Tag: self-assessment

Longitudinal change in chronic fatigue syndrome: what home-based assessments reveal

Abstract:

The purpose of this 2-year prospective study was to compare standard self-report and ecologically-based outcome measures in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Standard measures assessed physical function, fatigue impact, psychological variables, and global impression of change ratings. Ecological measures included actigraphy, a structured activity record, and an electronic fatigue/energy diary.

Results for this high functioning sample (N = 75) revealed that self-report global improvement was significantly associated with lower momentary fatigue and fatigue impact, and a higher frequency of standing up (at home), but not with actigraphy or psychological variables. However, actigraphy change was significantly correlated with change in self-report physical function. At follow-up, only a small minority (<20%) scored in the healthy adult range for fatigue impact and physical function.

The findings suggest that home-based measures of symptom severity and physical functioning may provide evidence of change (or lack of change) that is important for interpreting standard self-report outcomes in CFS.

 

Source: Friedberg F, Sohl SJ. Longitudinal change in chronic fatigue syndrome: what home-based assessments reveal. J Behav Med. 2009 Apr;32(2):209-18. doi: 10.1007/s10865-008-9189-9. Epub 2008 Dec 20. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19101789

 

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