دوره 28، شماره 127 - ( 12-1398 )                   جلد 28 شماره 127 صفحات 118-111 | برگشت به فهرست نسخه ها

XML English Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Saneii S H, Heidari M, Zaree M, Akbarfahimi M. Psychometric Features of the Persian Version of the Fatigue Impact Scale in Iranian Stroke Patients. J Adv Med Biomed Res 2020; 28 (127) :111-118
URL: http://journal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-5863-fa.html
Psychometric Features of the Persian Version of the Fatigue Impact Scale in Iranian Stroke Patients. Journal of Advances in Medical and Biomedical Research. 1398; 28 (127) :111-118

URL: http://journal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-5863-fa.html

Psychometric Features of the Persian Version of the Fatigue Impact Scale in Iranian Stroke Patients
چکیده:   (147710 مشاهده)

Background and Objective: Post-stroke fatigue is a troublesome symptom and a common complaint of stroke patients. The purpose of this study was to investigate the psychometric features of the Persian version of the FIS (FIS-P) administered to Iranian stroke patients.
Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional methodological study, the psychometric properties of the Persian version of the FIS (FIS-P) were examined. The participants were 280 Iranian people (140 healthy adults; 140 stroke patients) who were assessed using the FIS-P, fatigue severity scale (FSS), and SF-36 questionnaire. The content, convergent, and discriminant validity of the FIS-P were evaluated using CVR and CVI, Pearson correlation, and independent-sampling T-tests, respectively. Furthermore, inter-rater reliability and test-retest reliability were assessed via the intra-class correlation coefficient and SEM. The internal consistency reliability was evaluated using Cronbach’s α.
Results: The results of the CVR for items ranged from 0.6-1, and the CVI of the FIS-P was 0.85. The Pearson correlation measure revealed strong and inverse correlations between FIS-P and FSS and a low to moderate relationship between all subscales of the SF-36 and FIS-P in terms of convergent validity. T-test results showed the discriminant validity of the FIS-P in differentiating between stroke patients and healthy participants. The ICC coefficients for test-retest and inter-rater reliability for the overall scale were 0.991 and 0.984, respectively. Cronbach’s α was 895.
Conclusion: The strong psychometric properties of the FIS-P indicated its applicability in assessing the impact of fatigue on stroke victim’s daily activities and the effectiveness of therapeutic and rehabilitation interventions.

