F., & Violani, C. ( 2017). The relationship between caregiving self-efficacy and depressive symptoms in family caregivers of patients with Alzheimer disease: A longitudinal study. International Psychogeriatrics , 29, 1095– 1103. doi: 10.1017/S1041610217000059 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Haccoun, R. R. ( 1987) Une nouvelle technique de vértification de l’équivalence de mesures psychologiques traduites [A new technique for verifying the equivalence of translated psychological measures]. Revue Québécoise De Psychologie , 8, 30– 39. Hambleton, R. K., & Patsula, L. ( 1998). Adapting tests for use in multiple languages and cultures. Social Indicators Research , 45, 153– 171. doi:10.1023/A:1006941729637 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Harvey, K., Catty, J., Langman, A., Winfield, H., Clement, S., Burns, E., … Burns, T. ( 2008). A review of instruments developed to measure outcomes for carers of people with mental health problems. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica , 117, 164– 176. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.2007.01148.x Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Holland, J. M., Thompson, L. W., Tzuang, M., & Gallagher-Thompson, D. ( 2010). Psychosocial factors among Chinese American women dementia caregivers and their association with salivary cortisol: Results of an exploratory study. Ageing International , 35, 109– 127. doi: 10.1007/s12126-010-9057-0 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Hou, R. J., Wong, S. Y., Yip, B. H., Hung, A. T., Lo, H. H., Chan, P. H., … Ma, S. H. ( 2014). The effects of mindfulness-based stress reduction program on the mental health of family caregivers: A randomized controlled trial. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics , 83, 45– 53. doi: 10.1159/000353278 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Kwok, T., Au, A., Wong, B., Ip, I., Mak, V., & Ho, F. ( 2014). Effectiveness of online cognitive behavioral therapy on family caregivers of people with dementia. Clinical Interventions in Aging , 9, 631– 636. doi: 10.2147/CIA.S56337 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Kwok, T., Wong, B., Ip, I., Chui, K., Young, D., & Ho, F. ( 2013). Telephone-delivered psychoeducational intervention for Hong Kong Chinese dementia caregivers: A single-blinded randomized controlled trial. Clinical Interventions in Aging , 8, 1191– 1197. doi: 10.2147/CIA.S48264 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Liu, H., & Huang, L. ( 2016). The relationship between family functioning and caregiving appraisal of dementia family caregivers: Caregiving self-efficacy as a mediator. Aging & Mental Health , 1– 10. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2016.1269148 Lopez, J., Romero-Moreno, R., Marquez-González, M., & Losada, A. ( 2012). Spirituality and self-efficacy in dementia family caregiving: Trust in God and in yourself. International Psychogeriatrics , 24, 1943– 1952. doi: 10.1017/S1041610212001287 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Lorig, K., Thompson-Gallagher, D., Traylor, L., Ritter, P. L., Laurent, D. D., Plant, K., … Hahn, T. J. ( 2012). Building better caregivers: A pilot online support workshop for family caregivers of cognitively impaired adults. Journal of Applied Gerontology , 31, 423– 437. doi: 10.1177/0733464810389806 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Losada, A., Marquez-Gonzalez, M., Knight, B. G., Yanguas, J., Sayegh, P., & Romero-Moreno, R. ( 2010). Psychosocial factors and caregivers’ distress: Effects of familism and dysfunctional thoughts. Aging & Mental Health , 14, 193– 202. doi: 10.1080/13607860903167838 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Losada, A., Robinson Shurgot, G., Knight, B. G., Márquez, M., Montorio, I., Izal, M., & Ruiz, M. A. ( 2006). Cross-cultural study comparing the association of familism with burden and depressive symptoms in two samples of Hispanic dementia caregivers. Aging & Mental Health , 10, 69– 76. doi: 10.1080/13607860500307647 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   MacDougall, M., & Steffen, A. ( 2017). Self-efficacy for controlling upsetting thoughts and emotional eating in family caregivers. Aging & Mental Health , 21, 1058– 1064. doi:10.1080/13607863.2016.1196335 Maneesriwongul, W., & Dixon, J. K. ( 2004). Instrument translation process: A methods review. Journal of Advanced Nursing , 48, 175– 186. