Background: Informal caregivers are a particularly vulnerable population at risk for adverse health outcomes. Likewise, there are many scales available assessing individual caregiver burden and stress. Recently, resilience in caregivers gained increasing interest and scales started to assess resilience factors as well. Drawing on a homeostatic model, we developed a scale assessing both caregivers' stress and resilience factors. We propose four scales, two covering stress and two covering resilience factors, in addition to a sociodemographic basic scale. Based on the stress:resilience ratio, the individual risk of adverse health outcomes and suggestions for interventions can be derived.Methods: A total of 291 informal caregivers filled in the ResQ-Care as part of a survey study conducted during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. Exploratory factor analysis was performed. Validity analyses were examined by correlations with the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS), the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-4) and the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15).Results: The data fitted our proposed four-factor solution well, explaining 43.3% of the variance. Reliability of each scale was at least acceptable with Cronbach's α ≥0.67 and MacDonald's ω ≥0.68 for all scales. The two strain scales weighed more than the resilience scales and explained 65.6% of the variance. Convergent and discriminant validity was confirmed for the BRS and PSS-4, whereas the GDS-15 correlation pattern was counterintuitive.Conclusion: The factor structure of the ResQ-Care scale was confirmed, with good indications of reliability and validity. Inconsistent correlations of the scales with the GDS-15 might be due to a reduced validity of GDS-15 assessment during the COVID-19 lockdown.

The Covid-19 pandemic has made age more salient, and the media has included numerous ageist messages (Bronwen, 2020), included messages aimed at children (e.g., “stay home to protect grandma and grandpa!”). When the pandemic reached Germany in March, we halted data collection on a project assessing ageism in children ages 4 to 8. In July, the situation had improved and testing resumed following hygiene protocols. We report findings from a simulated-behavioral measure where 45 children were asked to plan a party. One task involved asking the children to place pictures of ten party guests, plus themselves, around two party tables. We then assessed how many seats away the younger and older adult guests were placed, on average, from the child (i.e., social distance). Although, we anticipated that the pandemic might lead children to further distance themselves from older adults, our results, thus far, indicate similarity between pre- and post-pandemic preferences. At both occasions older adult guests were seated, on average, one seat further away from the child then younger adult guests. The guest chosen to sit closest to the child was younger on 88% of occasions, whereas the guest chosen to sit farthest away from the child was older on 64% of occasions. Preference for younger adults was confirmed in a second task where children selected teammates for a game. On average, children’s teams consisted of 70% younger guests versus 30% older guests. Findings indicate a social preference for younger, versus older, adults in children irrespective of the pandemic.