Psychometric properties and measurement equivalence of the Multidimensional Fatigue Syndrome Inventory- Short Form (MFSI-SF) amongst breast cancer and lymphoma patients in Singapore

Alexandre Chan, Claire Lew, Xiao Jun Wang, Terence Ng, Jung-Woo Chae, Hui Ling Yeo, Maung Shwe, Yan Xiang Gan, Alexandre Chan, Claire Lew, Xiao Jun Wang, Terence Ng, Jung-Woo Chae, Hui Ling Yeo, Maung Shwe, Yan Xiang Gan

Abstract

Background: Currently, several fatigue measurement instruments are available to evaluate and measure cancer-related fatigue. Amongst them, Multidimensional Fatigue Syndrome Inventory-Short Form (MFSI-SF) is a self-reported instrument and a multidimensional scale that aims to capture the global, somatic, affective, cognitive and behavioural symptoms of fatigue. This study examines the psychometric properties and measurement equivalence of the English and Chinese versions of MFSI-SF in breast cancer and lymphoma patients in Singapore.

Methods: Patients were recruited from National Cancer Centre Singapore. Validity, reliability and responsiveness of MFSI-SF were evaluated in this study. Convergent validity was evaluated by correlating total and subscales of MFSI-SF to known related constructs in EORTC QLQ-C30. Known group validity was assessed based on patients' cancer stage, pain, insomnia and depression symptoms. Reliability was evaluated by Cronbach's α. Responsiveness analyses were performed with patients who have undergone at least one cycle of chemotherapy. Multiple regression was used to compare the total and subscale scores of MSFI-SF between the two language versions.

Results: Data from 246 (160 English and 86 Chinese version) breast cancer and lymphoma patients were included in the study. Moderate to high correlations were observed between correlated MFSI-SF subscales and EORTC QLQ-C30 domains (|r| = 0.524 to 0.774) except for a poor correlation (r = 0.394) observed between MFSI-SF vigour subscale and EORTC QLQ-C30 role functioning subscale. Total MFSI-SF scores could differentiate between patients with higher depression, pain and insomnia status. Internal consistency of MFSI-SF was also high (α = 0.749 to 0.944). Moderate correlation was observed between change in total MFSI-SF score and change in fatigue symptom scale score and global QoL score on EORTC QLQ-C30 (|r| = 0.478 and 0.404 respectively). Poor correlations were observed between change in scores of hypothesised subscales (|r| = 0.202 to 0.361) except for a moderate correlation between change in MFSI-SF emotional fatigue score and change in EORTC QLQ-C30 emotional functioning domain score. Measurement equivalence was established for all subscales and total MFSI-SF score except for the emotional and vigour subscales.

Conclusions: This study supports the use of MFSI-SF as a reasonably valid scale with good internal consistency for measuring fatigue levels in the Singapore cancer population.

Keywords: Cancer; Fatigue; Health-related quality of life; Outcome assessment (health care); Psychometrics.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by SingHealth Institutional Ethics Review Board before commencement (CIRB 2014/754/B), and was carried out in accordance with the ethical principles as set out in the Declaration of Helsinki. Written consent was obtained from all the participants in the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable in this section.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

