J De Vries1, H J Michielsen, G L Van Heck. 1. Department of Psychology and Health, Tilburg University, and Research Institute for Psychology and Health, Netherlands. j.devries@uvt.nl
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.
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.
Authors: J H Vercoulen; C M Swanink; J F Fennis; J M Galama; J W van der Meer; G Bleijenberg Journal: J Psychosom Res Date: 1994-07 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Alwin van Drongelen; Cécile R L Boot; Hynek Hlobil; Tjabe Smid; Allard J van der Beek Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2016-09-24 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Desta Fekedulegn; Cecil M Burchfiel; Claudia C Ma; Michael E Andrew; Tara A Hartley; Luenda E Charles; Ja K Gu; John M Violanti Journal: J Safety Res Date: 2016-12-08
Authors: P Daniel Patterson; Daniel J Buysse; Matthew D Weaver; Jack M Doman; Charity G Moore; Brian P Suffoletto; Kyle L McManigle; Clifton W Callaway; Donald M Yealy Journal: Am J Ind Med Date: 2015-08-25 Impact factor: 2.214