Advanced

Fatigue in Parkinson's Disease: Measurement Properties of a Generic and a Condition-specific Rating Scale.

Nilsson, Maria H LU ; Jonasson, Stina LU and Hagell, Peter LU (2013) In Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 46(5). p.737-746
Abstract
CONTEXT: High-quality fatigue rating scales are needed to advance the understanding of fatigue and determine the efficacy of interventions. Several fatigue scales are used in Parkinson's disease, but few have been tested using modern psychometric methodology (Rasch analysis). OBJECTIVES: To examine the measurement properties of the generic Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) scale and the condition-specific 16-item Parkinson Fatigue Scale (PFS-16) using Rasch analysis. METHODS: Postal survey data (n=150; 47% women; mean age 70 years) were Rasch analyzed. The PFS-16 scores were tested according to both the original polytomous and the suggested alternative dichotomized scoring methods. RESULTS: The PFS-16... (More)
CONTEXT: High-quality fatigue rating scales are needed to advance the understanding of fatigue and determine the efficacy of interventions. Several fatigue scales are used in Parkinson's disease, but few have been tested using modern psychometric methodology (Rasch analysis). OBJECTIVES: To examine the measurement properties of the generic Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) scale and the condition-specific 16-item Parkinson Fatigue Scale (PFS-16) using Rasch analysis. METHODS: Postal survey data (n=150; 47% women; mean age 70 years) were Rasch analyzed. The PFS-16 scores were tested according to both the original polytomous and the suggested alternative dichotomized scoring methods. RESULTS: The PFS-16 showed overall Rasch model fit, whereas the FACIT-F showed signs of misfit, which probably was the result of a sleepiness-related item and mixing of positively/negatively worded items. There was no differential item functioning by disease duration but by fatigue status (greater likelihood of needing to sleep or rest during the day among people classified as nonfatigued) in the PFS-16 and FACIT-F. However, this did not impact total score-based estimated person measures. Targeting and reliability (≥0.86) were good, but the dichotomized PFS-16 showed compromised measurement precision. Polytomous and dichotomized PFS-16 and FACIT-F scores identified six, three, and four statistically distinct sample strata, respectively. CONCLUSION: We found general support for the measurement properties of both scales. However, polytomous PFS-16 scores exhibited advantages compared with dichotomous PFS-16 and FACIT-F scores. Dichotomization of item responses compromises measurement precision and the ability to separate people, and should be avoided. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
in
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management
volume
46
issue
5
pages
737 - 746
publisher
Elsevier
external identifiers
  • wos:000326236900017
  • pmid:23507131
  • scopus:84886952402
ISSN
1873-6513
DOI
10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2012.11.004
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
71788ce6-7f82-4094-8bf2-3240fdca7ac3 (old id 3628020)
alternative location
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23507131?dopt=Abstract
date added to LUP
2013-04-05 10:40:53
date last changed
2019-02-20 02:10:51
@article{71788ce6-7f82-4094-8bf2-3240fdca7ac3,
  abstract     = {CONTEXT: High-quality fatigue rating scales are needed to advance the understanding of fatigue and determine the efficacy of interventions. Several fatigue scales are used in Parkinson's disease, but few have been tested using modern psychometric methodology (Rasch analysis). OBJECTIVES: To examine the measurement properties of the generic Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) scale and the condition-specific 16-item Parkinson Fatigue Scale (PFS-16) using Rasch analysis. METHODS: Postal survey data (n=150; 47% women; mean age 70 years) were Rasch analyzed. The PFS-16 scores were tested according to both the original polytomous and the suggested alternative dichotomized scoring methods. RESULTS: The PFS-16 showed overall Rasch model fit, whereas the FACIT-F showed signs of misfit, which probably was the result of a sleepiness-related item and mixing of positively/negatively worded items. There was no differential item functioning by disease duration but by fatigue status (greater likelihood of needing to sleep or rest during the day among people classified as nonfatigued) in the PFS-16 and FACIT-F. However, this did not impact total score-based estimated person measures. Targeting and reliability (≥0.86) were good, but the dichotomized PFS-16 showed compromised measurement precision. Polytomous and dichotomized PFS-16 and FACIT-F scores identified six, three, and four statistically distinct sample strata, respectively. CONCLUSION: We found general support for the measurement properties of both scales. However, polytomous PFS-16 scores exhibited advantages compared with dichotomous PFS-16 and FACIT-F scores. Dichotomization of item responses compromises measurement precision and the ability to separate people, and should be avoided.},
  author       = {Nilsson, Maria H and Jonasson, Stina and Hagell, Peter},
  issn         = {1873-6513},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {5},
  pages        = {737--746},
  publisher    = {Elsevier},
  series       = {Journal of Pain and Symptom Management},
  title        = {Fatigue in Parkinson's Disease: Measurement Properties of a Generic and a Condition-specific Rating Scale.},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2012.11.004},
  volume       = {46},
  year         = {2013},
}