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03185.x Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Márquez-González, M., Losada, A., López, J., & Peñacoba, C. ( 2009). Reliability and validity of the Spanish version of the revised scale for caregiving self-efficacy. Clinical Gerontologist: The Journal of Aging and Mental Health , 32, 347– 357. doi: 10.1080/07317110903110419 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Marziali, E., & Garcia, L. J. ( 2011). Dementia caregivers’ responses to 2 Internet-based intervention programs. American Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease and Other Dementias , 26, 36– 43. doi: 10.1177/1533317510387586 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Marziali, E., McCleary, L., & Streiner, D. L. ( 2010). Evaluation of an assessment battery for estimating dementia caregiver needs for health and social care services. American Journal Of Alzheimer’s Disease And Other Dementias , 25, 446– 454. doi: 10.1177/1533317510370958 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   McKechnie, V., Barker, C., & Stott, J. ( 2014). Effectiveness of computer-mediated interventions for informal carers of people with dementia—A systematic review. International Psychogeriatrics , 26, 1619– 1637. doi: 10.1017/S1041610214001045 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Montoro-Rodriguez, J., & Gallagher-Thompson, D. ( 2009). The role of resources and appraisals in predicting burden among Latina and non-Hispanic white female caregivers: A test of an expanded socio-cultural model of stress and coping. Aging & Mental Health , 13, 648– 658. doi: 10.1080/13607860802534658 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Nogales-González, C., Romero-Moreno, R., Losada, A., Márquez-González, M., & Zarit, S. H. ( 2015). Moderating effect of self-efficacy on the relation between behavior problems in persons with dementia and the distress they cause in caregivers. Aging & Mental Health , 19, 1022– 1030. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2014.995593 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Peñacoba, C., Losada, A., López, J., & Márquez-González, M. ( 2008). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Revised Scale for Caregiving Self-Efficacy in a sample of dementia caregivers. International Psychogeriatrics , 20, 1291– 1293. doi: 10.1017/S104161020800759X Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Plotnikoff, R. C., Lippke, S., Courneya, K. S., Birkett, N., & Sigal, R. J. ( 2008). Physical activity and social cognitive theory: A test in a population sample of adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Applied Psychology: An International Review , 57, 628– 643. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00344.x Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Rabinowitz, Y. G., Mausbach, B. T., & Gallagher-Thompson, D. ( 2009). Self-efficacy as a moderator of the relationship between care recipient memory and behavioral problems and caregiver depression in female dementia caregivers. Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders , 23, 389– 394. doi: 10.1097/WAD.0b013e3181b6f74d Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Rabinowitz, Y. G., Mausbach, B. T., Thompson, L. W., & Gallagher-Thompson, D. ( 2007). The relationship between self-efficacy and cumulative health risk associated with health behavior patterns in female caregivers of elderly relatives with Alzheimer’s dementia. Journal of Aging and Health , 19, 946– 964. doi: 10.1177/0898264307308559 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Rabinowitz, Y. G., Saenz, E. C., Thompson, L. W., & Gallagher-Thompson, D. ( 2011). Understanding caregiver health behaviors: Depressive symptoms mediate caregiver self-efficacy and health behavior patterns. American Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease and Other Dementias , 26, 310– 316. doi: 10.1177/1533317511410557 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Romero-Moreno, R., Márquez-González, M., Mausbach, B. T., & Losada, A. ( 2012). Variables modulating depression in dementia caregivers: A longitudinal study. International Psychogeriatrics , 24, 1316– 1324. doi: 10.1017/S1041610211002237 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Romero-Moreno, R., Losada, A., Mausbach, B. T., Márquez-González, M., Patterson, T. L., & López, J. ( 2011). Analysis of the moderating effect of self-efficacy domains in different points of the dementia caregiving process. Aging & Mental Health , 15, 221– 231. