Etta J Vinik1, Aaron I Vinik2, Serina A Neumann3, Rajan Lamichhane4, Steven Morrison5, Sheri R Colberg6, Ying-Chuen Lai7, James Paulson8, Richard Handel3, Carolina Casellini2, Kim Hodges2, Joshua Edwards2, Henri K Parson2. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA. Electronic address: vinikej@evms.edu. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA. 3. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA. 4. School of Health Professions, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA. 5. School of Physical Therapy and Athletic Training, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA. 6. Human Movement Sciences Department, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA. 7. Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Yun Lin Branch, Taiwan. 8. Department of Psychology, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To design a questionnaire to evaluate and distinguish between cognitive and physical aspects of fatigue in different age groups of "nondiseased" people and guide appropriate prevention and interventions for the impact of frailty occurring in normative aging. STUDY DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: The Norfolk QOL-Fatigue (QOL-F) with items of cognitive and physical fatigue, anxiety, and depression from validated questionnaires including items from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measure Information System (PROMIS) databank was developed. The preliminary QOL-F was administered to 409 healthy multiethnic local participants (30-80 years old) in 5 age groups. METHODS: The authors distilled the item pool using exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). EFA identified 5 latent groups as possible factors related to problems due to fatigue, subjective fatigue, reduced activities, impaired activities of daily living (ADL), and depression. RESULTS: CFA demonstrated good overall fit [χ2(172) = 1094.23, P < .001; Tucker-Lewis index = 0.978; root mean square error of approximation = 0.049] with factor loadings >0.617 and strong interfactor correlations (0.69-0.83), suggesting that fatigue in each domain is closely related to other domains and to the overall scale except for ADL. The 5-factor solution displayed good internal consistency (Cronbach α = 0.78-0.94). Total and domain scores were fairly equivalent in all age groups except for the 40 to 49-year-old group with better overall scores. In addition, 70 to 79-year-olds had better ADL scores. In item response analysis, factor scores in different age groups were similar, so age may not be a significant driver of fatigue scores. Fatigue scores were significantly higher in females than in males (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The developed Norfolk QOL-F tool demonstrated fatigue as a perceived cognitive phenomenon rather than an objective physical measure, suggesting mandatory inclusion of cognitive as well as physical measures in the evaluation of people as they age. QOL-F is able to distinguish QOL-F domain scores unique to different age groups, proposing clinical benefits from physical, balance, and cognitive interventions tailored to impact frailty occurring in normative aging.
OBJECTIVES: To design a questionnaire to evaluate and distinguish between cognitive and physical aspects of fatigue in different age groups of "nondiseased" people and guide appropriate prevention and interventions for the impact of frailty occurring in normative aging. STUDY DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: The Norfolk QOL-Fatigue (QOL-F) with items of cognitive and physical fatigue, anxiety, and depression from validated questionnaires including items from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measure Information System (PROMIS) databank was developed. The preliminary QOL-F was administered to 409 healthy multiethnic local participants (30-80 years old) in 5 age groups. METHODS: The authors distilled the item pool using exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). EFA identified 5 latent groups as possible factors related to problems due to fatigue, subjective fatigue, reduced activities, impaired activities of daily living (ADL), and depression. RESULTS:CFA demonstrated good overall fit [χ2(172) = 1094.23, P < .001; Tucker-Lewis index = 0.978; root mean square error of approximation = 0.049] with factor loadings >0.617 and strong interfactor correlations (0.69-0.83), suggesting that fatigue in each domain is closely related to other domains and to the overall scale except for ADL. The 5-factor solution displayed good internal consistency (Cronbach α = 0.78-0.94). Total and domain scores were fairly equivalent in all age groups except for the 40 to 49-year-old group with better overall scores. In addition, 70 to 79-year-olds had better ADL scores. In item response analysis, factor scores in different age groups were similar, so age may not be a significant driver of fatigue scores. Fatigue scores were significantly higher in females than in males (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The developed Norfolk QOL-F tool demonstrated fatigue as a perceived cognitive phenomenon rather than an objective physical measure, suggesting mandatory inclusion of cognitive as well as physical measures in the evaluation of people as they age. QOL-F is able to distinguish QOL-F domain scores unique to different age groups, proposing clinical benefits from physical, balance, and cognitive interventions tailored to impact frailty occurring in normative aging.
Authors: David Cella; William Riley; Arthur Stone; Nan Rothrock; Bryce Reeve; Susan Yount; Dagmar Amtmann; Rita Bode; Daniel Buysse; Seung Choi; Karon Cook; Robert Devellis; Darren DeWalt; James F Fries; Richard Gershon; Elizabeth A Hahn; Jin-Shei Lai; Paul Pilkonis; Dennis Revicki; Matthias Rose; Kevin Weinfurt; Ron Hays Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-08-04 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Steven Morrison; Sheri R Colberg; Henri K Parson; Serina Neumann; Richard Handel; Etta J Vinik; James Paulson; Arthur I Vinik Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2016-01-26 Impact factor: 4.669