ArticleBMC geriatrics2020
Translation and validation of the Dutch Pittsburgh Fatigability Scale for older adults.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Psychometric properties of the Pittsburgh Fatigability Scale for assessing physical and mental fatigability in Brazilian older adults (PFS-Brasil).Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologicas · 2026Article
- The prevalence and associated factors of perceived physical and mental fatigability among older adults in regional China.BMC geriatrics · 2025Article
- The Arabic Version of the Pittsburgh Fatigability Scale for Older Adults: Translation and Validation.BMC geriatrics · 2025Article
- Cross-cultural translation, validation, and responsiveness of the Pittsburgh Fatigability Scale - Italian version (PFS-I) in a mixed-sample of older adults.BMC geriatrics · 2024Article
- Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Hypertension Belief Assessment Tool.BMC geriatrics · 2024Article
- Validation of the Chinese version of the resilience scale for the oldest-old.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Measuring and Understanding the Health Impact of Greater Fatigability in Older Adults: A Call to Action and Opportunities.Fatigue : biomedicine, health & behavior · 2023Article
- Determinants of trajectories of fatigability and mobility among older medical patients during and after hospitalization; an explorative study.BMC geriatrics · 2022Article
- The Patient Centered Assessment Method (PCAM) for Action-Based Biopsychosocial Evaluation of Patient Needs: Validation and Perceived Value of the Dutch Translation.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Psychometric properties of the Korean version of the Pittsburgh Fatigability Scale in breast cancer survivors.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2021Article
- Validation of perceived physical fatigability using the simplified-Chinese version of the Pittsburgh Fatigability Scale.BMC geriatrics · 2021Article
- Validation of Perceived Mental Fatigability Using the Pittsburgh Fatigability Scale.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2021Article
- Validation of the Traditional Chinese Version of the Pittsburgh Fatigability Scale for Older Adults.Clinical gerontologistArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe original Pittsburgh Fatigability Scale (PFS) was developed to assess perceived fatigability in older adults. The objective of this study was to translate the PFS into Dutch and investigate its validity and reliability among hospitalized older adults aged ≥70 years.
methodsThe PFS was translated into Dutch and pretested for comprehensibility by the Three-Step Test Interview method. The factor structure underlying the final version was evaluated by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and exploratory factor analyses (EFA). Internal consistency of the identified subscales was evaluated by Cronbach's alpha. Construct validity was evaluated by hypothesis testing. Test-retest reliability was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland Altman plots.
resultsThe validation sample included 233 patients. CFA of the original factor structure resulted in poor model fit in our Dutch sample. EFA of PFS physical and mental subscales resulted in a two-factor solution underlying the data with good internal consistency of the identified subscales (Cronbach's alpha: 0.80-0.92). Five out of six hypotheses were confirmed, indicating good construct validity. Retest assessments were performed among 50 patients and showed good reliability for both the physical (ICC: 0.80, 95%CI: 0.68; 0.88) and mental subscale (ICC: 0.81, 95%CI: 0.68; 0.89).
conclusionThe Dutch PFS is a valid and reliable instrument to assess fatigability in older hospitalized patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.