Background/Objectives: In the context of nursing research and interventions, caregiver preparedness emerges as a pivotal concept. Informal caregivers play a central role in providing older adults with the vital nursing and social support they require. The present study evaluated the psychometric performance of the Caregiver Preparedness Scale (CPS) and tested the hypothesis that CPS scores differentiate between theoretically relevant known groups, including caregiving exposure and relationship-based indicators. Methods: A cross-sectional, face-to-face survey was conducted in June 2025 among the general population of Czechia. A total of 1024 interviews were included in the analysis. The sample was randomly split for exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The internal consistency of the scale was assessed using Cronbach’s α and McDonald’s ω, while inter-item associations were evaluated with Kendall’s tau-b. The known-groups validity was assessed through nonparametric group comparisons across caregiving exposure, relationship indicators within the caregiver–senior dyad, caregivers’ self-rated health, and their life satisfaction. Results: The CPS demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.944; McDonald’s ω = 0.944), robust item–total correlations (0.730–0.863), and acceptable floor and ceiling effects. The EFA supported a dominant one-factor solution (eigenvalue = 5.749), which explained 71.9% of the variance and had strong loadings (0.750–0.894). The CFA demonstrated a good fit (RMSEA = 0.069, SRMR = 0.0155, CFI = 0.990, and TLI = 0.980) after allowing for a limited number of conceptually justified residual covariances. Known-groups analysis supported the sensitivity of the scale when the CPS scores were higher among primary (M = 25.30) and secondary (M = 22.73) caregivers in comparison to non-caregivers (M = 18.38). Moreover, statistically significant differences were observed among those who provided care during the past five years (M = 24.30) compared to those without such experience (M = 18.12). CPS scores also exhibited variation in relationship-focused indicators in the anticipated directions, and were lower among respondents reporting poorer health and lower life satisfaction. Conclusions: The study provided consistent evidence that CPS is a reliable, unidimensional measure with robust known-groups validity. The CPS can be regarded as a suitable research instrument for nursing research and for evaluating interventions aimed at supporting informal caregivers.
Jiří Remr (Tue,) studied this question.