Cargando…

Comparison of assessment scores for fatigue between multidimensional fatigue inventory (MFI-K) and modified chalder fatigue scale (mKCFQ)

BACKGROUND: Because of the absence of biological parameters for fatigue, appropriate instruments for assessing the degree of fatigue are important in the diagnosis and management of people complaining of fatigue-like symptoms. This study statistically analyzed the fatigue scores from two typical que...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lim, Eun-Jin, Son, Chang-Gue
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8722196/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34980164
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12967-021-03219-0
_version_ 1784625483116183552
author Lim, Eun-Jin
Son, Chang-Gue
author_facet Lim, Eun-Jin
Son, Chang-Gue
author_sort Lim, Eun-Jin
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Because of the absence of biological parameters for fatigue, appropriate instruments for assessing the degree of fatigue are important in the diagnosis and management of people complaining of fatigue-like symptoms. This study statistically analyzed the fatigue scores from two typical questionnaire-based instruments: the Korean version of the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI-K) and the modified Chalder Fatigue Scale (mKCFQ). METHODS: Seventy participants (males n  = 40, females n  = 30, median age 48 years old, range of 25–67) were grouped into three groups (‘mild’  = 20, ‘moderate’  = 42, and ‘severe’  = 8) according to self-reported fatigue levels using a 7-point Likert scale. The similarities and differences between two instrument-derived scores were analyzed using correlations (r) and multidimensional scaling (MDS). RESULTS: The total scores of the two assessments were significantly correlated (r  = 75%, p  < 0.001), as were the subscores (‘Total Physical fatigue’: r  = 76%, p  < 0.001, ‘Total Mental fatigue’: r  = 56%, p  < 0.001). Relative overestimation of the MFI-K (45.8 ± 11.3) compared to the mKCFQ (36.1 ± 16.2) was observed, which was especially prominent in the ‘mild’ group. The scores of the three groups were more easily distinguished by the mKCFQ than by the MFI-K. In terms of the five dimension scores, we found a higher correlation of the two assessments for ‘general fatigue’ (r  = 79%, p  < 0.001) and ‘physical fatigue’ (r  = 66%, p  < 0.001) than for the reductions in ‘motivation’ (r  = 41%, p  < 0.01) and ‘activity’ (r  = 26%, p  > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our results may indicate the usefulness of the two instruments, especially for the physical symptoms of fatigue (‘general’ and ‘physical’ fatigue). Furthermore, the MFI-K may be useful for conditions of moderate-to-severe fatigue, such as chronic fatigue syndrome, but the mKCFQ may be useful for all spectra of fatigue, including in subhealthy people. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12967-021-03219-0.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8722196
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87221962022-01-06 Comparison of assessment scores for fatigue between multidimensional fatigue inventory (MFI-K) and modified chalder fatigue scale (mKCFQ) Lim, Eun-Jin Son, Chang-Gue J Transl Med Research BACKGROUND: Because of the absence of biological parameters for fatigue, appropriate instruments for assessing the degree of fatigue are important in the diagnosis and management of people complaining of fatigue-like symptoms. This study statistically analyzed the fatigue scores from two typical questionnaire-based instruments: the Korean version of the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI-K) and the modified Chalder Fatigue Scale (mKCFQ). METHODS: Seventy participants (males n  = 40, females n  = 30, median age 48 years old, range of 25–67) were grouped into three groups (‘mild’  = 20, ‘moderate’  = 42, and ‘severe’  = 8) according to self-reported fatigue levels using a 7-point Likert scale. The similarities and differences between two instrument-derived scores were analyzed using correlations (r) and multidimensional scaling (MDS). RESULTS: The total scores of the two assessments were significantly correlated (r  = 75%, p  < 0.001), as were the subscores (‘Total Physical fatigue’: r  = 76%, p  < 0.001, ‘Total Mental fatigue’: r  = 56%, p  < 0.001). Relative overestimation of the MFI-K (45.8 ± 11.3) compared to the mKCFQ (36.1 ± 16.2) was observed, which was especially prominent in the ‘mild’ group. The scores of the three groups were more easily distinguished by the mKCFQ than by the MFI-K. In terms of the five dimension scores, we found a higher correlation of the two assessments for ‘general fatigue’ (r  = 79%, p  < 0.001) and ‘physical fatigue’ (r  = 66%, p  < 0.001) than for the reductions in ‘motivation’ (r  = 41%, p  < 0.01) and ‘activity’ (r  = 26%, p  > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our results may indicate the usefulness of the two instruments, especially for the physical symptoms of fatigue (‘general’ and ‘physical’ fatigue). Furthermore, the MFI-K may be useful for conditions of moderate-to-severe fatigue, such as chronic fatigue syndrome, but the mKCFQ may be useful for all spectra of fatigue, including in subhealthy people. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12967-021-03219-0. BioMed Central 2022-01-03 /pmc/articles/PMC8722196/ /pubmed/34980164 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12967-021-03219-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Lim, Eun-Jin
Son, Chang-Gue
Comparison of assessment scores for fatigue between multidimensional fatigue inventory (MFI-K) and modified chalder fatigue scale (mKCFQ)
title Comparison of assessment scores for fatigue between multidimensional fatigue inventory (MFI-K) and modified chalder fatigue scale (mKCFQ)
title_full Comparison of assessment scores for fatigue between multidimensional fatigue inventory (MFI-K) and modified chalder fatigue scale (mKCFQ)
title_fullStr Comparison of assessment scores for fatigue between multidimensional fatigue inventory (MFI-K) and modified chalder fatigue scale (mKCFQ)
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of assessment scores for fatigue between multidimensional fatigue inventory (MFI-K) and modified chalder fatigue scale (mKCFQ)
title_short Comparison of assessment scores for fatigue between multidimensional fatigue inventory (MFI-K) and modified chalder fatigue scale (mKCFQ)
title_sort comparison of assessment scores for fatigue between multidimensional fatigue inventory (mfi-k) and modified chalder fatigue scale (mkcfq)
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8722196/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34980164
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12967-021-03219-0
work_keys_str_mv AT limeunjin comparisonofassessmentscoresforfatiguebetweenmultidimensionalfatigueinventorymfikandmodifiedchalderfatiguescalemkcfq
AT sonchanggue comparisonofassessmentscoresforfatiguebetweenmultidimensionalfatigueinventorymfikandmodifiedchalderfatiguescalemkcfq