Quality of Life Research

, 15:1179 | Cite as

Factor analysis techniques for assessing sufficient unidimensionality of cancer related fatigue

  • Jin-Shei Lai
  • Paul K. Crane
  • David Cella


Background: Fatigue is the most common unrelieved symptom experienced by people with cancer. The purpose of this study was to examine whether cancer-related fatigue (CRF) can be summarized using a single score, that is, whether CRF is sufficiently unidimensional for measurement approaches that require or assume unidimensionality. We evaluated this question using factor analysis techniques including the theory-driven bi-factor model. Methods: Five hundred and fifty five cancer patients from the Chicago metropolitan area completed a 72-item fatigue item bank, covering a range of fatigue-related concerns including intensity, frequency and interference with physical, mental, and social activities. Dimensionality was assessed using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) techniques. Results: Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) techniques identified from 1 to 17 factors. The bi-factor model suggested that CRF was sufficiently unidimensional. Conclusions: CRF can be considered sufficiently unidimensional for applications that require unidimensionality. One such application, item response theory (IRT), will facilitate the development of short-form and computer-adaptive testing. This may further enable practical and accurate clinical assessment of CRF.


Cancer-Related Fatigue Dimensionality Factor Analysis Bi-Factor Analysis 


  1. 1.
    World Health Organization. Cancer Pain Relief and Palliative Care. Report of a WHO Expert Committee World Health Organization Technical Report Series 1990: 804, 1-75Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cella D, Davis K, Breitbart W and Curt G (2001). Cancer-related fatigue: Prevalence of proposed diagnostic criteria in a United States sample of cancer survivors. J Clin Oncol 19: 3385–3391PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Practice Guildlines in Oncology: Cancer-Related Fatigue. 2004
  4. 4.
    Stone P, Richardson A, Ream E, Smith AG, Kerr DJ and Kearney N (2000). Cancer-related fatigue: Inevitable, unimportant and untreatable? Results of a multi-centre patient survey. Cancer fatigue forum. Ann Oncol 11: 971–975PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cella DF, Dineen K and Arnason B (1996). Validation of the functional assessment of multiple sclerosis quality of life instrument. Neurology 47: 129–139PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hjermstad MJ, Fayers PM, Bjordal K, Kaasa S. (1998). Health-related quality of life in the general Norwegian population assessed by the European organization for research and treatment of cancer core quality-of-life questionnaire: The QLQ = C30 (+3). J Clin Oncol 16: 1188–1196.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mendoza TR, Wang XS and Cleeland CS (1999). The rapid assessment of fatigue severity in cancer patients: Use of the brief fatigue inventory. Cancer 85: 1186–1196PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Piper BF, Dibble SL, Dodd MJ, Weiss MC, Slaughter RE and Paul SM (1998). The revised piper fatigue scale: Psychometric evaluation in women with breast cancer. Oncol Nursing Forum 25: 677–684Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Smets EMA, Garssen B and Bonke B (1995). The multidimensional fatigue inventory (MFI) psychometric qualities of an instrument to assess fatigue. J Psychometr Res 39: 315–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hann DM, Jacobsen PB and Azzarello LM (1998). Measurement of fatigue in cancer patients: Development and validation of the fatigue symptom inventory. Qual Life Res 7: 301–310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hambleton RK, Swaminathan H and Rogers HJ (1991). Fundamentals of Item Response Theory. SAGE Publications Inc, Newbury Park, CAGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kaiser HF (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educ Psychol Measure 20: 141–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cattell RB (1966). The screen test for the number of factors. Multivar Behav Res 1: 245–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hatcher L (1994). A Step-by-Step Approach to Using the SAS System for Factor Analysis and Structure Equation Modeling. SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tucker LR and Lewis C (1973). The reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika 38: 1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Velicer WF (1976). Determining the number of components from matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika 41: 321–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Horn JL (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika 30: 179–185PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McDonald RP (1999). Test Theory: A Unified Treatment. Lawrence Earlbaum, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    World Health Organization. (1946). Constitution of the World Health Organization. WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lai J-S, Cella D, Dineen K, Von Roenn J and Gershon R (2005). An item bank was created to improve the measurement of cancer-related fatigue. J Clin Epidemiol 58: 190–197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zumbo BD (1999). A Handbook on the Theory and Methods of Differential Item Functioning (DIF): Logistic Regression Modeling As a Unitary Framework for Binary and Likert-Type (Ordinal) Item Scores. Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense, Ottawa, ONGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cella D, Lai J-S, Chang CH, Peterman A and Slavin M (2002). Fatigue in cancer patients compared with fatigue in the general United States population. Cancer 94: 528–538PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lai J-S, Cella D, Chang C-H, Bode R and Heinemann AW (2003). Item banking to improve, shorten and computerize self-reported fatigue: An illustration of steps to create a Core Item Bank from the FACIT-Fatigue Scale. Qual Life Res 12: 485–501PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hayton JC, Allen DG and Scarpello V (2004). Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organ Res Methods 7: 191–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zwick WR and Velicer WF (1986). Factors influencing five rules for determining the nunber of components to retain. Psychol Bull 99: 432–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    SAS Institute Inc. SAS/STAT, Version 8.2; Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc., 2002Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hu L-T and Bentler PM (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria vs. new alternatives. Struct Equation Model 6: 1–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schumacker RE and Lomax RG (1996). A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. Lawrence Earlboum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Marsh HW, Balla JR and McDonald RP (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychol Bull 103: 391–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zwick WR and Velicer WF (1986). A comparison of five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychol Bull 99: 432–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fabrigar LR, Wegener DT, MacCallum RC and Strahan EJ (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychol Meth 4: 272–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    O’Connor BP (2000). SPSS and SAS Programs for determining the number of components using Parallel Analysis and Velicer’s MAP Test. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comp 32: 396–402Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Glorfeld LW (1995). An improvement on horn’s parallel analysis methodology for selecting the correct number of factors on retain. Educ Psychol Measure 55: 377–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hays RD (1987). PARALLEL: A program for performing parallel analysis. Appl Psychol Measure 11: 58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gibbons R and Hedeker D (1992). Full-information item bi-factor analysis. Psychometrika 57: 423–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Muthen LK and Muthen BO (2004). MPlus: Statistical Analysis With Latent Variables. Muthen & Muthen, Los Angeles, CAGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yellen SB, Cella DF, Webster K, Blendowski C and Kaplan E (1997). Measuring fatigue and other anemia-related symptoms with the functional assessment of cancer therapy (FACT) measurement system. J Pain Symptom Manage 13: 63–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Smets EM, Garssen B and Schuster-Uitterhoeve AL (1993). Fatigue in cancer patients. Br J Cancer 68: 220–224PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Davis K and Cella D (2003). Assessing quality of life in oncology clinical practice: A review of barriers and critical success factors. J Clin Outcome Manage 9: 327–332Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Frael JG, Kraft GH and Coryell JK (1984). Symptomatic fatigue in multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 5: 135–137Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Denburg SD, Carbotte RM and Denburg JA (1997). Psychological aspects of systemic lupus erythematosus: Cognitive funciton, mood and self-report. J Rheumatol 24: 998–1003PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Jones EA (1995). Fatigue associated with chronic liver disease: A riddle wrappe din a mystery inside an enigma. Hepatology 22: 1606–1608PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Breitbart W, McDonald MV, Rosenfeld B, Monkman ND and Passik S (1998). Fatigue in ambulatory AIDS patients. J Pain Symptom Manage 15: 159–167PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Chang WK, Hung KY, Huang JW, Wu KD and Tsai TJ (2001). Chronic fatigue in long-term peritoneal dialysis patients. Am J Nephrol 21: 479–485PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Srivastava RH (1989). Fatigue in End-Stage Renal Disease Patients. Springer Publishing Company, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Huyser BA, Parker JC, Thoreson R, Smarr KL, Johnson JC and Hoffman R (1998). Predictors of subjective fatigue among individuals with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 41: 2230–2237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wolfe F, Hawley DJ and Wilson K (1996). The Prevalence and meaning of fatigue in rheumatic disease. J Rheumatol 23: 1407–1417PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Embretson SE and Reise SP (2000). Item Response Theory for Psychologists. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Stout W (1990). A new item response theory modeling approach with application to unidimensional assessment and ability estimation. Psychometrika 55: 293–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Mitchell CM and Beals J (1997). The structure of problem and positive behavior among American Indian adolescents: Gender and community differences. Am J Commun Psychol 25: 257–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Velicer WF, Eaton CA and Fava JL (2000). Construct explication through factor or component analysis: A review and evaluation of alternative procedures for determining the number of factors or components. In: Goffin, RD and Helmes, E (eds) Problems and Solutions in Human Assessments: Honoring Douglas N. Jackson at Seventy, pp 41–71. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, NYGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center on Outcomes, Research and Education (CORE)Evanston Northwestern Healthcare and Northwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA
  2. 2.Division of General Internal MedicineUniversity of WashingtonSeattle

Personalised recommendations