Comparison of the Psychometric Properties of Two Fatigue Scales in Multiple Sclerosis
Comparison of the Psychometric Properties of Two Fatigue Scales in Multiple Sclerosis
复制标题
DOI：
10.1037/a0027890
复制
发表时间：
2012-05-01
影响因子：
2.7
通讯作者：
Cook, Karon F.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Amtmann, Dagmar;Bamer, Alyssa M.;Cook, Karon F.
目的：比较疲劳严重程度量表（FSS; Krupp, LaRocca, muil - nash, & Steinberg, 1989）和修正疲劳影响量表（MFIS； MSCCPG, 1998）在社区多发性硬化症（MS）患者中的心理测量功能。方法：对1271名个体进行自我报告调查，包括FSS、MFIS、人口学和其他健康测量，并进行ms分析，评估量表的信度和效度，评估其维度结构，并估计地板和天花板效应的水平。采用项目反应理论（IRT）对不同疲劳程度下MFIS和FSS的精度进行了评价。结果：参与者在FSS上的平均得分为5.1，在MFIS上的平均得分为44.2。FSS和MFIS的Cronbach’s alpha值均大于等于0.93。MFIS和FSS评分的已知组和判别效度得到了分析的支持。MFIS具有低下限和上限效应，FSS具有低下限和中等上限效应。两个尺度都支持单维性。IRT分析表明，与MFIS相比，FSS在测量低水平和高水平疲劳方面都不太精确。结论：研究人员和临床医生有兴趣测量疲劳的身体方面的样本，疲劳范围从轻度到中度可以选择任何一种仪器。对于那些对测量身体和认知方面的疲劳感兴趣的人来说，他们的样本预计会有更高的疲劳水平，尽管MFIS更长，但它是一个更好的选择。IRT分析表明，这两种尺度都可以缩短而不会显著降低精度。
Objective: To compare psychometric functioning of the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS; Krupp, LaRocca, Muir-Nash, & Steinberg, 1989) and the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS; MSCCPG, 1998) in a community sample of persons with multiple sclerosis (MS). Method: A self-report survey including the FSS, MFIS, demographic, and other health measures was completed by 1271 individuals with MS. Analyses evaluated the reliability and validity of the scales, assessed their dimensional structures, and estimated levels of floor and ceiling effects. Item response theory (IRT) was used to evaluate the precision of the MFIS and FSS at different levels of fatigue. Results: Participants had a mean score on the FSS of 5.1 and of 44.2 on the MFIS. Cronbach's alpha values for FSS and MFIS were all 0.93 or greater. Known-groups and discriminant validity of MFIS and FSS scores were supported by the analyses. The MFIS had low floor and ceiling effects, and the FSS had low floor and moderate ceiling effects. Unidimensionality was supported for both scales. IRT analyses indicate that the FSS is less precise in measuring both low and high levels of fatigue, compared with the MFIS. Conclusions: Researchers and clinicians interested in measuring physical aspects of fatigue in samples whose fatigue ranges from mild to moderate can choose either instrument. For those interested in measuring both physical and cognitive aspects of fatigue, and whose sample is expected to have higher levels of fatigue, the MFIS is a better choice even though it is longer. IRT analyses suggest that both scales could be shortened without a significant loss of precision.