Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Longitudinal and dynamic measurement invariance of the FACIT-Fatigue scale: an application of the measurement model of derivatives to ECOG-ACRIN study E2805

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

While quality of life measures may be used to assess meaningful change and group differences, their scaling and validation often rely on a single occasion of measurement. Using the 13-item FACIT-Fatigue questionnaire at three timepoints, this study tests whether individual items change together in ways consistent with a general fatigue factor.

Methods

The measurement model of derivatives (MMOD) is a novel method for measurement evaluation that directly assesses whether a given factor structure accurately describes how individual test items change over time. MMOD transforms item-level longitudinal data into a set of orthogonal change scores, each one representing either a within-person longitudinal mean or a different type of longitudinal change. These change scores are then factor analyzed and tested for invariance. This approach is applied to the FACIT-Fatigue scale in a sample of patients with renal cell carcinoma treated on ’ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (ECOG-ACRIN) study 2805.

Results

Analyses revealed strong evidence of unidimensionality, and apparent factorial invariance using traditional techniques. MMOD revealed a small but statistically significant difference in factor structure (\(\chi ^2_{12}=49.597\), \({\textit{p}}<.001\)), where factor loadings were weaker and more variable for measuring longitudinal change.

Conclusions

The differences in factor structure were not large enough to substantially affect scale usage in this application, but they do reveal some variability across items in the FACIT-Fatigue in their ability to detect change. Future applications should consider differential sensitivity of individual items in multi-item scales, and perhaps even capitalize upon these differences by selecting items that are more sensitive to change.

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
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Physiological and biological measures were more frequently assessed.

References

  1. Acaster, S., Dickerhoof, R., DeBusk, K., Bernard, K., Strauss, W., & Allen, L. F. (2015). Qualitative and quantitative validation of the FACIT-fatigue scale in iron deficiency anemia. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 13, 60. Retrieved from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=4434873&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-015-0257-x

  2. Ahn, S. C., & Horenstein, A. R. (2013). Eigenvalue ratio test for the number of factors. Econometrica, 81(3), 1203–1227. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3982/ECTA8968/abstract, https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA8968

  3. Butt, Z., shei Lai, J., Rao, D., Heinemann, A. W., Bill, A., & Cella, D. (2013). Measurement of fatigue in cancer, stroke, and HIV using the functional assessment of chronic illness therapy - fatigue (FACIT-F) scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 74(1), 64–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2012.10.011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cella, D., Lai, J. S., & Stone, A. (2011). Self-reported fatigue: One dimension or more? Lessons from the functional assessment of chronic illness therapy-fatigue (FACIT-F) questionnaire. Supportive Care in Cancer, 19(9), 1441–1450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-010-0971-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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. Journal of Rheumatology, 32(5), 811–819.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Dapueto, J. J., Del Carmen Abreu, M., Francolino, C., & Levin, R. (2014). Psychometric assessment of the MSAS-SF and the FACIT-fatigue scale in Spanish-speaking patients with cancer in Uruguay. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 47(5), 936–945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2013.06.020.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Deboeck, P. R. (2010). Estimating dynamical systems: Derivative estimation hints from Sir Ronald A. Fisher. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45(4), 725–745.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Estabrook, R. (2015). Evaluating measurement of dynamic constructs: Defining a measurement model of derivatives. Psychological Methods, 20(1), 117. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24364383

  9. Haas, N. B., Manola, J., Ky, B., Flaherty, K. T., Uzzo, R. G., Kane, C. J., et al. (2015). Effects of adjuvant sorafenib and sunitinib on cardiac function in renal cell carcinoma patients without overt metastases: Results from ASSURE, ECOG 2805. Clinical Cancer Research, 21(18), 4048–4054. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-0215.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Haas, N. B., Manola, J., Uzzo, R. G., Flaherty, K. T., Wood, C. G., Kane, C., et al. (2016). Adjuvant sunitinib or sorafenib for high-risk, non-metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (ECOG-ACRIN E2805): A double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 3 trial. The Lancet, 387(10032), 2008–2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00559-6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hagell, P., Höglund, A., Reimer, J., Eriksson, B., Knutsson, I., Widner, H., et al. (2006). Measuring fatigue in Parkinson’s disease: A psychometric study of two brief generic fatigue questionnaires. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 32(5), 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2006.05.021.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Jabrayilov, R., Emons, W. H. M., de Jong, K., & Sijtsma, K. (2017). Longitudinal measurement invariance of the Dutch Outcome Questionnaire-45 in a clinical sample. Quality of Life Research, 26, 1473–1481.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20, 141–151. Retrieved from http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics1986/A1986E107600001.pdf, https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000116

