Julie M Cessna1, Heather S L Jim2, Steven K Sutton3, Yasmin Asvat3, Brent J Small3, John M Salsman4, Babu Zachariah5, Mayer Fishman2, Teresa Field2, Hugo Fernandez2, Lia Perez2, Paul B Jacobsen2. 1. Moffitt Cancer Center, 12902 Magnolia Drive, Tampa, FL 33612, United States; University of South Florida, 4202 E. Fowler Ave., Tampa, FL 33620, United States. Electronic address: jmcessna@mail.usf.edu. 2. Moffitt Cancer Center, 12902 Magnolia Drive, Tampa, FL 33612, United States. 3. Moffitt Cancer Center, 12902 Magnolia Drive, Tampa, FL 33612, United States; University of South Florida, 4202 E. Fowler Ave., Tampa, FL 33620, United States. 4. Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 633 N. St Clair, Suite 19-057, Chicago, IL 60611, United States; The Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, United States. 5. James A. Haley Veterans Affairs Hospital, 13000 Bruce B. Downs Blvd., Tampa, FL 33612, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Fatigue is common among cancer patients and adversely impacts quality of life. As such, it is important to measure fatigue accurately in a way that is not burdensome to patients. The 7-item Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Cancer Fatigue Short Form scale was recently developed using item response theory (IRT). The current study evaluated the psychometric properties of this scale in two samples of cancer patients using classical test theory (CTT). METHODS: Two samples were used: 121 men with prostate cancer and 136 patients scheduled to undergo hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) for hematologic cancer. All participants completed the PROMIS Cancer Fatigue Short Form as well as validated measures of fatigue, vitality, and depression. HCT patients also completed measures of anxiety, perceived stress, and a clinical interview designed to identify cases of cancer-related fatigue. RESULTS: PROMIS Cancer Fatigue Short Form items loaded on a single factor (CFI=0.948) and the scale demonstrated good internal consistency reliability in both samples (Cronbach's alphas>0.86). Correlations with psychosocial measures were significant (p values<.0001) and in the expected direction, offering evidence for convergent and concurrent validity. PROMIS Fatigue scores were significantly higher in patients who met case definition criteria for cancer-related fatigue (p<.0001), demonstrating criterion validity. CONCLUSION: The current study provides evidence that the PROMIS Cancer Fatigue Short Form is a reliable and valid measure of fatigue in cancer patients.
OBJECTIVE:Fatigue is common among cancerpatients and adversely impacts quality of life. As such, it is important to measure fatigue accurately in a way that is not burdensome to patients. The 7-item Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) CancerFatigue Short Form scale was recently developed using item response theory (IRT). The current study evaluated the psychometric properties of this scale in two samples of cancerpatients using classical test theory (CTT). METHODS: Two samples were used: 121 men with prostate cancer and 136 patients scheduled to undergo hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) for hematologic cancer. All participants completed the PROMIS CancerFatigue Short Form as well as validated measures of fatigue, vitality, and depression. HCT patients also completed measures of anxiety, perceived stress, and a clinical interview designed to identify cases of cancer-related fatigue. RESULTS: PROMIS CancerFatigue Short Form items loaded on a single factor (CFI=0.948) and the scale demonstrated good internal consistency reliability in both samples (Cronbach's alphas>0.86). Correlations with psychosocial measures were significant (p values<.0001) and in the expected direction, offering evidence for convergent and concurrent validity. PROMIS Fatigue scores were significantly higher in patients who met case definition criteria for cancer-related fatigue (p<.0001), demonstrating criterion validity. CONCLUSION: The current study provides evidence that the PROMIS CancerFatigue Short Form is a reliable and valid measure of fatigue in cancerpatients.
Authors: Karon F Cook; Alyssa M Bamer; Toni S Roddey; George H Kraft; Jiseon Kim; Dagmar Amtmann Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2011-09-17 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Vanessa K Noonan; Karon F Cook; Alyssa M Bamer; Seung W Choi; Jiseon Kim; Dagmar Amtmann Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2011-11-03 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Deanna M Golden-Kreutz; Lisa M Thornton; Sharla Wells-Di Gregorio; Georita M Frierson; Heather S Jim; Kristen M Carpenter; Rebecca A Shelby; Barbara L Andersen Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: D M Hann; P B Jacobsen; L M Azzarello; S C Martin; S L Curran; K K Fields; H Greenberg; G Lyman Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 1998-05 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Deborah J Bowen; Eileen H Shinn; Sophie Gregrowski; Gretchen Kimmick; Laura S Dominici; Elizabeth S Frank; Karen Lisa Smith; Gabrielle Rocque; Kathryn J Ruddy; Teri Pollastro; Michelle Melisko; Tarah J Ballinger; Oluwadamilola M Fayanju; Antonio C Wolff Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-11-19 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Chad W Wagoner; Jordan T Lee; Erik D Hanson; Zachary Y Kerr; Kirsten A Nyrop; Hyman B Muss; Claudio L Battaglini Journal: Breast Cancer Date: 2022-06-24 Impact factor: 3.307
Authors: Chad W Wagoner; Jordan T Lee; Erik D Hanson; Zachary Y Kerr; Kirsten A Nyrop; Hyman B Muss; Claudio L Battaglini Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-01-31 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Bronwen E Shaw; Karen L Syrjala; Lynn E Onstad; Eric J Chow; Mary E Flowers; Heather Jim; K Scott Baker; Sarah Buckley; Diane L Fairclough; Mary M Horowitz; Stephanie J Lee Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-10-26 Impact factor: 6.860