Translation and validation of the Dutch Pittsburgh Fatigability Scale for older adults

Abstract

Background: The original Pittsburgh Fatigability Scale (PFS) was developed to assess perceived fatigability in older adults. The objective of this study was to translate the PFS into Dutch and investigate its validity and reliability among hospitalized older adults aged ≥70 years. Methods: The PFS was translated into Dutch and pretested for comprehensibility by the Three-Step Test Interview method. The factor structure underlying the final version was evaluated by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and exploratory factor analyses (EFA). Internal consistency of the identified subscales was evaluated by Cronbach's alpha. Construct validity was evaluated by hypothesis testing. Test-retest reliability was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland Altman plots. Results: The validation sample included 233 patients. CFA of the original factor structure resulted in poor model fit in our Dutch sample. EFA of PFS physical and mental subscales resulted in a two-factor solution underlying the data with good internal consistency of the identified subscales (Cronbach's alpha: 0.80-0.92). Five out of six hypotheses were confirmed, indicating good construct validity. Retest assessments were performed among 50 patients and showed good reliability for both the physical (ICC: 0.80, 95%CI: 0.68; 0.88) and mental subscale (ICC: 0.81, 95%CI: 0.68; 0.89). Conclusion: The Dutch PFS is a valid and reliable instrument to assess fatigability in older hospitalized patients.

Validation of Perceived Mental Fatigability Using the Pittsburgh Fatigability Scale

“…1 First, the 2-factor loading structure concurred with the recently validated PFS-Dutch version. 16 Next, associations of depression symptomatology and cognitive performance with perceived mental fatigability were consistent with the limited available mental fatigue literature. [17][18][19][20][21] a Adjusted for family relatedness, field center, age, sex, and education.…”

Validation of perceived physical fatigability using the simplified-Chinese version of the Pittsburgh Fatigability Scale

“…Like the original and Spanish versions of the PFS, the simplified-Chinese version was able to distinguish those exhibiting high versus low fatigability against physical performance measures [6,21]. Additionally, the English and Dutch versions of the PFS had good reliability for the Physical subscale with intraclass correlations ≥0.80 [6,19]. The PFS Physical scores of our study were higher than others, likely because our population was older.…”

“…Spearman's rank-order correlations were used to examine the correlations of the PFS Physical scores with physical performance and daily living performance. The strength of correlations reflected via Spearman correlation coefficients [19]: |r| ≤ 0.3: low or weak correlation; |r| = 0.3-0.5: moderate correlation; and |r| ≥ 0.5: strong correlation.…”

Validation of Perceived Physical Fatigability Using the Simplified-Chinese Version of the Pittsburgh Fatigability Scale

“…Like the original and Spanish versions of the PFS, the simplified-Chinese version was able to distinguish those exhibiting high versus low fatigability against physical performance measures. [6,19] Additionally, the English and Dutch versions of the PFS had good reliability for the Physical subscale with intraclass correlations ≥0.80 [6,18] . The PFS Physical scores of our study were higher than others, likely because our population was older.…”

“…Spearman's rank-order correlations were used to examine the correlations of the PFS Physical scores with physical performance and daily living performance. The strength of correlations reflected via Spearman correlation coefficients [18] : |r|≤0.…”