Assessment of fatigue among working people: a comparison of six questionnaires

J De Vries, H J Michielsen and G L Van Heck

Department of Psychology and Health, Tilburg University, and Research Institute for Psychology and Health, Netherlands

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Dr J De Vries, Tilburg University, Department of Psychology and Health, PO Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, Netherlands;
j.devries{at}uvt.nl

Aims: To compare the psychometric qualities of six fatigue questionnaires in a sample of working persons.

Methods: Internal consistency and test-retest reliability, content validity, convergent validity, and the dimensionality of the fatigue instruments were explored.

Results: All scales had a satisfactory internal consistency. Furthermore, based on factor analyses and Mokken scale analyses, all scales were unidimensional and appeared to measure an identical construct. The Fatigue Assessment Scale (FAS) had the highest factor loading on the one factor solution obtained in a factor analysis of the total scores of all scales.

Conclusions: All the questionnaires were unidimensional and had good reliability and validity. The FAS was the most promising fatigue measure.

Keywords: fatigue; measurement; working sample

Abbreviations: CFS, chronic fatigue syndrome; CIS-20, Checklist Individual Strength; CIS-PA, Checklist Individual Strength-reduced Physical Activity; CIS-SEF, Checklist Individual Strength-Subjective Experience of Fatigue; CON, reduced concentration; EE, emotional exhaustion; EF-WHOQOL-100, Energy and Fatigue scale World Health Organisation Quality of Life assessment instrument; FAS, Fatigue Assessment Scale; FS, Fatigue Scale; H, scalability coefficient; MBI-EE, Maslach Burnout Inventory-Emotional Exhaustion; MBI-NL, Maslach Burnout Inventory-Netherlands; MBI, Maslach Burnout Inventory; MOT, reduced motivation; MS, multiple sclerosis; MSP, Mokken Scale analysis for polytomous items; NRS, Need for Recovery Scale; NWO, Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Work; PA, reduced physical activity; SD, standard deviation; SEF, subjective experience of fatigue; SPSS, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences; VBBA, questionnaire on perception and judgement of work; WHOQOL-100, World Health Organisation Quality of Life assessment instrument; WORC, Work & Organisation Research Centre

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Winward, C., Sackley, C., Metha, Z., Rothwell, P. M. (2009). A Population-Based Study of the Prevalence of Fatigue After Transient Ischemic Attack and Minor Stroke. Stroke 40: 757-761 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Yamazaki, S., Fukuhara, S., Suzukamo, Y., Morita, S., Okamura, T., Tanaka, T., Ueshima, H. (2007). Lifestyle and work predictors of fatigue in Japanese manufacturing workers. Occup Med (Lond) 57: 262-269 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• de Croon, E M, Sluiter, J K, Frings-Dresen, M H W (2006). Psychometric properties of the Need for Recovery after work scale: test-retest reliability and sensitivity to detect change.. Occup. Environ. Med. 63: 202-206 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• van Dijk, F J H, Swaen, G M H (2003). Fatigue at work. Occup. Environ. Med. 60 : i1-i2 [Full Text]