ArticleRheumatology (Oxford, England)2025
Which fatigue scale should I use? A Rasch analysis of two fatigue scales in inflammatory conditions.
Article in Rheumatology (Oxford, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Chronic fatigue: psychometric properties and updated norm values of the Chalder fatigue scale in a cross-sectional sample representative of the German population.Annals of medicine · 2025Article
- Rasch analysis and targeting assessment of the teach-CVI survey tool in a cohort of CVI patients.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to assess the psychometric properties of two widely used fatigue scales in a sample of patients with inflammatory conditions.
methodsRasch analysis was used to examine scale reliability, item bias, unidimensionality and overall fit to the Rasch model. Subtest methodology was utilized to attempt to improve model fit for the Chalder Fatigue Scale (CFQ) and Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Multidimensional Questionnaire (BRAF-MDQ).
resultsInitial analysis displayed strong reliability (person separation index 0.89-0.96) alongside a lack of item bias in both scales. However, evidence for unidimensionality was not found for either scale. Overall fit to the Rasch model was marginal for the CFQ and misfitting for the BRAF-MDQ. Local dependency was observed as well as significant item misfit for both scales. Subtest modifications resulted in the best model fit for the BRAF-MDQ [χ2(16) = 15.77, P = 0.469] and the CFQ [χ2(25) = 15.49, P = 0.929]. Modifications resulted in improved fit, reductions in measurement error and the production of ordinal-to-interval conversion tables for both scales. Conversion tables apply the benefits of enhanced measurement accuracy, valid comparison of BRAF-MDQ and CFQ scores to other interval-level data, appropriate use in parametric statistics and enhanced precision in clinical cut-off scores-without the need to change administration format.
conclusionThe BRAF-MDQ and CFQ are valid, reliable tools for fatigue assessment. Psychometric indices and content factors suggest the CFQ is suited to measuring general fatigue, particularly when response burden is a concern, while the BRAF-MDQ should be used in clinical presentations where other symptoms are severe and the impact of fatigue on daily living and emotional and social well-being is of interest.
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.