Table 1 Models proposed for the BAS

Horwitz and Reinhard [21]

94 family members of severely mentally ill adults who participated in a community aftercare program in New Jersey (The Club)

1. Financial Distress (items 1 and 6) [OB]

2. Personal Activity (items 2–5) [OB]

3. Negative Effects on Social Interactions (items 7–10) [OB]

4. Feelings, Attitudes, and Emotions (items 11–16, and 19) [SB]

5. Worry (items 17 and 18) [SB]

Reinhard et al. [36]

Sample 1 (Club):

the sample used in Horwitz and Reinhard [21] study

Women: 77 (81.9%)

Men: 17 (18.1%)

M_age = 58

Sample 2 (DMH&H):

94 family members of mentally ill adults who participated in a study of the New Jersey’s DMH&H

Women: 64 (68.1%)

Men: 29 (30.8%)

M_age = 56.5

PCA with Varimax rotation

Sample 1 (Club):

1. Disrupted Activities (items 2, 4–8, and 15) [OB]

2. Personal Distress (items 1, 9–11, 14, 15, and 19) [SB]

3. Guilt (items 2, 13, and 17) [SB]

4. Time Perspective (items 16 and 18) [SB]

5. Worry (items 3, 12 and 15) [SB]

Sample 2 (DMH&H):

1. Disrupted Activities (items 3–8) [OB]

2. Personal Distress (items 10, 11, 14, and 15) [SB]

3. Time Perspective (items 16, 18, and 19) [SB]

4. Guilt (items 12, 13, and 17) [SB]

5. Basic Social Functioning (items 2 and 9) [OB]

Whole BAS α = .89 (Sample 1) and .91 (Sample 2)

Burden was higher for DMH&H family members than for Club family members

Families in both samples:

1.- Reported the greatest average burden from their worry about the future and unrelenting grief

2.- Considered missing days at work, friction with

neighbors, and guilt for causing the illness as least

burdensome

A lower score on the BAS was obtained over the six-month period after an intensive

family support services program (the ill family member’s age and diagnosis were not predictive, nor was the involvement of the ill family member’s mother)

Differential reduction in burden could be explained by service use: The more types of services received and the more single family contacts, the greater the reported reduction in family burden

Families with more members involved in intensive family-support services are less likely to experience reductions in burden

Ivarsson et al. [23]

256 Swedish caregivers for individuals with SMDs

Women: 82 (32%)

Men: 174 (68%)

Age range 18–81 years (M = 39.3, SD = ns)

PCA with Varimax rotation (minimum λ > .40):

1. Activity Limitation (items 1–8, and 15; α = .88)

2. Worry and Guilt (items 12, 13, 16–18; α = .73)

3. Social Strain (items 9–11, 14, and 19; α = .75)

Whole BAS α = .90

The greatest perceived burden in caregivers: worry about the future

The least perceived burden in caregivers: friction with others

The caregivers experienced:

1. More activity limitations in relation to the youngest clients, those who had an elementary educational level, and those who lived with a partner

2. More feelings of worry and guilt in relation to the younger clients than to the older ones

3. More social strain in relation to the female clients and those who had an elementary educational level

Aydemir et al. (2012)^a [3]

100 Turkish volunteers who were caregivers of outpatients diagnosed with SMDs (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depression, and anxiety)

Women: 44 (44%)

Men: 56 (56%)

Age: M = 41.9, SD = 15.1

PCA with Varimax rotation (minimum λ > .40):

1. Limitations in Daily Life (9 items)

2. Worry for the Patient (5 items)

3. Negative Emotions (2 items)

4. Disruption in Activities (2 items)

5. Losses of the Caregiver (1 item)

Whole BAS α = .89

Correlation with the Perceived Family Burden r = .49

Correlation with the Zarit Caregiver Burden Scale, r = . 61

Guada et al. [17]

106 family caregivers (86.2% women) of people diagnosed with schizophrenia

94 participants were African-American

Participants were living in Los Angeles, USA

Age range 18–80 years old

Age M = 47 years old

PCA with Varimax rotation (limited to 2 factors):

1. Emotional Reactions of Caregiving (Items 9–19) [SB]

2. Daily Impacts of Caretaking (Items 1–8) [OB]

Kwak et al. [29]

256 Korean family caregivers (84 men, 172 women) of people diagnosed with schizophrenia

Age range 21–78 (M = 54.4, SD = 11.2)

Reliability and validity of the Korean version of the BAS (K-BAS)

PCA with Varimax rotation (minimum λ = .40):

1. Activity Limitations (Items 1–8)

2. Social Strain (Items 9–11, 14–16, and 19)

3. Feelings of Worry and Guilt (Items 12, 13, 17, and 18)

K-BAS α = .91

K-BAS test–retest reliability = .86, p < .001

Convergent validity:

1. Correlation between the K-BAS and the FBS: r = .80, p < .001

Divergent validity:

1. Correlation between the K-BAS and KDAI-10: r = -.21, p = .001

2. Correlation between the K-BAS and SUMD-K: r = -.02, p = .796

Murdoch et al. [33]

Canadian family caregivers of 300 children and adolescents diagnosed with SMD seeking services within a major city

PCA with Varimax rotation (minimum λ = .40):

1. Role Restriction (Items 1–7)

2. Family Impact (Items 8, 9, 14, and 15)

3. Public Embarrassment (Items 10, 11, and 19)

4. Guilt and Worry (Items 12, 13, 16, and 17)

SB: Items 1–10

OB: Items 11–18 (although Item 18 did not load in any factor, because it loaded < .40 in all four factors)

Hunger et al. [22]

215 relatives (72% women, 28% men) of German mentally ill people

Age range 18–77 (M = 32, SD = 14)

CFA (Maximum-Likelihood method)

Authors tested several models for the BAS. Model with the best fit was one with four correlated factors:

1. Disrupted Activities (Items 1–8)

2. Personal Distress (Items 9–11, 14, and 15)

3. Time Perspective (Items 16, 18, and 19)

4. Guilt (Items 12, 13, and 17)

Internal consistency:

Whole BAS, α = .92 (95% CI [.90, .93])

Subscales, α from .64 to .92 (95% CIs [.55 to. 92])