ArticleBMC geriatrics2025
The Arabic Version of the Pittsburgh Fatigability Scale for Older Adults: Translation and Validation.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Pittsburgh Fatigability Scale (PFS) was developed to assess perceived physical and mental fatigability in older adults (≥ 60 years). No perceived fatigability questionnaire has been validated to date for use among the Arabic older adult population. The aim of this study was to translate the PFS into Arabic language, and to assess the reliability and validity of the translated version among an Arabic older adult population.
methodsThe primary design of this methodological study was cross-sectional. The PFS was translated into Arabic using the forward-backward translation method according to established guidelines. Internal consistency was evaluated by Cronbach's alpha coefficient. The test-retest reliability was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients over a two-week interval. Construct validity was evaluated by exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. The convergent and discriminant validity were measured by calculating Spearman's correlation coefficients between the PFS- Arabic version and the Arabic versions of the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), and WHO-5 Well-Being Index.
resultsThe validity and reliability sample included 277 older adults with a mean age of 66.0 ± 5.3. For the PFS- Arabic version, the intraclass correlation coefficient for test-retest reliability for both the physical and mental subscale was high (0.97). Cronbach's alpha for the PFS- Arabic version was 0.75 for the physical fatigability subscale and 0.71 for the mental fatigability subscale. The results of the factor analyses revealed that a four-factor model of PFS- Arabic version physical and mental subscales was a good model fit in our sample. Both subscales of PFS- Arabic version showed moderate correlation with FSS (r = 0.3, p < 0.0001) and weak correlation with PSS (r = 0.2). The WHO-5 showed a moderate correlation with PFS- Arabic Physical subscale (r = -0.3) and weak correlation with PFS- Arabic Mental subscale (r = -0.2).
conclusionThe PFS- Arabic version showed good psychometric properties and is recommended for use among Arabic-speaking populations to assess perceived fatigability in older adults.
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.