Validation of Perceived Mental Fatigability Using the Pittsburgh Fatigability Scale

Abstract

MEASUREMENTS: Development Sample, Validation Sample I-BLSA, and Validation Sample II-LLFS participants self-administered the 10-item Pittsburgh Fatigability Scale. Validation Sample II-LLFS completed cognition measures (Trail Making Tests A and B), depressive symptomatology (Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression Scale, CES-D), and global fatigue from two CES-D items. RESULTS: In the Development Sample and Validation Sample I-BLSA, confirmatory factor analysis showed all 10 items loaded on two factors: social and physical activities (fit indices: SRMSR = 0.064, RMSEA = 0.095, CFI = 0.91). PFS Mental scores had strong internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.85) and good test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.78). Validation Sample II-LLFS PFS Mental scores demonstrated moderate concurrent and construct validity using Pearson (r) or Spearman (ρ) correlations against measures of cognition (Trail Making Tests A (r = 0.14) and B (r = 0.17) time), depressive symptoms (r = 0.31), and global fatigue (ρ = 0.21).Additionally, the PFS Mental subscale had strong convergent validity, discriminating according to established clinical or cognitive testing cut points, with differences in PFS Mental scores ranging from 3.9 to 7.6 points (all P < .001). All analyses were adjusted for family relatedness, field center, age, sex, and education. CONCLUSIONS: The validated PFS Mental subscale may be used in clinical and research settings as a sensitive, onepage self-administered tool of perceived mental fatigability in older adults.

Psychometric properties of the Korean version of the Pittsburgh Fatigability Scale in breast cancer survivors

“…Similarly, a previous psychometric study of the PFS involving older adults reported good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.88) and excellent test–retest reliability (intra-class correlation = 0.86) [ 16 ]. Also, a recent psychometric study of the PFS mental fatigability subscale showed good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.85) and good test–retest reliability (intra-class correlation = 0.78) [ 18 ]. Compared to the previous two studies [ 16 , 18 ], the Cronbach’s alpha values for total physical and mental fatigability were also high in the present study, demonstrating that all items were closely correlated with the physical and mental fatigability subscales and had good internal consistency.…”

“…In addition, the researchers confirmed good overall discrimination of the PFS score for physical fatigability in comparison to performance measures with adjustments for age, sex, and race. In addition, in a recent study involving people aged over 60 years, Renner and colleagues validated the mental fatigability domain of the PFS [ 18 ]. Their confirmatory factor analysis with promax rotation using two factors (social and physical activities) supported a good model fit (SRMR = 0.064, RMSEA = 0.095, CFI = 0.91).…”

“…Glynn and colleagues published the 10-item PFS using factor analysis with varimax rotation [ 16 ] and recently Renner and colleague validated the mental PFS [ 18 ]. In our study, fatigability was measured using the K-PFS, which had been translated from the PFS with the participation of Glynn and colleagues and subjected to cognitive interview-based assessment [ 19 ].…”

“…In a previous study, the instrument was found to have high concurrent and convergent validity in relation to performance fatigability, mobility, physical function, and fitness, and its internal consistency was good, with a Cronbach’s alpha for fatigability of 0.88 [ 16 ]. Also, a recent study showed a good internal consistency for perceived mental fatigability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.85) [ 18 ].…”

Perceived Physical Fatigability Predicts All-Cause Mortality in Older Adults

“…The PFS, a 10-item, self-administered questionnaire validated for those age ≥60 years to ascertain both physical and mental fatigability, 2 , 22 was included at Visit 2. In this article, we focused on physical fatigability, which captures capacity/effort, rather than mental fatigability, which captures cognitive and mood-related domains.…”