PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: The purpose was to evaluate a new self-reporting scale for assessment of mental fatigue and its usefulness in describing mental fatigue after neurological diseases and injuries. Mental fatigue is suggested to comprise a spectrum of items including sensory, emotional and cognitive symptoms. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Mental fatigue and related symptoms were measured with a self-assessment scale on different diagnostic groups with neurological injuries and diseases as well as healthy controls. The scale covers sleep, sensory, emotional and cognitive domains, mental recovery and 24-hour variation. RESULTS: There were significant correlations between all the questions in the self-assessing scale and also a high internal consistency among items (Cronbach's alpha of 0.944). Despite the different aetiologies of mental fatigue and related symptoms, the individuals rated the questions in a similar way. The total sum of scores, as well as the separate questions showed significantly lower values for healthy controls compared to mental fatigue groups. CONCLUSION: In spite of the different aetiology of mental fatigue, the items included in the scale were significant for different diseases with co-occurring mental fatigue. The self-reported scale is suggested to be a valuable tool for assessment of mental fatigue in different diagnoses.
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: The purpose was to evaluate a new self-reporting scale for assessment of mental fatigue and its usefulness in describing mental fatigue after neurological diseases and injuries. Mental fatigue is suggested to comprise a spectrum of items including sensory, emotional and cognitive symptoms. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Mental fatigue and related symptoms were measured with a self-assessment scale on different diagnostic groups with neurological injuries and diseases as well as healthy controls. The scale covers sleep, sensory, emotional and cognitive domains, mental recovery and 24-hour variation. RESULTS: There were significant correlations between all the questions in the self-assessing scale and also a high internal consistency among items (Cronbach's alpha of 0.944). Despite the different aetiologies of mental fatigue and related symptoms, the individuals rated the questions in a similar way. The total sum of scores, as well as the separate questions showed significantly lower values for healthy controls compared to mental fatigue groups. CONCLUSION: In spite of the different aetiology of mental fatigue, the items included in the scale were significant for different diseases with co-occurring mental fatigue. The self-reported scale is suggested to be a valuable tool for assessment of mental fatigue in different diagnoses.
Authors: Erik Boberg; Nadir Kadri; Jeanette Winterling; Lindsay C Davies; Andreas Björklund; Mussie Msghina; Ellen Iacobaeus; Katarina Le Blanc Journal: Haematologica Date: 2019-10-24 Impact factor: 9.941
Authors: Sharon W Renner; Todd M Bear; Patrick J Brown; Stacy L Andersen; Stephanie Cosentino; Theresa Gmelin; Robert M Boudreau; Jane A Cauley; Yujia Susanna Qiao; Eleanor M Simonsick; Nancy W Glynn Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2021-01-20 Impact factor: 7.538
Authors: E Rydwik; L Anmyr; M Regardt; A McAllister; R Zarenoe; E Åkerman; Y Orrevall; M Bragesjö; O Dahl; M K Kemani; L Nordstrand; U Ekman; L Holmström; M Nygren-Bonnier Journal: BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil Date: 2021-06-30