Table 3.

Construct validity of the BBCS’s hypotheses 1–4 and additional sample characteristics

Variable	n (%)	M (SD)	r/ η	p
Caregiver
Age (years)		62.10 (12.63)	.10	.001
Sex (female)	727 (75.7%)		.03	.400
Employment (yes)	459 (47.8%)		-.14	< .001
Duration of care (months)		48.45 (78.72)	-.04	.253
Relationship (spouse, yes)	293 (30.5%)		.00	.940
Relationship quality before (positive)a	571 (59.5%)		.06	.220
H1: Positive aspects of caregiving (PAC)		17.46 (9.20)	.75	< .001
H2Coping (COPE 6)
H2a: emotion-focused coping scale		3.72 (2.22)	.18	< .001
H2a: problem-focused coping scale		4.04 (1.97)	.23	< .001
H2b: dysfunctional coping scale		6.15 (1.56)	-.07	.024
H3: Relationship quality actual (positive)a	554 (57.6%)		.20	.001
H4: Subjective care burden (BSFC)		16.71 (7.49)	-.05	.142
Care-receiver
Age (years)		82.12 (7.04)	-.09	.001
Sex (female)	643 (66.9%)		.03	.383
Dementia (yes)b	364 (37.9%)		-.06	.084
Level of care (2–5)c	632 (65.8%)		.04	.282
Care situation
Co-residing (yes)	507 (52.8%)		.11	.001
ADL (h/d)d		2.69 (2.40)	.10	.003
IADL (h/d)d		3.45 (2.25)	.02	.582
Supervision (h/d)d		2.70 (3.25)	.09	.006
Informal help received (yes)e	576 (59.9%)		.03	.361

M mean, SD standard deviation, correlations with the BBCS sum score, r Pearson correlation η eta

BSFC subjective care burden (range 0–30), COPE 6 coping (each scale range 0–8), PAC positive aspects of caregiving (range 9–45)

^arelationship quality between the CG and CR (positive vs. neutral/negative)

^b CR receives care because of dementia

^cThe care level describes the extent to which care is needed on a 6-level ordinal scale: 0 (a little care needed)—5 (severe care needed). It is assessed by trained experts who are independent of the insurance system. Formal care is financed by long-term care insurance on the basis of the care level

^dConsisting of hours per day (h/d) spent on activities of daily living (ADL), instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) and supervision of the CR by the CG

^eCG receives informal support related to caregiving