ArticleBMC public health2023
Validation of a short version of the Lee fatigue scale in adults living in Norway: a cross-sectional population survey.
Article in BMC public health, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDue to the nature of fatigue, a brief reliable measure of fatigue severity is needed. Thus, the aim of our study was to evaluate a short version of the Lee Fatigue Scale (LFS) in the Norwegian general population.
methodsThis cross-sectional survey consists of a representative sample from the Norwegian population drawn by The National Population Register in Norway. The study is part of a larger study (NORPOP) aimed at collecting normative data from several questionnaires focused on health in adults living in Norway. Registered citizens between 18 and 94 years of age were randomly selected stratified by age, sex and geographic region. Of the 4971 respondents eligible for the study, 1792 (36%) responded to the survey. In addition to age and sex, we collected responses on a 5-item version of the LFS measuring current fatige severity. The psychometric properties focusing on internal structure and precision of the LFS items were analyzed by a Rasch rating scale model.
resultsComplete LFS scores for analyses were available for 1767 adults. Women had higher LFS-scores than men, and adults < 55 years old had higher scores than older respondents. Our analysis of the LFS showed that the average category on each item advanced monotonically. Two of the five items demonstrated misfit, while the three other items demonstrated goodness-of-fit to the model and uni-dimensionality. Items #1 and #4 (tired and fatigue respectively) showed differential item functioning (DIF) by sex, but no items showed DIFs in relation to age. The separation index of the LFS 3-item scale showed that the sample could be separated into three different groups according to the respondents' fatigue levels. The LFS-3 raw scores correlated strongly with the Rasch measure from the three items. The core dimensions in these individual items were very similarly expressed in the Norwegian language version and this may be a threat to the cultural-related or language validity of a short version of the LFS using these particular items.
conclusionsThe study provides validation of a short LFS 3-item version for estimating fatigue in the general population.
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.