متن کامل [PDF 499 kb]   (155694 دریافت)    
نوع مطالعه: مقاله پژوهشی | موضوع مقاله: Clinical medicine
دریافت: 1398/9/20 | پذیرش: 1398/11/5 | انتشار: 1398/12/11
فهرست منابع
1. Virani SS, Alonso A, Benjamin EJ, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics-2020 Update: A report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2020;141(9):e139-e596.
2. Ramsey LE, Siegel JS, Lang CE, StrubeM, Shulman GL, Corbetta M. Behavioural clusters and predictors of performance during recovery from stroke. Nat Hum Behav. 2017;1 [DOI:10.1038/s41562-016-0038]
3. Akbari S, Lyden PD, Kamali M, Fahimi MA. Correlations among impairment, daily activities and thinking operations after stroke. NeuroRehabilitation. 2013;33(1):153-60.. [DOI:10.3233/NRE-130940]
4. Kjeverud A, Ostlie K, Schanke AK, Gay C, Thoresen M, Lerdal A. Trajectories of fatigue among stroke patients from the acute phase to 18 months post-injury: A latent class analysis. PLoS One. 2020;15(4):e0231709. [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0231709]
5. Cumming TB, Yeo AB, Marquez J, et al. Investigating post-stroke fatigue: An individual participant data meta-analysis. J Psychosom Res. 2018;113:107-12. [DOI:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2018.08.006]
6. Naess H, Lunde L, Brogger J, Waje-Andreassen U. Fatigue among stroke patients on long-term follow-up. The Bergen Stroke Study. J Neurol Sci. 2012;312(1-2):138-41. [DOI:10.1016/j.jns.2011.08.002]
7. Duncan F, Wu S, Mead GE. Frequency and natural history of fatigue after stroke: a systematic review of longitudinal studies. J Psychosom Res. 2012;73(1):18-27. [DOI:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2012.04.001]
8. Thomas K, Hjalmarsson C, Mullis R, Mant J. Conceptualising post-stroke fatigue: a cross-sectional survey of UK-based physiotherapists and occupational therapists. BMJ Open. 2019;9(12):e033066. [DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033066]
9. Mead G, Lynch J, Greig C, Young A, Lewis S, Sharpe M. Evaluation of fatigue scales in stroke patients. Stroke. 2007;38(7):2090-5. [DOI:10.1161/STROKEAHA.106.478941]
10. Krupp LB, LaRocca NG, Muir-Nash J, Steinberg AD. The fatigue severityscale. Application to patients with multiple sclerosis and systemic lupus erythematosus. Arch Neurol. 1989;46(10):1121-3. [DOI:10.1001/archneur.1989.00520460115022]
11. Fisk JD, Pontefract A, Ritvo PG, Archibald CJ, Murray TJ. The impact of fatigue on patients with multiple sclerosis. Canadian J Neurol Sci . 1994;21(1):9-14. [DOI:10.1017/S0317167100048691]
12. Michielsen HJ, De Vries J, Van Heck GL. Psychometric qualities of a brief self-rated fatigue measure: The Fatigue Assessment Scale. J Psychosom Res. 2003;54(4):345-52. [DOI:10.1016/S0022-3999(02)00392-6]
13. Penner IK, Raselli C, Stocklin M, Opwis K, Kappos L, Calabrese P. The fatigue scale for motor and cognitive functions (FSMC): validation of a new instrument to assess multiple sclerosis-related fatigue. Mult Scler. 2009;15(12):1509-17 [DOI:10.1177/1352458509348519]
14. Elf M, Eriksson G, Johansson S, von Koch L, Ytterberg C. Self-reported fatigue and associated factors six years after stroke. PLoS One. 2016;11(8):e0161942. [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0161942]
15. Parks NE, Eskes GA, Gubitz GJ, Reidy Y, Christian C, Phillips SJ. Fatigue impactscale demonstrates greater fatigue in younger stroke survivors. Canadian J Neurol Sci. 2012;39(5):619-25. [DOI:10.1017/S0317167100015353]
16. Fisk JD, Ritvo PG, Ross L, Haase DA, Marrie TJ, Schlech WF. Measuring thefunctional impact of fatigue: initial validation of the fatigue impact scale. Clin Infect Dis. 1994;18 Suppl 1:S79-83. [DOI:10.1093/clinids/18.Supplement_1.S79]
17. Frith J, Newton J. Fatigue Impact Scale. Occup Med. 2010;60(2):159. [DOI:10.1093/occmed/kqp180]
18. Fisk JD, Doble SE. Construction and validation of a fatigue impact scale for daily administration (D-FIS). Quality of life research . Qual life Res. 2002;11(3):263-72. [DOI:10.1023/A:1015295106602]
19. . Mathiowetz V. Test-retest reliability and convergent validity of the fatigue impact scale for persons with multiple sclerosis. Am J Occup Ther. 2003;57(4):389-95. [DOI:10.5014/ajot.57.4.389]
20. Losonczi E, Bencsik K, Rajda C, Lencses G, Torok M, VecseiL. Validation of the fatigue impact scale in Hungarian patients with multiple sclerosis. Qual Life Res. 2011;20(2):301-6. [DOI:10.1007/s11136-010-9749-7]
21. . Armutlu K, Keser I, Korkmaz N, et al. Psychometric study of Turkish version of fatigue impact scale in multiple sclerosis patients. J Neurol Sci. 2007;255(1-2):64-8. [DOI:10.1016/j.jns.2007.01.073]
22. Debouverie M, Pittion-Vouyovitch S, Louis S, Guillemin F. Validity of a french version of the fatigue impact scale in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2007;13(8):1026-32. [DOI:10.1177/1352458507077942]
23. Heidari M, Akbarfahimi M, Salehi M, Nabavi SM. Validity and reliability of the persian-version of fatigue impact scale in multiple sclerosis patients in Iran. koomesh. 2014;15(3):295-301.
24. Heidari M, Akbarfahimi M, Salehi M. Survey validity of translation for Persian and cultural adaptation of Fatigue Impact Scale (FIS) questionnaire in multiple sclerosis patients in Iran. J Modern Rehabil. 2012;6(320-29).
25. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34-42. [DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012]
26. Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychol. 1975;28:563-75. [DOI:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x]
27. Azimian M, Farahani AS, Dadkhah A, Fallahpour M, Karimlu M. Fatigue severity scale: the psychometric properties of the persian-version in patients with multiple sclerosis. Res J Biol Sci 2009;4:974-7.
28. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30(6):473-83. [DOI:10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002]
29. Montazeri A, Goshtasebi A, Vahdaninia M, Gandek B. The short form health survey (SF-36): translation and validation study of the Iranian version. Qual Life Res. 2005;14(3):875-82. [DOI:10.1007/s11136-004-1014-5]
30. Feliss J. Design and analysis of clinical experiments. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1986.
31. Liu WY, Hou YJ, Liao HF, Lin YH, Chen YY, Wong AM. A Preliminary study of the development, validity, and reliability of a caregiver questionnaire for the health-related quality of life in children with cerebral palsy. Chang Gung Med J. 2010;33(6):646-58.
32. Mehdizadeh M, Martinez-Martin P, Habibi SA, et al. Reliability and validity of fall efficacy scale-international in people with parkinson's disease during on- and off-drug phases. Parkinson's disease. 2019;2019:6505232. [DOI:10.1155/2019/6505232]
بازنشر اطلاعات
Creative Commons License این مقاله تحت شرایط Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License قابل بازنشر است.

کلیه حقوق این وب سایت متعلق به Journal of Advances in Medical and Biomedical Research می باشد.

طراحی و برنامه نویسی : یکتاوب افزار شرق

© 2024 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Journal of Advances in Medical and Biomedical Research

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb