Andreas Hinz1, Joachim Weis2, Elmar Brähler3,4, Anja Mehnert3. 1. Department of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University of Leipzig, Philipp-Rosenthal-Str. 55, 04103, Leipzig, Germany. andreas.hinz@medizin.uni-leipzig.de. 2. Tumor Biology Centre, University Clinic Centre, Freiburg, Germany. 3. Department of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University of Leipzig, Philipp-Rosenthal-Str. 55, 04103, Leipzig, Germany. 4. Clinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Fatigue is a frequent symptom in patients suffering from chronic diseases, especially cancer patients. A new fatigue questionnaire was recently developed to better assess this condition, the EORTC QLQ-FA12. The aims of this study were to test the psychometric properties of this fatigue questionnaire and to provide normative values. METHODS: A total of 2411 individuals (53.5% women), representatively selected from the German general population, responded to the EORTC QLQ-FA12 questionnaire. RESULTS: Women reported more fatigue than men on all three scales of the EORTC QLQ-FA12 with the following effect sizes: d = 0.29 (physical fatigue), d = 0.22 (emotional fatigue), and d = 0.11 (cognitive fatigue). There were no linear age trends. Confirmatory factorial analysis confirmed the latent structure of the questionnaire. The correlations among the latent scales were between 0.71 and 0.84. The internal consistency coefficients were alpha = 0.92 (physical fatigue), 0.86 (emotional fatigue), 0.79 (cognitive fatigue), and 0.94 (sum score). CONCLUSIONS: The study proved the psychometric quality of the EORTC QLQ-FA12 in the general population. Gender differences should be accounted for when comparing groups of patients. The normative scores can be used to qualify the assessment of the degree of patients' fatigue.
PURPOSE:Fatigue is a frequent symptom in patients suffering from chronic diseases, especially cancerpatients. A new fatigue questionnaire was recently developed to better assess this condition, the EORTC QLQ-FA12. The aims of this study were to test the psychometric properties of this fatigue questionnaire and to provide normative values. METHODS: A total of 2411 individuals (53.5% women), representatively selected from the German general population, responded to the EORTC QLQ-FA12 questionnaire. RESULTS:Women reported more fatigue than men on all three scales of the EORTC QLQ-FA12 with the following effect sizes: d = 0.29 (physical fatigue), d = 0.22 (emotional fatigue), and d = 0.11 (cognitive fatigue). There were no linear age trends. Confirmatory factorial analysis confirmed the latent structure of the questionnaire. The correlations among the latent scales were between 0.71 and 0.84. The internal consistency coefficients were alpha = 0.92 (physical fatigue), 0.86 (emotional fatigue), 0.79 (cognitive fatigue), and 0.94 (sum score). CONCLUSIONS: The study proved the psychometric quality of the EORTC QLQ-FA12 in the general population. Gender differences should be accounted for when comparing groups of patients. The normative scores can be used to qualify the assessment of the degree of patients' fatigue.
Entities:
Keywords:
Fatigue; General population; Normative study; Psychometrics; Reliability
Authors: Harald Rief; Michael Akbar; Monika Keller; Georg Omlor; Thomas Welzel; Thomas Bruckner; Stefan Rieken; Matthias F Häfner; Ingmar Schlampp; Alexandros Gioules; Jürgen Debus Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2014-07-07 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: Edvard Abel; Ewa Silander; Fredrik Nordström; Caroline Olsson; N Patrik Brodin; Jan Nyman; Thomas Björk-Eriksson; Eva Hammerlid Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-04-08
Authors: Frederik R van de Schoor; Hedwig D Vrijmoeth; Michelle A E Brouwer; Hadewych J M Ter Hofstede; Heidi L M Lemmers; Helga Dijkstra; Collins K Boahen; Marije Oosting; Bart-Jan Kullberg; Joppe W Hovius; Cees C van den Wijngaard; Frank L van de Veerdonk; Mihai G Netea; Leo A B Joosten Journal: Infect Immun Date: 2022-02-07 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Yuriy Nesterko; Michael Friedrich; Elmar Brähler; Andreas Hinz; Heide Glaesmer Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2019-12-18 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Martina E Schmidt; Marlena Milzer; Cécile Weiß; Paul Reinke; Miriam Grapp; Karen Steindorf Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-02-11 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Antonia M Werner; Bjarne Schmalbach; Markus Zenger; Elmar Brähler; Andreas Hinz; Johannes Kruse; Hanna Kampling Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2022-03-24 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Karolina Müller; Jens G Kuipers; Joachim Weis; Irene Fischer; Tobias Pukrop; Jens U Rüffer; Michael Koller Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2021-07-16 Impact factor: 2.631