hkr.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
A Swedish version of the 16-item Parkinson Fatigue Scale (PFS-16)
Kristianstad University, School of Health and Society, Avdelningen för Hälsovetenskap. Kristianstad University, Research Environment PRO-CARE.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-2174-372X
Department of Neurology, Karolinska University Hospital Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden.
Department of Neurology, Karolinska University Hospital Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden.
2012 (English)In: Acta Neurologica Scandinavica, ISSN 0001-6314, E-ISSN 1600-0404, Vol. 125, no 4, 288-292 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2012. Vol. 125, no 4, 288-292 p.
Keyword [en]
fatigue, Parkinson’s disease, reliability, validity
National Category
Neurology Health Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hkr:diva-8541DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0404.2011.01560.xISI: 000301223100014PubMedID: 21692754OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hkr-8541DiVA: diva2:441403
Available from: 2011-09-15 Created: 2011-09-15 Last updated: 2017-12-08Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Authority records BETA

Hagell, Peter

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Hagell, Peter
By organisation
Avdelningen för HälsovetenskapResearch Environment PRO-CARE
In the same journal
Acta Neurologica Scandinavica
NeurologyHealth Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 62 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf