OBJECTIVE: Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a distressing, persistent, subjective sense of tiredness or exhaustion that occurs in 70-100% of cancer patients. The purpose of this review was to provide an overview of the quality of research performed on existing CRF self-report questionnaires and compare their reported psychometric properties and user-friendliness. METHODS: Database searches of CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus, PEDro, and PsycINFO were undertaken to find published scales. Standardized criteria were used to assess quality and user-friendliness. RESULTS: Thirty-five articles were included that described 18 questionnaires-seven one-dimensional questionnaires and 11 multidimensional questionnaires. The mean item count was 20.8 (range: 3-83). The mean overall score of the one-dimensional questionnaires was 10.4 of a maximum of 18 points (range: 7.6-14.3). The mean overall score of the multidimensional questionnaires was 9.4 of a maximum of 18 points (range: 4.3-14.4). CONCLUSION: Recommendations were made for the selection of a scale. We argue in favor of repeatedly reassessing psychometric properties of even established questionnaires to ensure they comply with evermore increasing stringent quality criteria. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVE:Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a distressing, persistent, subjective sense of tiredness or exhaustion that occurs in 70-100% of cancerpatients. The purpose of this review was to provide an overview of the quality of research performed on existing CRF self-report questionnaires and compare their reported psychometric properties and user-friendliness. METHODS: Database searches of CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus, PEDro, and PsycINFO were undertaken to find published scales. Standardized criteria were used to assess quality and user-friendliness. RESULTS: Thirty-five articles were included that described 18 questionnaires-seven one-dimensional questionnaires and 11 multidimensional questionnaires. The mean item count was 20.8 (range: 3-83). The mean overall score of the one-dimensional questionnaires was 10.4 of a maximum of 18 points (range: 7.6-14.3). The mean overall score of the multidimensional questionnaires was 9.4 of a maximum of 18 points (range: 4.3-14.4). CONCLUSION: Recommendations were made for the selection of a scale. We argue in favor of repeatedly reassessing psychometric properties of even established questionnaires to ensure they comply with evermore increasing stringent quality criteria. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Irene Cantarero-Villanueva; Carolina Fernández-Lao; Lourdes Díaz-Rodríguez; Antonio Ignacio Cuesta-Vargas; César Fernández-de-las-Peñas; Barbara F Piper; Manuel Arroyo-Morales Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2013-05-22 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Shelley A Johns; Linda F Brown; Kathleen Beck-Coon; Patrick O Monahan; Yan Tong; Kurt Kroenke Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2014-08-17 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Angela M Stover; Bryce B Reeve; Barbara F Piper; Catherine M Alfano; Ashley Wilder Smith; Sandra A Mitchell; Leslie Bernstein; Kathy B Baumgartner; Anne McTiernan; Rachel Ballard-Barbash Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2013-02-19 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: S Singer; S Kuhnt; R Zwerenz; K Eckert; D Hofmeister; A Dietz; J Giesinger; J Hauss; K Papsdorf; S Briest; A Brown Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2011-07-12 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Pere Gascón; César A Rodríguez; Vicente Valentín; Jesús García Mata; Joan Carulla; Javier Cassinello; Ramón Colomer; Eva Baró Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-06-22 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Shelley A Johns; Will L Tarver; Ekin Secinti; Catherine E Mosher; Patrick V Stutz; Jennifer L Carnahan; Tasneem L Talib; Mackenzie L Shanahan; Micah T Faidley; Kelley M Kidwell; Kevin L Rand Journal: Crit Rev Oncol Hematol Date: 2021-03-04 Impact factor: 6.312