    1. Seyidova-Khoshknabi D, Davis MP, Walsh D. Review article: a systematic review of cancer-related fatigue measurement questionnaires. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2011;28:119–129. doi: 10.1177/1049909110381590.
    1. Bower JE. Cancer-related fatigue--mechanisms, risk factors, and treatments. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2014;11:597–609. doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2014.127.
    1. Wu HS, McSweeney M. Cancer-related fatigue: “It’s so much more than just being tired”. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2007;11:117–125. doi: 10.1016/j.ejon.2006.04.037.
    1. Stein KD, Martin SC, Hann DM, Jacobsen PB. A multidimensional measure of fatigue for use with cancer patients. Cancer Pract. 1998;6:143–152. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-5394.1998.006003143.x.
    1. Stein KD, Jacobsen PB, Blanchard CM, Thors C. Further validation of the multidimensional fatigue symptom inventory-short form. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2004;27:14–23. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2003.06.003.
    1. Pien LC, Chu H, Chen WC, Chang YS, Liao YM, Chen CH, Chou KR. Reliability and validity of a Chinese version of the multidimensional fatigue symptom inventory-short form (MFSI-SF-C) J Clin Nurs. 2011;20:2224–2232. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03691.x.
    1. Herdman M, Fox-Rushby J, Badia X. A model of equivalence in the cultural adaptation of HRQoL instruments: the universalist approach. Qual Life Res. 1998;7:323–335. doi: 10.1023/A:1008846618880.
    1. Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, Horton J, Davis TE, McFadden ET, Carbone PP. Toxicity and response criteria of the eastern cooperative oncology group. Am J Clin Oncol. 1982;5:649–656. doi: 10.1097/00000421-198212000-00014.
    1. Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, Eremenco S, McElroy S, Verjee-Lorenz A, Erikson P, Translation ITFf, Cultural A Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value Health. 2005;8:94–104. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x.
    1. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ, Filiberti A, Flechtner H, Fleishman SB, de Haes JC, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85:365–376. doi: 10.1093/jnci/85.5.365.
    1. Luo N, Fones CS, Lim SE, Xie F, Thumboo J, Li SC. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of cancer quality of life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-c30): validation of English version in Singapore. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:1181–1186. doi: 10.1007/s11136-004-4782-z.
    1. Tan ML, Idris DB, Teo LW, Loh SY, Seow GC, Chia YY, Tin AS. Validation of EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 questionnaires in the measurement of quality of life of breast cancer patients in Singapore. Asia Pac J Oncol Nurs. 2014;1:22–32. doi: 10.4103/2347-5625.135817.
    1. Cheung YB, Thumboo J, Goh C, Khoo KS, Che W, Wee J. The equivalence and difference between the English and Chinese versions of two major, cancer-specific, health-related quality-of-life questionnaires. Cancer. 2004;101:2874–2880. doi: 10.1002/cncr.20681.
    1. Niezgoda HE, Pater JL. A validation study of the domains of the core EORTC quality of life questionnaire. Qual Life Res. 1993;2:319–325. doi: 10.1007/BF00449426.
    1. Chie WC, Yang CH, Hsu C, Yang PC. Quality of life of lung cancer patients: validation of the Taiwan Chinese version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13. Qual Life Res. 2004;13:257–262. doi: 10.1023/B:QURE.0000015295.74812.06.
    1. Chie WC, Hong RL, Lai CC, Ting LL, Hsu MM. Quality of life in patients of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: validation of the Taiwan Chinese version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the EORTC QLQ-H&N35. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:93–98. doi: 10.1023/A:1022070220328.
    1. Osoba D, Zee B, Pater J, Warr D, Kaizer L, Latreille J. Psychometric properties and responsiveness of the EORTC quality of life questionnaire (QLQ-C30) in patients with breast, ovarian and lung cancer. Qual Life Res. 1994;3:353–364. doi: 10.1007/BF00451727.
    1. Montazeri A, Harirchi I, Vahdani M, Khaleghi F, Jarvandi S, Ebrahimi M, Haji-Mahmoodi M. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of cancer quality of life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30): translation and validation study of the Iranian version. Support Care Cancer. 1999;7:400–406. doi: 10.1007/s005200050300.
    1. Brogden HE. On the interpretation of the correlation coefficient as a measure of predictive efficiency. J Educ Psychol. 1946;37:65–76. doi: 10.1037/h0061548.
    1. Roscoe JA, Kaufman ME, Matteson-Rusby SE, Palesh OG, Ryan JL, Kohli S, Perlis ML, Morrow GR. Cancer-related fatigue and sleep disorders. Oncologist. 2007;12(Suppl 1):35–42. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.12-S1-35.
