Comparison of SF-36 vitality scale and Fatigue Symptom Inventory in assessing cancer-related fatigue

Linda F. Brown, Kurt Kroenke, Dale E. Theobald, Jingwei Wu

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

34 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is an important symptom in clinical practice and research. The best way to measure it, however, remains unsettled. The SF-36 vitality scale, a general measure of energy/fatigue, is a frequently cited measure. With only four items, however, its ability to adequately represent multiple CRF facets has been questioned. The 13-item Fatigue Symptom Inventory (FSI) was developed to assess multidimensional aspects of CRF. Our objectives were to assess the convergent validity and to compare the sensitivity to change of the two scales. Methods: We administered both scales at 1 month (n=68) and 6 months (n=96) to a subset of heterogeneous patients receiving treatment in 16 cancer centers who were enrolled in a clinical trial of pain and depression. Distributions of standardized response means (SRMs) were compared to assess sensitivity to change. Results of both scales were compared to scores on a single fatigue item from the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ). Results: Mean scores for both the FSI and the vitality scale demonstrated clinically significant fatigue in the sample. The vitality scale was strongly correlated with all three FSI scales (r=-0.68 to -0.77). The vitality and FSI scales also correlated strongly with the PHQ fatigue item. Moreover, distributions of SRMs for both scales were approximately normal. Conclusions: Both the FSI and the vitality scale are supported as valid measures of CRF. Both demonstrated sensitivity to change across a range of effect sizes. The vitality scale may be an excellent choice when brevity is paramount; the FSI may be more appropriate when tapping specific dimensions is warranted.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1255-1259
Number of pages5
JournalSupportive Care in Cancer
Volume19
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2011

Fingerprint

Fatigue
Equipment and Supplies
Neoplasms
Aptitude
Health
Clinical Trials
Depression
Pain

Keywords

  • Assessment
  • Cancer
  • Fatigue
  • Psychometrics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology

Cite this

Comparison of SF-36 vitality scale and Fatigue Symptom Inventory in assessing cancer-related fatigue. / Brown, Linda F.; Kroenke, Kurt; Theobald, Dale E.; Wu, Jingwei.

In: Supportive Care in Cancer, Vol. 19, No. 8, 08.2011, p. 1255-1259.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Brown, Linda F. ; Kroenke, Kurt ; Theobald, Dale E. ; Wu, Jingwei. / Comparison of SF-36 vitality scale and Fatigue Symptom Inventory in assessing cancer-related fatigue. In: Supportive Care in Cancer. 2011 ; Vol. 19, No. 8. pp. 1255-1259.
@article{2da59f1a940847c4a018c43336569bab,
title = "Comparison of SF-36 vitality scale and Fatigue Symptom Inventory in assessing cancer-related fatigue",
abstract = "Purpose: Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is an important symptom in clinical practice and research. The best way to measure it, however, remains unsettled. The SF-36 vitality scale, a general measure of energy/fatigue, is a frequently cited measure. With only four items, however, its ability to adequately represent multiple CRF facets has been questioned. The 13-item Fatigue Symptom Inventory (FSI) was developed to assess multidimensional aspects of CRF. Our objectives were to assess the convergent validity and to compare the sensitivity to change of the two scales. Methods: We administered both scales at 1 month (n=68) and 6 months (n=96) to a subset of heterogeneous patients receiving treatment in 16 cancer centers who were enrolled in a clinical trial of pain and depression. Distributions of standardized response means (SRMs) were compared to assess sensitivity to change. Results of both scales were compared to scores on a single fatigue item from the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ). Results: Mean scores for both the FSI and the vitality scale demonstrated clinically significant fatigue in the sample. The vitality scale was strongly correlated with all three FSI scales (r=-0.68 to -0.77). The vitality and FSI scales also correlated strongly with the PHQ fatigue item. Moreover, distributions of SRMs for both scales were approximately normal. Conclusions: Both the FSI and the vitality scale are supported as valid measures of CRF. Both demonstrated sensitivity to change across a range of effect sizes. The vitality scale may be an excellent choice when brevity is paramount; the FSI may be more appropriate when tapping specific dimensions is warranted.",
keywords = "Assessment, Cancer, Fatigue, Psychometrics",
author = "Brown, {Linda F.} and Kurt Kroenke and Theobald, {Dale E.} and Jingwei Wu",
year = "2011",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1007/s00520-011-1148-2",
language = "English",
volume = "19",
pages = "1255--1259",
journal = "Supportive Care in Cancer",
issn = "0941-4355",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of SF-36 vitality scale and Fatigue Symptom Inventory in assessing cancer-related fatigue

AU - Brown, Linda F.

AU - Kroenke, Kurt

AU - Theobald, Dale E.

AU - Wu, Jingwei

PY - 2011/8

Y1 - 2011/8

N2 - Purpose: Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is an important symptom in clinical practice and research. The best way to measure it, however, remains unsettled. The SF-36 vitality scale, a general measure of energy/fatigue, is a frequently cited measure. With only four items, however, its ability to adequately represent multiple CRF facets has been questioned. The 13-item Fatigue Symptom Inventory (FSI) was developed to assess multidimensional aspects of CRF. Our objectives were to assess the convergent validity and to compare the sensitivity to change of the two scales. Methods: We administered both scales at 1 month (n=68) and 6 months (n=96) to a subset of heterogeneous patients receiving treatment in 16 cancer centers who were enrolled in a clinical trial of pain and depression. Distributions of standardized response means (SRMs) were compared to assess sensitivity to change. Results of both scales were compared to scores on a single fatigue item from the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ). Results: Mean scores for both the FSI and the vitality scale demonstrated clinically significant fatigue in the sample. The vitality scale was strongly correlated with all three FSI scales (r=-0.68 to -0.77). The vitality and FSI scales also correlated strongly with the PHQ fatigue item. Moreover, distributions of SRMs for both scales were approximately normal. Conclusions: Both the FSI and the vitality scale are supported as valid measures of CRF. Both demonstrated sensitivity to change across a range of effect sizes. The vitality scale may be an excellent choice when brevity is paramount; the FSI may be more appropriate when tapping specific dimensions is warranted.

AB - Purpose: Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is an important symptom in clinical practice and research. The best way to measure it, however, remains unsettled. The SF-36 vitality scale, a general measure of energy/fatigue, is a frequently cited measure. With only four items, however, its ability to adequately represent multiple CRF facets has been questioned. The 13-item Fatigue Symptom Inventory (FSI) was developed to assess multidimensional aspects of CRF. Our objectives were to assess the convergent validity and to compare the sensitivity to change of the two scales. Methods: We administered both scales at 1 month (n=68) and 6 months (n=96) to a subset of heterogeneous patients receiving treatment in 16 cancer centers who were enrolled in a clinical trial of pain and depression. Distributions of standardized response means (SRMs) were compared to assess sensitivity to change. Results of both scales were compared to scores on a single fatigue item from the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ). Results: Mean scores for both the FSI and the vitality scale demonstrated clinically significant fatigue in the sample. The vitality scale was strongly correlated with all three FSI scales (r=-0.68 to -0.77). The vitality and FSI scales also correlated strongly with the PHQ fatigue item. Moreover, distributions of SRMs for both scales were approximately normal. Conclusions: Both the FSI and the vitality scale are supported as valid measures of CRF. Both demonstrated sensitivity to change across a range of effect sizes. The vitality scale may be an excellent choice when brevity is paramount; the FSI may be more appropriate when tapping specific dimensions is warranted.

KW - Assessment

KW - Cancer

KW - Fatigue

KW - Psychometrics

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80051589032&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=80051589032&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00520-011-1148-2

DO - 10.1007/s00520-011-1148-2

M3 - Article

C2 - 21479788

AN - SCOPUS:80051589032

VL - 19

SP - 1255

EP - 1259

JO - Supportive Care in Cancer

JF - Supportive Care in Cancer

SN - 0941-4355

IS - 8

ER -