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2010.505231 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Sadak, T., Korpak, A., & Borson, S. ( 2015). Measuring caregiver activation for health care: Validation of PBH-LCI:D. Geriatric Nursing , 36, 284– 292. doi: 10.1016/j.gerinurse.2015.03.003 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Séoud, J. N., & Ducharme, F. ( 2015). Factors associated with resilience among female family caregivers of a functionally or cognitively impaired aging relative in Lebanon: A correlational study. Journal of Research in Nursing , 20, 567– 579. doi: 10.1177/1744987115599672 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Stansfeld, J., Stoner, C. R., Wenborn, J., Vernooij-Dassen, M., Moniz-Cook, E., & Orrell, M. ( 2017). Positive psychology outcome measures for family caregivers of people living with dementia: A systematic review. International Psychogeriatrics , 29, 1281– 1296. doi: 10.1017/S1041610217000655 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Steffen, A. M. ( 2000). Anger management for dementia caregivers: A preliminary study using video and telephone interventions. Behavior Therapy , 31, 281– 299. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7894(00)80016–7 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Steffen, A. M., & Gant, J. R. ( 2016). A telehealth behavioral coaching intervention for neurocognitive disorder family carers. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry , 31, 195– 203. doi: 10.1002/gps.4312 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Steffen, A. M., McKibbin, C., Zeiss, A. M., Gallagher-Thompson, D., & Bandura, A. ( 2002). The revised scale for caregiving self-efficacy: Reliability and validity studies. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences , 57, P74– P86. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Waelde, L. C., Meyer, H., Thompson, J. M., Thompson, L., & Gallagher-Thompson, D. ( 2017). Randomized controlled trial of inner resources meditation for family dementia caregivers. Journal of Clinical Psychology , 73, 1629– 1641. doi: 10.1002/jclp.22470 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Waelde, L. C., Thompson, L., & Gallagher-Thompson, D. ( 2004). A pilot study of a yoga and meditation intervention for dementia caregiver stress. Journal of Clinical Psychology , 60, 677– 687. doi: 10.1002/jclp.10259 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Wang, P. C., Yip, P. K., & Chang, Y. ( 2016). Self-efficacy and sleep quality as mediators of perceived stress and memory and behavior problems in the link to dementia caregivers’ depression in Taiwan. Clinical Gerontologist , 39, 222– 239. doi: 10.1080/07317115.2015.1128503 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Wawrziczny, E., Berna, G., Ducharme, F., Kergoat, M. J., Pasquier, F., & Antoine, P. ( 2017a). Modeling the distress of spousal caregivers of people with dementia. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease , 55, 703– 716. doi: 10.3233/JAD-160558 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   Wawrziczny, E., Berna, G., Ducharme, F., Kergoat, M., Pasquier, F., & Antoine, P. ( 2017b). Characteristics of the spouse caregiver experience: Comparison between early- and late-onset dementia. Aging & Mental Health . doi: 10.1080/13607863.2017.1339777 Williams, V. P., Bishop-Fitzpatrick, L., Lane, J. D., Gwyther, L. P., Ballard, E. L., Vendittelli, A. P., … Williams, R. B. ( 2010). Video-based coping skills to reduce health risk and improve psychological and physical well-being in Alzheimer’s disease family caregivers. Psychosomatic Medicine , 72, 897– 904. doi: 10.1097/PSY.0b013e3181fc2d09 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   World Health Organization. ( 2017). Process of translation and adaptation of instruments. Retrieved January 16, 2017 from https://www.who.int/substance_abuse/research_tools/translation/en/ Yeo, G., & Gallagher-Thompson, D. ( 2006). Ethnicity and the dementias  ( 2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Zeiss, A., Gallagher-Thompson, D., Lovett, S., Rose, J., & McKibbin, C. ( 1999). Self-efficacy as a mediator of caregiver coping: Development and testing of an assessment model. Journal of Clinical Geropsychology , 5, 221– 230. doi: 10.1023/A:1022955817074 Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Journal

The GerontologistOxford University Press

Published: Mar 12, 2018

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off