Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Validation of the symbolic assessment of fatigue extent (SAFE)—a cancer fatigue tool with visual response formats

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Supportive Care in Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Context

Fatigue is the most common under-recognized symptom in cancer. Administering fatigue tools in multi-lingual and multi-literate populations may affect the quality and accuracy of the data collected as they rely on language to elicit responses.

Aim

The aim of the study is to develop and validate a tool to assess fatigue in cancer patients using response formats that are not language-dependent.

Methods

The content validity of the tool was established using the Delphi procedure and was field tested with 102 cancer patients. Test-retest reliability of the tool was tested with 55 cancer patients and 47 healthy individuals. Convergent, concurrent, and discriminant validity and internal consistency were established with 374 cancer patients, 202 survivors, and 75 healthy controls.

Statistical analysis

Qualitative analyses, descriptive statistics, product-moment correlation, analysis of variance, Cronbach’s α coefficient, and exploratory factor analysis were conducted.

Results

The Cronbach’s alpha of the SAFE in cancer patients and healthy individuals was .86 and .92, and their test-retest reliability ranged from .44 to .83. SAFE correlated significantly with measures of quality of life (QOL) (r = −0.54, p < .01), anxiety (r = 0.54, p < .01), depression (r = 0.5, p < .01), and sleep (r = 0.52, p < .01). The tool was able to distinguish between cancer patients, survivors, and healthy controls (p < .05). Two factors emerged namely “Fatigue Extent and impact” and “General fatigue” contributing to 52% of the variance in fatigue.

Conclusion

A symbolic tool using visual response formats to assess fatigue and its impact in cancer patients was developed and standardized with good reliability and construct, concurrent, and discriminant validity established.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lawrence DP, Kupelnick B, Miller K, Devine D, Lau J (2004) Evidence report on the occurence, assessment and treatment of fatigue in cancer patients. Journal of National Cancer Institute Monographs 32:40–50. doi:10.1093/jncimonographs/lgh027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hofman M, Ryan JL, Figueroa-Moseley CD, Jean-Pierre P, Morrow GR (2007) Cancer-related fatigue: the scale of the problem. Oncologist 12(Suppl 1):4–10. doi:10.1634/theoncologist.12-S1-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Jean-Pierre P, Figueroa-Moseley CD, Kohli S, Fiscella K, Palesh OG, Morrow GR (2007) Assesement of cancer-related fatigue: implications for clinical diagnosis and treatment. Oncologist 12(Suppl):11–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dittner AJ, Wessely SC, Brown RG (2004) The assessment of fatigue. A practical guide for clinicans and researchers. J Psychosom Res 56:157–170

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Cook C (2010) Mode of administration bias. J Man Manip Ther 18(2):61–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bowling A (2005) A mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. J Public Health (Oxf) 27(3):281–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Mock V, Atkinson A, Barsevick A, Cella D, Cimprich B, Cleeland C et al (2000) NCCN practice guidelines for cancer related fatigue. Oncology (Williston Park) 14(11A):151–161

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Minton O, Stone P (2009) A systematic review of the scales used for the management of cancer-related fatigue (CRF). Ann Oncol 20:17–25. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdn537

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Whiting P, Rutjes A, Reitsma J B, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J (2003) The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality of assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol, 3–25. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-3-25

  10. Manias E, Beanland CJ, Riley RG, Hutchinson A (2006) Development and validation of the self-administration of medication tool. Ann Pharmacother 40(6):1064–1073. doi:10.1345/aph.1G677

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Grant JS, Kinney MR (1992) Using the Delphi technique to examine the content validity of nursing diagnoses. International Journal of Nursing Terminologies and Classfications 3(1):12–22. doi:10.1111/j.1744-618X.1992.tb00193.x

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Vidhubala E, Latha S, Kannan RR, Mani CS, Karthikesh K, Muthuvel R et al (2005) Validation of quality of life questionnaire for patients with cancer—Indian scenario. Indian J Cancer 42(3):139–144. doi:10.4103/0019-509X.17058

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP (1983) The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 67(6):361–370

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Buysse DJ, Reynolds CF, Monk TH, Berman SR, Kupfer DJ (1988) The Pittsburgh sleep quality index: a new instrument for psychatric practice and research. Psychiatry Res 28:193–213. doi:10.1016/0165-1781(89)90047-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ et al (1993) 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 85(5):365–376. doi:10.1093/jnci/85.5.365

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Nunnally J, Bernstein I (1994) Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  17. Andresen EM (2000) Criteria for assessing the tools of disability outcomes research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 81(2):S15–S20. doi:10.1053/apmr.2000.20619

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ferketich, S. (1991). Focus on Psychometrics: aspects of item analysis. Res Nursing Health, 165–68

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Field AP (2005) Discovering statistics usig SPSS, 2nd edn. SAGE, London

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kaiser HF (1974) An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 39:31–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ahlberg K, Ekman T, Gaston-Johansson F, Mock V (2003) Assessment and management of cancer-related fatigue in adults. Lancet 362(9384):640–650. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14186-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Schwartz AL (2008) Daily fatigue patterns and effect of exercise in women in breast cancer. Cancer Pract 8(1):16–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Jacobsen P (2004) Assessment of fatigue in cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 32:93–97. doi:10.1093/jncimonographs/lgh010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Breitbart W S, Alici Y (2010) Fatigue. In J. C. Holland, W. S. Breitbart, P. B. Jacobsen, M. S. Lederberg, J. Loscalzo, & R. McCorkle, Psycho-oncology (p. 236). New York: Oxford University Press

  25. Curt GA, Breitbart W, Cella D, Groopman JE, Horning SJ, Itri LM et al (2000) Impact of cancer-related fatigue on the lives of patients: new findings from the fatigue coalition. Oncologist 5(5):353–360. doi:10.1634/theoncologist.5-5-353

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Roscoe JA, Kaufman ME, Matteson-Rusby SE, Palesh OG, Ryan JL, Kohli S et al (2007) Cancer-related fatigue and sleep disorders. Oncologist 12(suppl 1):35–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Brown LF, Kroenke K (2009) Cancer-related fatigue and its associations with depression and anxiety: a systematic review. Psychosomatics 50(5):440–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Stone P, Richard M, A’Hern R, Hardy J (2009) A study to investiagte the prevalence, severity and correlates of cancer-related fatigue (CRF). Ann Oncol, 17–25. doi: 10.1023/A:1008331230608

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Loge JH, Abrahamsen AF, Ekeberg O, Kaasa S (1999) Hodgkin’s disease survivors more fatigued than the general population. J Clin Oncol 17(1):253–261

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful to Dr. Latha Satish, Dr. R Swaminathan, Mr. C Sundaramoorthy, Ms. S Vijayalakshmi, Mr. D Prabhakar, and other members of the Department of Psycho-oncology at Cancer Institute (WIA) for their assistance during this study. In addition, we are grateful to all the experts and patients for their valuable contribution during the development of the tool.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psycho-oncology, Cancer Institute (WIA), No.38, Sardar Patel Road, Adyar, Chennai, 6000040, Tamilnadu, India

    Subathra Jeyaram, Surendran Veeraiah & Vidhubala Elangovan

Authors
  1. Subathra Jeyaram
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Surendran Veeraiah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vidhubala Elangovan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Subathra Jeyaram.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

None.

Funding

None.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jeyaram, S., Veeraiah, S. & Elangovan, V. Validation of the symbolic assessment of fatigue extent (SAFE)—a cancer fatigue tool with visual response formats. Support Care Cancer 25, 1111–1119 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-016-3499-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-016-3499-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation