Mei-Yeh Wang1, I-Chao Liu2,3, Chen-Huan Chiu3,4, Pei-Shan Tsai5,6. 1. Department of Nursing, Cardinal Tien Junior College of Healthcare and Management, New Taipei City, Taiwan. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Shuang Ho Hospital, Taipei Medical University, New Taipei City, Taiwan. 3. Department of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan. 4. Department of Psychiatry, Taipei City Psychiatric Center, Taipei, Taiwan. 5. Sleep Science Center, Taipei Medical University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. ptsai@tmu.edu.tw. 6. Graduate Institute of Nursing, College of Nursing, 250 Wu Hsing St., Taipei, 110, Taiwan. ptsai@tmu.edu.tw.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aims of the study were to adapt the Fatigue Severity Scale to Chinese conditions and assess the psychometric properties of the Chinese version in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and nondepressive people. METHODS: A total of 101 patients with MDD and 94 nondepressive persons were included in this study. A forward and backward translation procedure was performed for developing a culturally acceptable Chinese version of the Fatigue Severity Scale (CFSS). Validity was assessed according to construct validity, internal consistency, concurrent validity, divergent validity, and contrasted-group validity. RESULTS: The CFSS exhibited a one-factor structure in patients with MDD and the nondepressive participants. A 7-item version of CFSS and an 8-item version of the CFSS demonstrated better model fit than the original 9-item version in the patients with MDD and the nondepressive participants, respectively. In both participant groups, internal consistency values were within acceptable ranges. In addition, concurrent validity and divergent validity were confirmed in both groups. The average CFSS score of patients with MDD was significantly higher than that of the nondepressive participants. CONCLUSION: The 9-item CFSS is a valid instrument for assessing fatigue-related impairment in Chinese-speaking patients with MDD. However, the two reduced-item CFSS versions showed better psychometric properties than the original version in the patients with MDD and the nondepressive participants.
PURPOSE: The aims of the study were to adapt the Fatigue Severity Scale to Chinese conditions and assess the psychometric properties of the Chinese version in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and nondepressive people. METHODS: A total of 101 patients with MDD and 94 nondepressive persons were included in this study. A forward and backward translation procedure was performed for developing a culturally acceptable Chinese version of the Fatigue Severity Scale (CFSS). Validity was assessed according to construct validity, internal consistency, concurrent validity, divergent validity, and contrasted-group validity. RESULTS: The CFSS exhibited a one-factor structure in patients with MDD and the nondepressive participants. A 7-item version of CFSS and an 8-item version of the CFSS demonstrated better model fit than the original 9-item version in the patients with MDD and the nondepressive participants, respectively. In both participant groups, internal consistency values were within acceptable ranges. In addition, concurrent validity and divergent validity were confirmed in both groups. The average CFSS score of patients with MDD was significantly higher than that of the nondepressive participants. CONCLUSION: The 9-item CFSS is a valid instrument for assessing fatigue-related impairment in Chinese-speaking patients with MDD. However, the two reduced-item CFSS versions showed better psychometric properties than the original version in the patients with MDD and the nondepressive participants.
Authors: Caroline B Terwee; Sandra D M Bot; Michael R de Boer; Daniëlle A W M van der Windt; Dirk L Knol; Joost Dekker; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2006-08-24 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Anners Lerdal; Anders Kottorp; Caryl Gay; Bradley E Aouizerat; Carmen J Portillo; Kathryn A Lee Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2011-03-10 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Maurizio Fava; Michael E Thase; Charles DeBattista; Karl Doghramji; Sanjay Arora; Rod J Hughes Journal: Ann Clin Psychiatry Date: 2007 Jul-Sep Impact factor: 1.567
Authors: Marjolein van't Leven; Gerhard A Zielhuis; Jos W van der Meer; André L Verbeek; Gijs Bleijenberg Journal: Eur J Public Health Date: 2009-08-18 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: Thomas L Schwartz; Nouman Azhar; Kim Cole; Geoffrey Hopkins; Nikhil Nihalani; Mihai Simionescu; Juhi Husain; Nicole Jones Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 4.384