Factorial structure and internal consistency of the Fatigue Severity Scale in Colombian population with chronic diseases

Authors

  • Liliana Bernal Vargas Universidad Cooperativa de Colombia, Villavicencio, Colombia
  • Fernando Riveros Munévar Universidad de San Buenaventura, Bogotá, Colombia
  • Stefano Vinaccia Alpi Fundación Universitaria Sanitas, Bogotá, Colombia
  • Japcy Margarita Quiceno Sierra Universidad de Medellín, Colombia
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6018/eglobal.16.2.255821
Keywords: Fatigue, Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), Colombia, Chronic disease people

Abstract

The present study has a psychometric design, with the objective of analyzing the factorial structure and the internal consistency for the Spanish version of the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) Questionnaire for Colombian population with chronic disease. Was applied the questionnaire to 52 people with chronic disease in Villavicencio city. The factorial Analysis indicates three factors: Factor 1 named physical affectation, Factor 2 named social affectation and Factor 3 named motivational affectation of the fatigue, where they explain the 76.324% of the total cumulative variance with .870 of Cronbach’s Alpha. The results present a high reliability and concordance for the factorial structure with the original version which indicates an adequate validity of the test for Colombian population with chronic disease.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Font, E, Rodriguez, E, Buscemi, V. Fatiga, expectativas y calidad de vida en cáncer. Psicooncologia. 2004; 1(2): 45-56.

Johansson S, Ytterberg C, Hillert J, Widen Holmqvist L, Von Koch L. A. A longitudinal study of variations in and predictors of fatigue in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2008; 79:454-457.

Stanton BR, Barnes F, Silber E. Sleep and fatigue in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2006; (12):481–486.

Lewis, G, Wesseley, S. The Epidemiology of fatigue: More questions than Answers. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1992; 46:92-97.

Hewlett, S, Dures, E, Almeida, C. Measures of Fatigue Arthritis Care Res. 2011; 63(S11):263-286.

Hinz, A, Finck, C, Barradas, S, Korner, A, Volker, B, Singer, S. Fatigue in the general population of Colombia: Normative values for the multidimensional Fatigue Inventory MFI-20. Onkologie. 2013; 36:403–407.

Krupp, L, La Rocca, N, Muir J, Steinberg, A. The fatigue Severity Scale. Arch Neurol. 1992;46: 1121-1123.

Rosa K, Fu M, Gilles L, Cerri K, Peeters M, Bubb J, Scott J. Validation of the Fatigue Severity Scale in chronic hepatitis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014; 11: 90.

Takasaki H, Treleaven J. Construct validity and test-retest reliability of the Fatigue Severity Scale in people with chronic neck pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013; 94(7):1328-34.

Valderrama S, Camelier AA, Silva SA, Mallmann R, de Paulo HK, Rosa FW. Reliability of the Brazilian Portuguese version of the fatigue severity scale and its correlation with pulmonary function, dyspnea, and functional capacity in patients with COPD. J Bras Pneumol. 2013; 39(4):427-33.

Montero, I, León, O. Sistema de clasificación del método en los informes de investigación en Psicología.IJCHP 2005; 5(1): 115-127.

Bulbena, A, Berrios, G.E, Fernández de Larrinoa, P. Medición Clínica en Psiquiatría y Psicología. (1 ed.). Madrid: Masson; 2000.

Alexandre, A, Guirardello, E.B. Adaptación cultural de instrumentos utilizados en salud ocupacional. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2002; 11(2): 109-111.

Lerdal A Kottorp A. Psychometric properties of the Fatigue Severity Scale-Rasch analyses of individual responses in a Norwegian stroke cohort Int J Nurs Stud. 2011; 48(10):1258-65.

Mattsson M, Möller B, Lundberg Ie, Gard G, Boström C Reliability and validity of the Fatigue Severity Scale in Swedish for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Scand J Rheumatol. 2008; 37(4):269-77.

Published
28-03-2017
How to Cite
[1]
Bernal Vargas, L. et al. 2017. Factorial structure and internal consistency of the Fatigue Severity Scale in Colombian population with chronic diseases. Global Nursing. 16, 2 (Mar. 2017), 37–49. DOI:https://doi.org/10.6018/eglobal.16.2.255821.
Issue
Section
ORIGINAL RESEARCH