1,720,989 research outputs found
Filial maturity as a predictor for the burden of demented parents' caregivers
No full textIn this study, we administered the Louvain Filial Maturity Scale [Marcoen 1993] to 61 adult children of demented elderly. The scores of the seven factors of this scale were compared to the scores of an unselected group of adult children examined by Marcoen. The results were taken into the context with caregiver's burden, and the effect of filial maturity on parents' institutionalisation was investigated. Marcoen's results were confirmed. Only the means of "filial help" and "parental consideration" differed slightly from the means of the unselected group. Overall, filial maturity had no influence on the caregiver's feeling of burden, but higher "parental consideration" resulted in lower caregiver burden. In addition, adult children with more "filial obligation" continued to care for their parents in the community more often, even when experiencing burden and stress. However, tutionalisation was caused mainly by parents' growing needs and increasing behavioural problems. We conclude that "filial maturity" seems to be a very stable concept. Further investigations should focus on the relevance of the Louvain Filial Maturity Scale for caregiving relationship and also on the arrangement of the scale in order to exclude a "pseudo"stability with regard to burdensome life events and situations
Lay help to reduce dementia caregiver's burden: results of a project in Goettinggen, Germany and conclusions for a broader audience
No full text
Lay help to reduce dementia caregiver's burden: results of a project in Goettinggen, Germany and conclusions for a broader audience
No full text
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
