ArticleNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2026
The right tool for the job: a comparative psychometric analysis of commonly used perceived fatigue and fatigability measures in multiple sclerosis.
Article in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeveral patient-reported outcome measures assess fatigue and fatigability in multiple sclerosis (MS), yet their psychometric properties require evaluation for appropriate selection.
objectiveThis study examined the psychometric properties of two perceived fatigue measures (Modified Fatigue Impact Scale [MFIS)], Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue [FACIT-F], one perceived fatigability measure (Pittsburgh Fatigability Scale [PFS]) and one combined measure (F-2-MS).
methodsOne hundred PwMS completed questionnaires assessing perceived fatigue, fatigability, and other secondary disease characteristics of MS. Analyses included floor and ceiling effects, reliability, and validity of the self-reported fatigue and fatigability measures.
resultsNo measures showed floor or ceiling effects (< 20%). Internal consistency was good (α > .80) for all except F-2-MS. Only MFIS demonstrated low measurement error (standard error of measurement % = 8.78 (< 10%)). Convergent validity (r ≥ .80) was supported for MFIS with FACIT-F and F-2-MS. Discriminant validity was supported with all correlations < .80. Disability group differences were significant for MFIS, FACIT-F and PFS (F (10, 184) = 5.80, p = < .001), but not for F-2-MS.
conclusionMinimal floor and ceiling effects, strong reliability, and good discriminant validity across all measures support their use in clinical and research settings. MFIS is most robust for perceived fatigue, and PFS for perceived fatigability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41981330What 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.