  15. Kenny, D. A., Kaniskan, B., & McCoach, D. B. (2015). The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociological Methods & Research, 44(3), 486–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124114543236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kosinski, M., Gajria, K., Fernandes, A., & Cella, D. (2013). Qualitative validation of the FACIT-Fatigue scale in systemic lupus erythematosus. Lupus, 22(5), 422–430. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23423250, https://doi.org/10.1177/0961203313476360

  18. Kwakkenbos, L., Willems, L. M., Baron, M., Hudson, M., Cella, D., Van Den Ende, C. H. M., et al. (2014). The comparability of English, French and Dutch scores on the functional assessment of chronic illness therapy-fatigue (FACIT-F): An assessment of differential item functioning in patients with systemic sclerosis. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0091979.

  19. McArdle, J. J. (1988). Dynamic but structural equation modeling of repeated measures data. In J. R. Nesselroade & R. B. Cattell (Eds.), Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology (2nd ed., pp. 561–614). New York: Plenum Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Meredith, W. (1964a). Notes on factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 29, 177–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Meredith, W. (1964b). Rotation to achieve factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 29, 186–206.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factor invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Molenaar, P. C. M. (2004). A manifesto on psychology as idiographic science: Bringing the person back into scientific psychology—This time forever. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 2, 201–218.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Neale, M. C., Hunter, M. D., Pritikin, J. N., Zahery, M., Brick, T. R., Kirkpatrick, R. M., et al. (2015). OpenMx 2.0: Extended structural equation and statistical modeling. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Oort, F. J. (2005). Using structural equation modeling to detect response shifts and true change. Quality of Life Research, 14(3), 587–598. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16022054.

  26. Pentz, M. A., & Chou, C.-P. (1994). Measurement invariance in longitudinal clinical research assuming change from development and intervention. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(3), 450–462. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.62.3.450.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Ramsay, J., Hooker, G., & Graves, S. (2009). Functional Data Analysis. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/978-0-387-98185-7, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98185-7

  28. Widaman, K. F., Ferrer, E., & Conger, R. D. (2010). Factorial invariance within longitudinal structural equation models: Measuring the same construct across time. Child Development Perspectives, 4(1), 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00110.x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Yellen, S. B., Cella, D. F., Webster, K., Blendowski, C., & Kaplan, E. (1997). Measuring fatigue and other anemia-related symptoms with the functional assessment of cancer therapy (FACT) measurement system. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 13(2), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-3924(96)00274-6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was coordinated by the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (Peter J O'Dwyer, MD and Mitchell D. Schnall, MD, PhD, Group Co-Chairs) and supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under the following award numbers: CA180820, CA180794, CA189828. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. government. Drs. Estabrook and Cella are supported by U02C-CA186878-01 (2014–2018) from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA

    Ryne Estabrook & David Cella

  2. Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA

    Fengmin Zhao & Judith Manola

  3. University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA

    Robert S. DiPaola

  4. Wake Forest University Health Sciences, Winston-Salem, NC, USA

    Lynne I. Wagner

  5. Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Naomi B. Haas

Authors
  1. Ryne Estabrook
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Cella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fengmin Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Judith Manola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Robert S. DiPaola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Lynne I. Wagner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Naomi B. Haas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ryne Estabrook.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

No authors have declared any conflicts of interest that would affect this work.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Estabrook, R., Cella, D., Zhao, F. et al. Longitudinal and dynamic measurement invariance of the FACIT-Fatigue scale: an application of the measurement model of derivatives to ECOG-ACRIN study E2805. Qual Life Res 27, 1589–1597 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1817-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1817-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation