Premium
A Swedish version of the 16‐item Parkinson fatigue scale (PFS‐16)
Author(s) -
Hagell P.,
Rosblom T.,
Pålhagen S.
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
acta neurologica scandinavica
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.967
H-Index - 95
eISSN - 1600-0404
pISSN - 0001-6314
DOI - 10.1111/j.1600-0404.2011.01560.x
Subject(s) - ceiling effect , psychometrics , psychology , medicine , physical therapy , clinical psychology , alternative medicine , pathology
Hagell P, Rosblom T, Pålhagen S. A Swedish version of the 16‐item Parkinson fatigue scale (PFS‐16).
Acta Neurol Scand: 2012: 125: 288–292.
© 2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Background – The PFS‐16 is a 16‐item fatigue scale for Parkinson’s disease (PD) developed in the UK. However, documented translations and psychometric evaluations are sparse. Aim – To translate the PFS‐16 into Swedish and conduct initial testing of its psychometric properties. Methods – Following translation, the PFS‐16 was administered twice (2 weeks apart) to 30 people with PD (18 men; mean age/PD duration, 60/6.4 years). The PFS‐16 uses five response categories (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), and the total score is the mean over item scores (1–5; 5 = more fatigue). An alternative, dichotomised scoring method has also been suggested (total score, 0–16; 16 = more fatigue). Scaling assumptions, floor/ceiling effects, reliability, and correlations with other variables including the generic fatigue scale Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy – Fatigue scale (FACIT‐F) were tested. Results – Scaling assumptions were generally supported for the original scoring [range of mean (SD) item scores, 2.1–3.3 (1–1.4); corrected item‐total correlations, ≥0.40], but not for dichotomised scoring [range of mean (SD) item scores, 0.1–0.6 (0.3–0.5); corrected item‐total correlations, ≥0.16]. Reliabilities were ≥0.88. Floor effects were absent (original scoring) and >23% (dichotomised scoring); there were no ceiling effects. Correlations with other variables followed expectations (e.g. −0.88 with FACIT‐F scores). Conclusions – These observations support the psychometric properties of the Swedish PFS‐16, but cautions against dichotomised scoring.