Quality of Life Research

, Volume 14, Issue 5, pp 1357–1362 | Cite as

The Situational Fatigue Scale: A different approach to measuring fatigue

Article

Abstract

Fatigue can be defined as a subjective state of an imbalance in the availability of inner resources needed to perform physical or mental activities. The level of fatigue is determined not only by the availability of inner resources but also by the demands of the activities performed. Most conventional fatigue scales require subjects to rate their level of fatigue without specifying the situation. In the present study, we constructed a subjective rating scale, the Situational Fatigue Scale (SFS), with which subjects estimated their level of fatigue in specific activities of daily life. We administered the SFS, along with the Fatigue Assessment Instrument (FAI) to 96 outpatients in a family-medicine clinic and to 62 college students to assess the psychometric properties of the SFS. Principle component analysis revealed two underlying factors: physical fatigue and mental fatigue. SFS scores were significantly correlated with several FAI scores and differentiated patients complaining of fatigue from those who did not. The SFS also showed good internal consistency and test–retest reliability. These results suggest that the SFS could be a useful tool to measure a different dimension of the broad concept of fatigue.

Keywords

Fatigue Rating scale Reliability Validity 

Abbreviations

DEFS

Dutch Exertion Fatigue Scale

FAI

Fatigue Assessment Instrument

MFS

Mental Fatigue Subscale

PFS

Physical Fatigue Subscale

SFS

Situational Fatigue Scale

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Lewis, G, Wessely, S 1992The epidemiology of fatigue: More questions than answersJ Epidemiol Commun H469297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cathebras, P, Robbins, J, Kirmayer, L, Hayton, B 1992Fatigue in primary care: Prevalence, psychiatric comorbidity, illness behaviour and outcomeJ Gen Intern Med7276286CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    David, A, Pelosi, A, McDonald, E,  et al. 1990Tired, weak or in need of rest: Fatigue among general practice attendersBrit Med J30111991202CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aaronson, LS, Teel, CS, Cassmeyer, V,  et al. 1999Defining and measuring fatigueImage: J Nurs Scholarship314550Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tiesinga, LJ, Dassen, TWN, Halfens, RJ 1996Fatigue: A summary of the definitions, dimensions, and indicatorsNursing Diagnosis75162CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    North American Nursing Diagnosis Association2004Nursing Diagnoses: Definitions & Classification, 2003–2004NANDAPhiladelphia , PAGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Krupp, LB, LaRocca, NG, Muir-Nash, J, Steinberg, AD 1989The fatigue severity scale: Application to patients with multiple sclerosis and systemic lupus erythematosusArch Neurol4611211123CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Piper, BF, Dibble, SL, Dodd, MJ, Weiss, MC, Slaughter, RE, Paul, SM 1998The revised Piper Fatigue Scale: Psychometric evaluation in women with breath cancerOncol Nurs Forum25677684PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schwartz, AL 1998The Schwartz cancer fatigue scale: Testing reliability and validityOncol Nurs Forum25711717PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zachrisson, O, Regland, B, Jahreskog, M, Kron, M, Gottfries, CG 2002A rating scale for fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome (the Fibro Fatigue scale)J Psychosom Res52501509CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Piper, B 1993

    Fatigue

    Carrieri-Kohlman, VLindsey, AWest, C eds. Pathophysiological Phenomena in Nursing: Human Responses to Illness.SaundersPhiladelphia,PA279302
    Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jensen, S, Given, BA 1991Fatigue affecting family caregivers of cancer patientsCancer Nurs14181187CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schwartz, JE, Jandorf, L, Krupp, LB 1993The measurement of fatigue: A new instrumentJ Psychosom Res37753762CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Smets, EMA, Grassen, B, Bonke, B, De Haes, JC 1995The Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) psychometric qualities of an instrument to assess fatigueJ Psychosom Res39315325CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee, KA, Hicks, G, Nino-Murcia, G 1991Validity and reliability of a scale to assess fatiguePsychiatr Res36291298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McNair, DM, Lorr, M, Droppleman, LF 1981EDITS Manual for the Profile of Mood StatesSan Diego, CAEducational and Industrial Testing ServiceGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shapiro, CM, Flanigan, M, Fleming, JAE,  et al. 2002Development of an adjective checklist to measure five FACES of␣fatigue and sleepiness: Data from a national survey of␣insomniacsJ Psychosom Res52467473CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tiesinga, LJ, Dassen, TWN, Halfens, RJG 1998DUFS and DEFS: Development, reliability and validity of Dutch Fatigue Scale and the Dutch Exertion Fatigue ScaleInt J Nurs Study34115123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chalder, T, Berelowitz, G, Pawlikowska, T, Watts, L, Wessely, S, Wallace, EP 1993Development of a fatigue scaleJ Psychosom Res3714753CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    May, J, Kline, P 1988Problems in using an adjective checklist to measure fatiguePers Indiv Differ9831832CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyNational Chengchi UniversityTaipeiTaiwan
  2. 2.Department of Family MedicineNational Cheng-Kung UniversityTainanTaiwan

Personalised recommendations