ArticleBMC psychology2023
Psychometric validation of the French Multidimensional Chronic Asthenia Scale (MCAS) in a sample of 621 patients with chronic fatigue.
Article in BMC psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPsychometric validation of the Multidimensional Chronic Asthenia Scale (MCAS) was conducted in order to provide an effective tool for assessing the health-related quality of life of French-speaking patients with chronic asthenia (CA).
methodsItems resulting from the initial formulation of the self-reported MCAS (along with other materials) were completed by French-speaking volunteers with inactive or active inflammatory bowel disease (IBD-I vs. IBD-A) or chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Responses from 621 participants (180 patients with IBD-A, 172 with IBD-I, 269 with CFS) collected in a single online survey were divided into three subsamples to test the construct validity of the MCAS (Step 1, N = 240), to confirm its factorial structure (Step 2, N = 204) and to explore its convergent-discriminant validity with the Fatigue Symptoms Inventory (FSI) and revised Piper Fatigue Scale (r-PFS, Step 3, N = 177).
resultsSteps 1 and 2 showed that, as expected, MCAS has four dimensions: feeling of constraint (FoC), physical (PC), life (LC) and interpersonal consequences (IC), which are also related to the duration of CA (i.e., the longer it lasts, the more the dimensions are impacted). The results further showed that the MCAS is sensitive enough to capture between-group differences, with the CFS group being the most impaired, followed by IBD-A and IBD-I. While convergent-discriminant validity between the 4 factors of MCAS and FSI and r-PFS, respectively, was satisfactory overall, Step 3 also pointed to some limitations that call for future research (e.g., shared variances between the PC and IC dimensions of MCAS and behavioral dimension of r-PFS).
conclusionDespite these limitations, the MCAS clearly constitutes a promising tool for measuring quantitative differences (i.e., severity/intensity) in CA associated with various diseases, but also, and importantly, the clinically important differences in domains of its expression (i.e., qualitative differences).
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.