    1. Theobald DE. Cancer pain, fatigue, distress, and insomnia in cancer patients. Clin Cornerstone. 2004;6(Suppl 1D):S15–S21. doi: 10.1016/S1098-3597(05)80003-1.
    1. Oh HS, Seo WS. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the correlates of cancer-related fatigue. Worldviews Evid-Based Nurs. 2011;8:191–201. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-6787.2011.00214.x.
    1. Gupta D, Lis CG, Grutsch JF. The relationship between cancer-related fatigue and patient satisfaction with quality of life in cancer. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2007;34:40–47. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2006.10.012.
    1. Curt GA, Breitbart W, Cella D, Groopman JE, Horning SJ, Itri LM, Johnson DH, Miaskowski C, Scherr SL, Portenoy RK, Vogelzang NJ. Impact of cancer-related fatigue on the lives of patients: new findings from the fatigue coalition. Oncologist. 2000;5:353–360. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.5-5-353.
    1. Banthia R, Malcarne VL, Ko CM, Varni JW, Sadler GR. Fatigued breast cancer survivors: the role of sleep quality, depressed mood, stage and age. Psychol Health. 2009;24:965–980. doi: 10.1080/08870440802110831.
    1. de Jong N, Courtens AM, Abu-Saad HH, Schouten HC. Fatigue in patients with breast cancer receiving adjuvant chemotherapy: a review of the literature. Cancer Nurs. 2002;25:283–297. doi: 10.1097/00002820-200208000-00004.
    1. Ahlberg K, Ekman T, Gaston-Johansson F, Mock V. Assessment and management of cancer-related fatigue in adults. Lancet. 2003;362:640–650. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14186-4.
    1. Chan A, Yo TE, Wang XJ, Ng T, Chae J-W, Yeo HL, Shwe M, Gan YX. Minimal clinically important difference of the multidimensional fatigue symptom inventory-short form (MFSI-SF) for fatigue worsening in Asian breast cancer patients. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2017. 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2017.10.014.
    1. Cronbach LJ. Test reliability; its meaning and determination. Psychometrika. 1947;12:1–16. doi: 10.1007/BF02289289.
    1. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:737–745. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006.
    1. Miller M, Maguire R, Kearney N. Patterns of fatigue during a course of chemotherapy: results from a multi-centre study. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2007;11:126–132. doi: 10.1016/j.ejon.2006.05.001.
    1. Irvine D, Vincent L, Graydon JE, Bubela N, Thompson L. The prevalence and correlates of fatigue in patients receiving treatment with chemotherapy and radiotherapy. A comparison with the fatigue experienced by healthy individuals. Cancer Nurs. 1994;17:367–378. doi: 10.1097/00002820-199410000-00001.
    1. Uwer L, Rotonda C, Guillemin F, Miny J, Kaminsky MC, Mercier M, Tournier-Rangeard L, Leonard I, Montcuquet P, Rauch P, Conroy T. Responsiveness of EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-CR38 and FACT-C quality of life questionnaires in patients with colorectal cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011;9:70. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-9-70.
    1. Jones B, Jarvis P, Lewis JA, Ebbutt AF. Trials to assess equivalence: the importance of rigorous methods. BMJ. 1996;313:36–39. doi: 10.1136/bmj.313.7048.36.
    1. Chadwick D. Monotherapy comparative trials: equivalence and differences in clinical trials. Epilepsy Res. 2001;45:101–103. doi: 10.1016/S0920-1211(01)00228-5.
    1. Cheung YT, Lim SR, Shwe M, Tan YP, Chan A. Psychometric properties and measurement equivalence of the English and Chinese versions of the functional assessment of cancer therapy-cognitive in Asian patients with breast cancer. Value Health. 2013;16:1001–1013. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.06.017.
    1. Donovan KA, Stein KD, Lee M, Leach CR, Ilozumba O, Jacobsen PB. Systematic review of the multidimensional fatigue symptom inventory-short form. Support Care Cancer. 2015;23:191–212. doi: 10.1007/s00520-014-2389-7.
    1. Corless IB, Nicholas PK, Nokes KM. Issues in cross-cultural quality-of-life research. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2001;33:15–20. doi: 10.1111/j.1547-5069.2001.00015.x.
    1. Skevington SM. Advancing cross-cultural research on quality of life: observations drawn from the WHOQOL development. World Health Organisation quality of life assessment. Qual Life Res. 2002;11:135–144. doi: 10.1023/A:1015013312456.
    1. Fayers PM, Hand DJ. Factor analysis, causal indicators and quality of life. Qual Life Res. 1997;6:139–150.
    1. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19:539–549. doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8.
    1. Cappelleri JC, Jason Lundy J, Hays RD. Overview of classical test theory and item response theory for the quantitative assessment of items in developing patient-reported outcomes measures. Clin Ther. 2014;36:648–662. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2014.04.006.

Source: PubMed

Спонсоры и соавторы

Заболевания

Медикаментозные вмешательства

Подписаться