R J Mills1, C A Young, J F Pallant, A Tennant. 1. Walton Centre for Neurology and Neurosurgery, Lower Lane, Fazakerley, Liverpool, UK. rjm@crazydiamond.co.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The 21-item Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS) has been recommended as an outcome measure for use in multiple sclerosis and is commonly used to generate an overall score of fatigue. OBJECTIVE: To test if the MFIS total score is valid by application of the Rasch measurement model. METHOD: The MFIS was sent by post to patients with clinically definite multiple sclerosis in two centres in the UK. Data were fitted to the Rasch model. RESULTS: Analysis was based on 415 records (55% response). The 21-item scale did not fit the Rasch model mainly because of multidimensionality. The scale was found to contain a "physical" dimension and a "cognitive" dimension, consistent with the original subscale structure. Valid physical and cognitive subscales were derived after deletion of some items. CONCLUSION: The MFIS cannot be used to generate a single overall score of fatigue. The conceptual interaction between the two dimensions remains unclear, which poses problems when interpreting change scores in these individual scales. Studies in which a global MFIS score was used as either an outcome measure or selection tool may need to be re-evaluated.
BACKGROUND: The 21-item Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS) has been recommended as an outcome measure for use in multiple sclerosis and is commonly used to generate an overall score of fatigue. OBJECTIVE: To test if the MFIS total score is valid by application of the Rasch measurement model. METHOD: The MFIS was sent by post to patients with clinically definite multiple sclerosis in two centres in the UK. Data were fitted to the Rasch model. RESULTS: Analysis was based on 415 records (55% response). The 21-item scale did not fit the Rasch model mainly because of multidimensionality. The scale was found to contain a "physical" dimension and a "cognitive" dimension, consistent with the original subscale structure. Valid physical and cognitive subscales were derived after deletion of some items. CONCLUSION: The MFIS cannot be used to generate a single overall score of fatigue. The conceptual interaction between the two dimensions remains unclear, which poses problems when interpreting change scores in these individual scales. Studies in which a global MFIS score was used as either an outcome measure or selection tool may need to be re-evaluated.
Authors: Arthur Derksen; Lidwine B Mokkink; Marc B Rietberg; Dirk L Knol; Raymond W J G Ostelo; Bernard M J Uitdehaag Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2013-02-26 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Matthew M Engelhard; Karen M Schmidt; Casey E Engel; J Nicholas Brenton; Stephen D Patek; Myla D Goldman Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2016-06-24 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Kirsten Van Kessel; Duncan R Babbage; Nicholas Reay; Warren M Miner-Williams; Paula Kersten Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2017-02-28 Impact factor: 4.773
Authors: Harry J Witchel; Cäcilia Oberndorfer; Robert Needham; Aoife Healy; Carina E I Westling; Joseph H Guppy; Jake Bush; Jens Barth; Chantal Herberz; Daniel Roggen; Björn M Eskofier; Waqar Rashid; Nachiappan Chockalingam; Jochen Klucken Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2018-09-14 Impact factor: 4.003