Introduction: With increased CGM use in youth with T1D, it is timely to assess diabetes-specific family conflict related to CGM use. We aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of an updated DFC measure that includes CGM items.

Methods: Youth with T1D and their parents completed youth and parent versions, respectively, of the DFC that included 6 CGM-specific items (e.g., responding to CGM alarms) . Higher scores indicate more conflict. Item-to-total correlations and Cronbach’s α assessed internal consistency; correlations determined concurrent and predictive validity.

Results: The sample comprised 1youth (51% male) aged 13.2±2.7 years, with T1D duration 6.6±3.5 years. The final survey had 16 items after removal of those with outdated features, low response variability, or low item-to-total correlation. Cronbach’s α was .91 for youth and .81 for parents. Youth and parent scores were highly correlated (r=.48, p<.0001) . Higher DFC scores were associated with younger youth age (youth: r=-.23, p=.02; parent: r=-.27, p=.004) . Higher youth and parent DFC scores were also associated with adverse psychosocial outcomes: more depressive symptoms (youth: r=.38, p<.0001; parent: r=.35, p=.0002) , more diabetes burden (youth: r=.31, p=.0008; parent: r=.44, p<.0001) , more anxiety traits (youth: r=.23, p=.02; parent: r=.45; p<.0001) , lower youth general quality of life (QoL) (youth: r=-.30, p=.002; parent: r=-.45, p<.0001) and lower youth diabetes-specific QoL (youth: r=-.21, p=.02; parent: r=-.44, p<.0001) . Higher youth and parent DFC scores were associated with lower CGM satisfaction (youth: r=-.36, p<.0001; parent: r=-.28, p=.004) and with less CGM use at the time of DFC scale completion (youth: r=-.33, p=.0004; parent: r=-.31, p=.001) and 3 months later (youth: r=-.19, p=.05; parent: r=-.28, p=.003) .

Conclusion: The updated youth and parent DFC scales demonstrate strong psychometric properties and predictive validity and may be useful in clinical and research settings.


C.Chen: None. A.Shapira: None. L.K.Volkening: None. L.M.Laffel: Advisory Panel; Medtronic, Roche Diabetes Care, Consultant; Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Dexcom, Inc., Dompé, Insulet Corporation, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lilly Diabetes, Novo Nordisk, Provention Bio, Inc.


National Institutes of Health (P30DK036836, R01DK089349, T32DK007260)

Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered. More information is available at