General Population Norms for the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT)-Fatigue Scale
General Population Norms for the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT)-Fatigue Scale
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jval.2018.03.013
复制
发表时间：
2018-11-01
期刊：
影响因子：
4.5
通讯作者：
Hinz, Andreas
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Montan, Inka;Loewe, Bernd;Hinz, Andreas
背景：慢性疾病治疗功能评估（FACIT）-疲劳量表是一种国际通用的有效测量方法。然而，基于一般人群的年龄和性别特异性百分位数标准迄今尚未发表，尽管这些标准是解释临床研究数据所需的参考。目的：在德国一般人群的大样本代表性样本中评估FACIT疲劳量表，以检查心理测量学特征和因子结构，并提供基于人群的规范。方法：在德国使用FACIT疲劳量表进行了一项具有全国代表性的面对面家庭调查。检查了项目特征。内部一致性采用Cronbach a.采用验证性因素分析（CFA）和双因素分析分析。评估了与性别和年龄相关的量表评分差异。计算整个量表范围的性别和年龄特异性分布。结果：在2426名参与者中，55.7%为女性，平均年龄为49.8 ± 17.4岁。FACIT疲劳量表平均值为43.5 +/- 8.3。克朗巴赫a值高达0.92。虽然CFA的拟合指数低于预期水平（近似均方根误差= 0.144，比较拟合指数= 0.846，Tucker-Lewis指数= 0.815），但CFA和双因素分析中的项目负荷证实了量表的一维性。女性比男性更疲劳，70岁或以上的参与者比年轻的受访者表现出更高的疲劳分数。因此，提供了按性别和年龄分列的人口分布情况。结论：FACIT疲劳量表的德语翻译的信度和效度得到证实。本研究首次提供了基于一般人群的性别和年龄特异性FACIT疲劳量表百分位数标准，从而有助于对临床研究数据进行有意义的解释。
Background: The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT)-Fatigue Scale is an internationally used validated measure. General population-based age- and sex-specific percentile norms are, however, not published to date, although these are needed as reference for the interpretation of clinical research data. Objectives: To assess the FACIT-Fatigue Scale in a large representative sample of the German general population to examine psychometric characteristics and factorial structure and to provide population-based norms. Methods: A nationally representative face-to-face household survey was conducted in Germany using the FACIT-Fatigue Scale. Item characteristics were examined. Internal consistency was determined using the Cronbach a. Dimensionality was analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and bifactor analysis. Scale score differences relating to sex and age were assessed. Sex- and age-specific percentiles were computed for the entire scale range. Results: Of 2426 participants, 55.7% were women, and the mean age was 49.8 +/- 17.4 years. The FACIT-Fatigue Scale mean was 43.5 +/- 8.3. Cronbach a was high at 0.92. Although fit indices of the CFA were below desired levels (root mean squared error of approximation = 0.144, comparative fit index = 0.846, and Tucker-Lewis index = 0.815), item loadings in the CFA and bifactor analysis confirm the scale's unidimensionality. Women were more fatigued than men, and participants who were 70 years or older showed higher fatigue scores than younger respondents. Thus, sex- and age-specific population-based percentiles were provided. Conclusions: Reliability and validity of the German translation of the FACIT-Fatigue Scale were confirmed. This study provides general population-based sex- and age-specific FACIT-Fatigue Scale percentile norms for the first time, thereby contributing to a meaningful interpretation of clinical research data.