Article Text
PDF
Abstract
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.
- fatigue
- measurement
- working sample
- 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