Supportive Care in Cancer

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 481–490 | Cite as

Validation of the Portuguese version of Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Fatigue (FACT-F) in Brazilian cancer patients

  • Neli Muraki Ishikawa
  • Luiz Claudio Santos Thuler
  • Alessandra Grasso Giglio
  • Clarissa Seródio da Rocha Baldotto
  • Carlos José Coelho de Andrade
  • Sophie Françoise Mauricette Derchain
Original Article

Abstract

Goals of work

The purpose of this study was to validate the Portuguese version of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Fatigue (FACT-F) in order to establish its assessment properties, including validity and reliability in a sample of Brazilian cancer patients.

Materials and methods

Two hundred seventy patients with different types of cancer were included for this study; the mean age was 50.5 years. The reliability was assessed by internal consistency and reproducibility. Construct validity was assessed through convergent validity and discriminant validity. Convergent validity was examined by comparing the FACT-F to the SF-36. Discriminant validity of the FACT-F evaluated the ability of the scale to differentiate defined groups, discriminating patients according to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status and different stages of disease.

Main results

FACT-F had high internal consistency (Cronbach α coefficient was 0.78 for physical well-being, 0.68 for social/family well-being, 0.75 for emotional well-being, 0.74 for functional well-being, 0.91 for fatigue, and 0.92 for total FACT-F). The range of test–retest intraclass correlation was from 0.72 to 0.91 (p < 0.0001). The Pearson product correlation revealed good correlations between the total FACT-F and subscales of the SF-36 in most dimensions, ranging from r = 0.51 to r = 0.76, except for SF-36 physical (r = 0.31). The positive correlations between the SF-36 vitality scale and FACT-F total (r = 0.76) and the fatigue subscale (r = 0.77) support the convergent validity.

Conclusions

The Portuguese version of FACT-F is a reliable and valid instrument to assess quality of life and fatigue, representing a valid tool to screen cancer-related fatigue in Brazilian cancer patients.

Keywords

Fatigue Quality of life FACT-F Questionnaire Cancer 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Mr. Ben Arnold and Ms. Helen Morrow for permission to use the instrument FACT-F in this study and for having provided the questionnaire in Portuguese language. We also thank Mrs. Sirlei Siani Morais for help in statistical review. Finally, we are grateful to all patients who participated in the study.

