Tag: Chalder fatigue scale

Identification of ambiguities in the 1994 chronic fatigue syndrome research case definition and recommendations for resolution

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: A recent article by Reeves et al. on the identification and resolution of ambiguities in the 1994 chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) research case definition recommended the Checklist Individual Strength, the Chalder Fatigue Scale, and the Krupp Fatigue Severity Scale for evaluating fatigue in CFS studies. To be able to discriminate between various levels of severe fatigue, extreme scoring on the individual items of these questionnaires must not occur too often.

METHODS: We derived an expression that allows us to compute a lower bound for the number of items with the maximum item score for a given study from the reported mean scale score, the number of reported subjects, and the properties of the fatigue rating scale. Several CFS studies that used the recommended fatigue rating scales were selected from literature and analyzed to verify whether abundant extreme scoring had occurred.

RESULTS: Extreme scoring occurred on a large number of the items for all three recommended fatigue rating scales across several studies. The percentage of items with the maximum score exceeded 40% in several cases. The amount of extreme scoring for a certain scale varied from one study to another, which suggests heterogeneity in the selected subjects across studies.

CONCLUSION: Because all three instruments easily reach the extreme ends of their scales on a large number of the individual items, they do not accurately represent the severe fatigue that is characteristic for CFS. This should lead to serious questions about the validity and suitability of the Checklist Individual Strength, the Chalder Fatigue Scale, and the Krupp Fatigue Severity Scale for evaluating fatigue in CFS research.

Comment on: Identification of ambiguities in the 1994 chronic fatigue syndrome research case definition and recommendations for resolution. [BMC Health Serv Res. 2003]

 

Source: Stouten B. Identification of ambiguities in the 1994 chronic fatigue syndrome research case definition and recommendations for resolution. BMC Health Serv Res. 2005 May 13;5:37. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1175848/ (Full article)

 

Associations between perfectionism, mood, and fatigue in chronic fatigue syndrome: a pilot study

Abstract:

This study investigated possible associations between perfectionistic personality traits, mood, and fatigue in chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Forty CFS sufferers referred to tertiary care and 31 control healthy subjects completed the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS), Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression (HAD) scale.

Total perfectionism scores did not correlate with fatigue, anxiety, or depression in either group. Other-oriented MPS scores were significantly lower among CFS sufferers (p = .0019), especially women, and correlated negatively with physical fatigue levels overall (R = -0.27, p = .02). Total and socially prescribed MPS scores correlated with age for the CFS group alone (p = .05).

Possible reasons why this study did not confirm a positive association between perfectionism and CFS are discussed. The finding that CFS sufferers set lower standards and have lower expectations for significant others may have implications for rehabilitation and recovery from this disorder.

 

Source: Blenkiron P, Edwards R, Lynch S. Associations between perfectionism, mood, and fatigue in chronic fatigue syndrome: a pilot study. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1999 Sep;187(9):566-70. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10496512

 

Exploring the validity of the Chalder Fatigue scale in chronic fatigue syndrome

Abstract:

The Chalder fatigue scale is widely used to measure physical and mental fatigue in chronic fatigue syndrome patients, but the constructs of the scale have not been examined in this patient sample. We examined the constructs of the 14-item fatigue scale in a sample of 136 chronic fatigue syndrome patients through principal components analysis, followed by correlations with measures of subjective and objective cognitive performance, physiological measures of strength and functional work capacity, depression, anxiety, and subjective sleep difficulties.

There were four factors of fatigue explaining 67% of the total variance. Factor 1 was correlated with subjective everyday cognitive difficulties, concentration difficulties, and a deficit in paired associate learning. Factor 2 was correlated with difficulties in maintaining sleep. Factor 3 was inversely correlated with grip strength, peak VO2, peak heart rate, and peak functional work capacity. Factor 4 was correlated with interview and self-rated measures of depression.

The results support the validity of mental and physical fatigue subscales and the dropping of the “loss of interest” item in the 11-item version of the fatigue scale.

 

Source: Morriss RK, Wearden AJ, Mullis R. Exploring the validity of the Chalder Fatigue scale in chronic fatigue syndrome. J Psychosom Res. 1998 Nov;45(5):411-7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9835234

 

Development of a fatigue scale

Abstract:

A self-rating scale was developed to measure the severity of fatigue. Two-hundred and seventy-four new registrations on a general practice list completed a 14-item fatigue scale. In addition, 100 consecutive attenders to a general practice completed the fatigue scale and the fatigue item of the revised Clinical Interview Schedule (CIS-R). These were compared by the application of Relative Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis. Tests of internal consistency and principal components analyses were performed on both sets of data. The scale was found to be both reliable and valid. There was a high degree of internal consistency, and the principal components analysis supported the notion of a two-factor solution (physical and mental fatigue). The validation coefficients for the fatigue scale, using an arbitrary cut off score of 3/4 and the item on the CIS-R were: sensitivity 75.5 and specificity 74.5.

 

Source: Chalder T, Berelowitz G, Pawlikowska T, Watts L, Wessely S, Wright D, Wallace EP. Development of a fatigue scale. J Psychosom Res. 1993;37(2):147-53. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8463991