OBJECTIVE: This study compared self-reported fatigue between 7-day and 4-week time frames and explored factors that affect patients' responses. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Two hundred and sixteen cancer patients completed either 7-day or 4-week version of the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F). Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics and Cochran-Armitage trend tests were used to assess the association between time frame and item scores. Information function curves at both item and scale levels were depicted to evaluate the precision along the fatigue continuum. Differential item functioning (DIF) was used to examine the stability of the psychometric properties between time frames. RESULTS: Time frame did not influence patients' item responses. Examination of information function curves at item level did not clearly favor either time frame. At the scale level, the 7-day time frame was slightly more precise overall than the 4-week time frame. No item demonstrated DIF between time frames. Neither gender nor fatigue severity had an impact on above results. CONCLUSION: This study suggests 7-day and 4-week time frame are equally appropriate in measuring fatigue, preference might be given to the more informative 7-day time frame. However, substantive considerations regarding the appropriate time frame should outweigh statistical ones.
OBJECTIVE: This study compared self-reported fatigue between 7-day and 4-week time frames and explored factors that affect patients' responses. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Two hundred and sixteen cancerpatients completed either 7-day or 4-week version of the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F). Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics and Cochran-Armitage trend tests were used to assess the association between time frame and item scores. Information function curves at both item and scale levels were depicted to evaluate the precision along the fatigue continuum. Differential item functioning (DIF) was used to examine the stability of the psychometric properties between time frames. RESULTS: Time frame did not influence patients' item responses. Examination of information function curves at item level did not clearly favor either time frame. At the scale level, the 7-day time frame was slightly more precise overall than the 4-week time frame. No item demonstrated DIF between time frames. Neither gender nor fatigue severity had an impact on above results. CONCLUSION: This study suggests 7-day and 4-week time frame are equally appropriate in measuring fatigue, preference might be given to the more informative 7-day time frame. However, substantive considerations regarding the appropriate time frame should outweigh statistical ones.
Authors: Jin-Shei Lai; Kelly Dineen; Bryce B Reeve; Jamie Von Roenn; Daniel Shervin; Michael McGuire; Rita K Bode; Judith Paice; David Cella Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Arthur A Stone; Joan E Broderick; Joseph E Schwartz; Saul Shiffman; Leighann Litcher-Kelly; Pamela Calvanese Journal: Pain Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: David M Condon; Robert Chapman; Sara Shaunfield; Michael A Kallen; Jennifer L Beaumont; Daniel Eek; Debanjali Mitra; Katy L Benjamin; Kelly McQuarrie; Jamae Liu; James W Shaw; Allison Martin Nguyen; Karen Keating; David Cella Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2019-11-07 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Kristin M Phillips; Leigh Anne Faul; Brent J Small; Paul B Jacobsen; Sachin M Apte; Heather S L Jim Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2012-11-15 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Louis S Matza; Lindsey T Murray; Glenn A Phillips; Thomas J Konechnik; Ellen B Dennehy; Elizabeth N Bush; Dennis A Revicki Journal: Patient Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: Fredric O Finkelstein; Floortje van Nooten; Ingela Wiklund; Dylan Trundell; David Cella Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2018-05-31 Impact factor: 3.186