ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2021
Psychometric properties of the Korean version of the Pittsburgh Fatigability Scale in breast cancer survivors.
Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Measuring and Understanding the Health Impact of Greater Fatigability in Older Adults: A Call to Action and Opportunities.Fatigue : biomedicine, health & behavior · 2023Article
- Comparing Disease-Specific and Generic Quality of Life in Korean Breast Cancer Survivors Using the FACT-B and QLI: The Importance of Instrument Selection.Integrative cancer therapiesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFatigability has recently emerged in oncology as a concept that anchors patients' perceptions of fatigue to defined activities of specified duration and intensity. This study aimed to examine the psychometric properties of the Korean version of the Pittsburgh Fatigability Scale (K-PFS) for women with breast cancer.
methodsThis cross-sectional study involved 196 women with breast cancer recruited from a tertiary hospital in Seoul, Korea. Reliability was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha, and confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to examine the factor structure of the K-PFS. Four goodness-of-fit values were evaluated: (1) the comparative fit index (CFI), (2) the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), (3) the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and (4) the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR).
resultsOf the 196 survivors, 71.1% had greater physical fatigability (K-PFS Physical score ≥ 15) and 52.6% had greater mental fatigability (K-PFS Mental score ≥ 13). The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the total K-PFS scale was 0.926, and the coefficients for the physical and mental fatigability domains were 0.870 and 0.864, respectively. In the confirmatory factor analysis for physical fatigability, the SRMR value (0.076) supported goodness of fit, but other model fit statistics did not (CFI = 0.888, TLI = 0.826, and RMSEA = 0.224). For mental fatigability, although three goodness-of-fit values were acceptable (CFI = 0.948, TLI = 0.919, and SRMR = 0.057), the RMSEA value (0.149) did not indicate good model fit. However, each item coefficient was statistically significant (> 0.5), and the K-PFS was therefore found to be valid from a theoretical perspective.
conclusionThis study provides meaningful information on the reliability and validity of the K-PFS instrument, which was developed to meet an important need in the context of breast cancer survivors. Additional research should examine its test-retest reliability and construct validity with performance measures.
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.