Horng-Shiuann Wu1, Maryellen McSweeney. 1. Department of Community and Family Medicine, Saint Louis University, Missouri, USA. wuh8@hotmail.com
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a highly prevalent, subjective experience of patients with and survivors of cancer. Effective assessment of the attributes of CRF from the patient's perspective is essential. The current study developed a measure of CRF from the patient's perspective and determined its psychometric properties for patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy. METHODS: Chemotherapy outpatients in a free-standing metropolitan area cancer clinic participated in the current multiphase study. In the instrument development phase, 42 items were generated from a qualitative study with 10 semistructured individual interviews and 6 daily fatigue diaries. These items were revised based on content evaluation by 20 cancer patient content experts. In the instrument analysis phase, the 30 content-validated items were pilot tested by 30 patients with breast carcinoma using cognitive interview techniques. The psychometric properties of the resulting 16-item, 5-point CRF rating scale were tested with 82 patients with breast carcinoma. RESULTS: Principal axis factoring gave a one-factor solution accounting for 59% variance. Coefficient alpha reliability was 0.95 for the final 15-item scale. Convergent validity with the Schwartz Cancer Fatigue Scale was 0.84, concurrent validity with the Geriatric Depression Scale was 0.61, and predictive validity with the Cancer-Related Fatigue Distress Scale was 0.83. CONCLUSIONS: This newly developed instrument to assess the subjective fatigue symptoms of patients with cancer demonstrated effective use of diary and interview methods in instrument development and both cognitive interviewing and traditional psychometric techniques in instrument analysis. The instrument has promising psychometric properties, but confirmatory testing is needed. (c) 2004 American Cancer Society.
BACKGROUND:Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a highly prevalent, subjective experience of patients with and survivors of cancer. Effective assessment of the attributes of CRF from the patient's perspective is essential. The current study developed a measure of CRF from the patient's perspective and determined its psychometric properties for patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy. METHODS: Chemotherapy outpatients in a free-standing metropolitan area cancer clinic participated in the current multiphase study. In the instrument development phase, 42 items were generated from a qualitative study with 10 semistructured individual interviews and 6 daily fatigue diaries. These items were revised based on content evaluation by 20 cancerpatient content experts. In the instrument analysis phase, the 30 content-validated items were pilot tested by 30 patients with breast carcinoma using cognitive interview techniques. The psychometric properties of the resulting 16-item, 5-point CRF rating scale were tested with 82 patients with breast carcinoma. RESULTS: Principal axis factoring gave a one-factor solution accounting for 59% variance. Coefficient alpha reliability was 0.95 for the final 15-item scale. Convergent validity with the Schwartz CancerFatigue Scale was 0.84, concurrent validity with the Geriatric Depression Scale was 0.61, and predictive validity with the Cancer-Related Fatigue Distress Scale was 0.83. CONCLUSIONS: This newly developed instrument to assess the subjective fatigue symptoms of patients with cancer demonstrated effective use of diary and interview methods in instrument development and both cognitive interviewing and traditional psychometric techniques in instrument analysis. The instrument has promising psychometric properties, but confirmatory testing is needed. (c) 2004 American Cancer Society.
Authors: Andrea M Barsevick; Charles S Cleeland; Donald C Manning; Ann M O'Mara; Bryce B Reeve; Jane A Scott; Jeff A Sloan Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Vicente Alberola Candel; Alfredo Carrato Mena; Eduardo Díaz-Rubio García; Pere Gascón Vilaplana; Manuel González Barón; Miguel Martín Jiménez; Emilio Alba Conejo; Javier Cassinello Espinosa; Ramon Colomer; Juan Jesús Cruz Hernández; Agustí Barnadas i Molins; Carlos Camps Herrero; Ana Ma Casas Fernández de Tejerina; Joan Carulla Torrent; Manuel Constenla Figueiras; Joaquin Gavilá Gregori; Ma Dolores Isla Casado; Bartomeu Massuti Sureda; Mariano Provencio Pulla; César Augusto Rodríguez Sánchez; Jaime Sanz Ortiz Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Betty M Kennedy; Sarah Moody-Thomas; Peter T Katzmarzyk; Ronald Horswell; Willene P Griffin; Mary T Coleman; Jane Herwehe; Jay A Besse; Kathleen H Willis Journal: Ochsner J Date: 2013
Authors: Christopher Christodoulou; Doerte U Junghaenel; Darren A DeWalt; Nan Rothrock; Arthur A Stone Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2008-10-12 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Kathryn Eilene Lasch; Patrick Marquis; Marc Vigneux; Linda Abetz; Benoit Arnould; Martha Bayliss; Bruce Crawford; Kathleen Rosa Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-05-30 Impact factor: 4.147