OBJECTIVE: Refinement of the Occupational Fatigue Exhaustion Recovery (OFER) scale. METHOD: The responses of 510 nurses to the OFER scale, two of whose scales contained additional items, were examined with CFA and regression analyses. RESULTS: Analyses of the expanded pool of items identified three subscales of 5 items each for the renamed OFER15 scale. The subscales have high internal reliability (>.84), face, construct and discriminant validity. SEM analysis confirmed the role of recovery in mediating the relationship between acute and chronic fatigue measured with the OFER15 scale. SIGNIFICANCE: The OFER15 measure is a parsimonious scale with robust psychometric properties whose subscales distinguish well between acute fatigue states and chronic fatigue traits. The intershift recovery subscale is unique among published fatigue scales. The OFER15 is suggested as a valuable new instrument for the researchers in the work-related fatigue area, and also as screening instrument in Primary Care.
OBJECTIVE: Refinement of the Occupational Fatigue Exhaustion Recovery (OFER) scale. METHOD: The responses of 510 nurses to the OFER scale, two of whose scales contained additional items, were examined with CFA and regression analyses. RESULTS: Analyses of the expanded pool of items identified three subscales of 5 items each for the renamed OFER15 scale. The subscales have high internal reliability (>.84), face, construct and discriminant validity. SEM analysis confirmed the role of recovery in mediating the relationship between acute and chronic fatigue measured with the OFER15 scale. SIGNIFICANCE: The OFER15 measure is a parsimonious scale with robust psychometric properties whose subscales distinguish well between acute fatigue states and chronic fatigue traits. The intershift recovery subscale is unique among published fatigue scales. The OFER15 is suggested as a valuable new instrument for the researchers in the work-related fatigue area, and also as screening instrument in Primary Care.
Authors: Diane L Elliot; Kuehl S Kerry; Esther L Moe; Carol A Defrancesco; Linn Goldberg; David P Mackinnon; Jeanne Enders; Kim C Favorite Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2010-10-08 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: P Daniel Patterson; Charity G Moore; Frank X Guyette; Jack M Doman; Denisse Sequeira; Howard A Werman; Doug Swanson; David Hostler; Joshua Lynch; Lindsey Russo; Linda Hines; Karen Swecker; Michael S Runyon; Daniel J Buysse Journal: Trials Date: 2017-06-05 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Changmin Tang; Chaojie Liu; Pengqian Fang; Yuanxi Xiang; Rui Min Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-08-22 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: William S Shaw; Elyssa Besen; Glenn Pransky; Cécile R L Boot; Michael K Nicholas; Robert K McLellan; Torill H Tveito Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2014-05-28 Impact factor: 3.295