Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25160009›Full record

Trial reportClinical rehabilitation2015

The Multiple Sclerosis-Fatigue Self- Efficacy (MS-FSE) scale: initial validation.

Sarah Thomas, Paula Kersten, Peter W Thomas

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialValidation Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical rehabilitation, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Sarah ThomasBournemouth University, Clinical Research Unit, School of Health and Social Care, Bournemouth, Dorset, UK saraht@bournemouth.ac.uk.
Paula KerstenPerson Centred Research Centre, School of Rehabilitation and Occupation Studies, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.
Peter W ThomasBournemouth University, Clinical Research Unit, School of Health and Social Care, Bournemouth, Dorset, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo examine the validity and sensitivity to change of the Multiple Sclerosis-Fatigue Self-Efficacy scale.

designA validation study nested within a randomized controlled trial.

settingCommunity setting.

participantsAdults with a clinically definite diagnosis of multiple sclerosis and significant fatigue taking part in a randomized controlled trial evaluating a group-based fatigue management programme (FACETS) for people with multiple sclerosis (N=164). MAIN MEASURES: The 9-item Multiple Sclerosis-Fatigue Self-Efficacy scale was completed at baseline, 1-, 4- and 12 months post intervention. Validity, internal consistency and sensitivity to change were examined using classical test theory and Rasch analysis.

resultsItem 3 was unanswered by 6% of respondents as they did not know any other people with multiple sclerosis; remaining analyses were carried out with this item deleted. All response choices were utilised, no floor or ceiling effects were evident and there were few missing responses. Cronbach's alphas were high (baseline, 0.89; follow-up 1, 0.93; follow-up 2, 0.94; follow-up 3, 0.90). The Multiple Sclerosis-Fatigue Self-Efficacy scale (8-item) demonstrated good sensitivity to change following attendance of the FACETS programme (within participant effect sizes 0.66 and 0.69 and 0.54 at 1, 4, and 12 months follow-up). Principal Components Analysis yielded one component. In the Rasch analysis two items with disordered thresholds were rescored. Item 8 displayed differential item functioning by disability and was combined into a testlet with item 4, resulting in a unidimensional scale. The sample was well targeted to the scale.

conclusionAt a scale level the Multiple Sclerosis-Fatigue Self-Efficacy scale is internally valid and has good sensitivity to change.

Indexed as

Self EfficacySymptom AssessmentAdultAgedFatigueFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedMultiple SclerosisPsychological TestsPsychotherapyReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityTime FactorsfatigueRasch analysisscaleSelf-efficacyvalidation

Identifiers

PMID25160009
PMCPMC4390524

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.