ArticlePloS one2026
Development and validation of the rest experience scale for adults with chronically fatiguing conditions.
Article in PloS one, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRest is a key component of rehabilitation but remains understudied and underspecified in research and practice, partly due to limited conceptual understanding and comprehensive assessment tools. This gap may hinder the integration of rest advice into physical activity and fatigue management protocols. This study aimed to develop and validate the Multidimensional Rest Experience Scale (MRES) for adults with Chronically Fatiguing Conditions (CFC).
methodsConducted in three phases, Phase 1 involved MRES development via a modified Delphi method to ensure content validity. Phase 2 included preliminary validation by administering the MRES to a representative sample of adults with CFC to assess construct validity and factor structure. Phase 3 evaluated reliability, examining internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Descriptive and inferential analyses were performed.
resultsThe Delphi process reached consensus on 25 items. Exploratory factor analysis refined the scale to 22 items with six factors: resting activity, restorative rest, planning and prioritising rest, physical and psychological barriers to rest, emotional response to rest, and risk of under-resting. Resting Activity showed significant positive correlations with Chronic Pain Coping Inventory (CPCI) Rest subscale (r = 0.572, p < 0.001) and Pacing Engagement (r = 0.332, p < 0.001). Planning and Prioritising Rest correlated with CPCI-Rest (r = 0.532, p < 0.001) and Pacing Engagement (r = 0.681, p < 0.0001). Under-resting risk correlated with Over-Activity risk (r = 0.504, p < 0.001). Discriminant validity for the MRES-22 subscales was established, with Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratios ≤ 0.85. Internal consistency was acceptable to good (Cronbach's α = 0.773-0.829, CR = 0.752-0.830), and test-retest reliability was good to excellent (ICC = 0.816-0.943).
conclusionThe MRES-22 is a valid and reliable tool for capturing the multidimensional components of rest experience, which are often overlooked in fatigue management protocols. This finding supports the use of the MRES-22 in both clinical and research settings to enhance understanding of rest in relation to key health outcomes and to optimise fatigue interventions in rehabilitation.
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.