Authors’ disclosures of potential conflicts of interest

Authors wish to disclose the absence of financial support and indicated no potential conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Winningham ML, Nail LM, Burke MB et al (1994) Fatigue and the cancer experience: the state of the knowledge. Oncol Nurs Forum 21(1):23–36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yamagishi A, Morita T, Miyashita M, Kimura F (2008) Symptom prevalence and longitudinal follow-up in cancer outpatients receiving chemotherapy. J Pain Symptom Manage. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2008.04.015 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mota DD, Pimenta CA, Piper BF (2008) Fatigue in Brazilian cancer patients, caregivers, and nursing students: a psychometric validation study of the Piper Fatigue Scale-Revised. Support Care Cancer. doi: 10.1007/s00520-008-0518-x PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Curt GGA, GA BW et al (2000) Impact of cancer­related fatigue on the lives of patients: new findings from the Fatigue Coalition. Oncologist 5:353–360CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bennett B, Goldstein D, Lloyd A et al (2004) Fatigue and psychological distress—exploring the relationship in women treated for breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 40:1689–1695CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Romito F, Montanaro R, Corvasce C et al (2008) Is cancer-related fatigue more strongly correlated to haematological or to psychological factors in cancer patients? Support Care Cancer 16(8):943–946CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Haghighat S, Akbari ME, Holakouei K et al (2003) Factors predicting fatigue in breast cancer patients. Support Care Cancer 11(8):533–538CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jacobsen PB, Hann DM, Azzarello LM et al (1999) Fatigue in women receiving adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: characteristics, course, and correlate. J Pain Symptom Manage 18(4):233–242CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Berger AM, VonEssen S, Kuhn BR et al (2003) Adherence, sleep, and fatigue outcomes after adjuvant breast cancer chemotherapy: results of a feasibility intervention study. Oncol Nurs Forum 30(3):513–522CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Minton O, Stone P (2008) A systematic review of the scales used for the measurement of cancer-related fatigue (CRF). Ann Oncol. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdn537 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cho HJ, Costa E, Menezes PR, Chalder T, Bhugra D, Wessely S (2007) Cross-cultural validation of the Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire in Brazilian primary care. J Psychosom Res 62(3):301–304CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lent L, Hahn E, Vehemence S et al (1999) Using cross-cultural input to adapt the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) scales. Acta Oncol 38(6):695–702CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Webster K, Cella D, Yost K (2003) The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) measurement system: properties, applications, and interpretation. Health Quality Life Outcomes 1:79. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-1-79 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Webster K, Odom L, Peterman A et al (1999) The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) measurement system: validation of version 4 of the core questionnaire. Qual Life Res 8(7):604Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G et al (1993) The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol 11(3):570–579PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yellen SB, Cella DF, Webster K et al (1997) Measuring fatigue and other anemia-related symptoms with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) measurement system. J Pain Symptom Manage 13(2):63–74CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cella D, Lai JS, Chang CH, Peterman A, Slavin M (2002) Fatigue in cancer patients compared with fatigue in the general United States population. Cancer 94:528–538CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cella D, Yount S, Sorensen M, Chartash E, Sengupta N, Grober J (2005) Validation of the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy fatigue scale relative to other instrumentation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 32:811–819PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chandran V, Bhella S, Schentag C, Gladman DD (2007) Functional assessment of chronic illness therapy-fatigue scale is valid in patients with psoriatic arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 66(7):936–939CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cella D (1997) The FACT-anemia scale. A new tool for the assessment of outcomes in cancer anemia and fatigue. Semin Hematol 34(3):13–19PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Eremenco SL, Cella D, Arnold BJ (2005) A comprehensive method for the translation and cross-cultural validation of health status questionnaires. Eval Health Prof 28(2):212–232CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Arnold BJ, Eremenco E, Chang CH et al (2000) Development of a single Portuguese language version of the functional assessment of cancer therapy general (FACT G) scale. Qual Life Res 9(3):316Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Arnold BJ, Eremenco E, Chang CH et al (2001) How much is “very much”? Developing a rating scale for Portuguese speaking countries. Qual Life Res 10(3):2644Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ware JE, Sherbourne CD (1992) The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36) I: conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30(6):473–483CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    McHorney CA, Ware JE, Raczek AE (1993) The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36) II: psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care 31(3):247–263CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ciconelli RM, Ferraz MB, Santos W et al (1999) Tradução para a língua portuguesa e validação do questionário genérico de avaliação de qualidade de vida SF-36 (Brasil SF-36). Rev Bras Reumatol 39(3):143–150Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zubrod CG, Schneiderman M, Frei E III et al (1960) Appraisal of methods for the study of chemotherapy of cancer in man: comparative therapeutic trial of nitrogen mustard and thiophosphoramide. J Chronic Dis 11:7–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mundfrom DJ, Shaw DG, Ke TL (2005) Minimum sample size recommendations for conducting factor analyses. International Journal Testing 5:159–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hopkins WG (2000) Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science. Sports Med 30(1):1–15CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Atkinson G, Nevill A (2000) Typical error versus limits of agreement. Sports Med 30(5):375–381CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16(3):297–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nunnally JM, Bernstein IH (1994) Psychometric theory, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Marx RG, Menezes A, Horovitz L, Jones EC, Warren RF (2003) A comparison of two time intervals for test–retest reliability of health status instruments. J Clin Epidemiol 56:730–735CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dapueto JJ, Francolino C, Servente L, Chang CH, Gotta I, Levin R, Abreu MC (2003) Evaluation of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) Spanish version 4 in South America: classic psychometric and item response theory analyses. Health Qual Life Outcomes 1:32. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-1-32 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Yoshimura A, Kobayashi K, Fumimoto H et al (2004) Cross-cultural validation of the Japanese Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Anemia (FACT-An). J Nippon Med Sch 71(5):314–322CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Aaronson N, Alonso J, Burnam A, Lohr KN, Patrick DL, Perrin E, Stein REK, Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust (2002) Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res 11:193–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cella D, Nowinski CJ (2002) Measuring quality of life in chronic illness: the functional assessment of chronic illness therapy measurement system. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 83(Suppl 2):s10–s17CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Overcash J, Extermann M, Parr J et al (2001) Validity and reliability of the FACT-G scale for use in the older person with cancer. Am J Clin Oncol 24(6):591–596CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Smets E, Garssen B, Bonke B, Haes JD (1995) The multidimensional fatigue inventory: psychometric qualities of an instrument to assess fatigue. J Psychosom Res 39:315–329CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Schwartz A, Meek P (1999) Additional construct validity of the Schwartz Cancer Fatigue Scale. J Nurs Meas 7(1):35–45PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Neli Muraki Ishikawa
    • 1
  • Luiz Claudio Santos Thuler
    • 2
  • Alessandra Grasso Giglio
    • 3
  • Clarissa Seródio da Rocha Baldotto
    • 4
  • Carlos José Coelho de Andrade
    • 4
  • Sophie Françoise Mauricette Derchain
    • 5
  1. 1.Physical Therapy DepartmentBrazilian National Cancer Institute-INCACentro-Rio de JaneiroBrazil
  2. 2.Federal University of the State of Rio de Janeiro-UNIRIOMaracanã-Rio de JaneiroBrazil
  3. 3.Hospital of Cancer IIBrazilian National Cancer Institute-INCASanto Cristo-Rio de JaneiroBrazil
  4. 4.Clinical Oncology DepartmentBrazilian National Cancer Institute-INCACentro-Rio de JaneiroBrazil
  5. 5.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyCampinas State UniversityCampinasBrazil

Personalised recommendations