Validation of the Brazilian version of the neurological fatigue index for multiple sclerosis

Lopes, Josiane; Lavado, Edson Lopes; Kaimen-Maciel, Damacio Ramón

doi:10.1590/0004-282x20160030

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consistent with previous studies, 42,43 there were no ceiling or floor effects in the C-NFI-Stroke. This study indicated that differences in fatigue could be discerned among participants and clinically meaningful data could be captured at two ends of the scale.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…The C-NFI-Stroke had smaller measurement errors than other neurological fatigue indices (e.g. 8.3%-9.2% for the Dutch Neurological Fatigue Index-multiple sclerosis; 41 5.4%-20.8% for the Brazilian Neurological Fatigue Index-multiple sclerosis; 42 and 4.8%-8.1% for the Neurological Fatigue Index-Post-Polio Syndrome). 43 Our findings support the argument that the C-NFI-Stroke is a reliable instrument for use in Chinese stroke populations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Testing the psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Neurological Fatigue Index-Stroke

Lai

2021

Clin Rehabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To test the psychometric properties of a Chinese version of the Neurological Fatigue Index-Stroke (C-NFI-Stroke) in stroke survivors. Design: This was a validation study. Cross-cultural adaptation of the scale was conducted according to standard guidelines. Reliability, validity, responsiveness, and interpretability were measured. Setting: Self-help groups and a community center. Subjects: One hundred and twelve Chinese stroke survivors and 65 healthy Chinese older people living in the community. Interventions: Not applicable. Main measures: The C-NFI-Stroke, Fatigue Severity Scale, Mental Fatigue Scale, General Self-Efficacy Scale, and Geriatric Depression Scale were used. Results: Cronbach’s α coefficients were 0.69–0.88; the item-level agreement was 70.4%–88.9%; the weighted Kappa value was 0.47–0.79; and the intra-class correlation coefficients were 0.88–0.93. The C-NFI-Stroke had no ceiling and floor effects. It had good content validity and had two factors, “lack of energy” and “tiredness/weakness.” The confirmatory factor analysis showed a good fit to the model. The C-NFI-Stroke significantly correlated with existing fatigue scales ( rs = 0.55–0.63), self-efficacy ( rs = −0.31 to −0.37), and depressive symptoms ( rs = 0.53–0.60). The C-NFI-Stroke could discern differences between stroke survivors and healthy older people. Conclusions: The C-NFI-Stroke is a reliable and valid tool for clinical and research use on people who have been diagnosed with stroke for a year or more, although its factor structure differs from that of the original English version.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%