1. Sign our petition calling on Cochrane to withdraw their review of Exercise Therapy for CFS here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 18th March 2024 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

Comparison of assessment scores for fatigue between multidimensional fatigue inventory (MFI-K) and modified chalder fatigue scale (mKCFQ), 2022, Lim

Discussion in 'Psychosomatic research - ME/CFS and Long Covid' started by Andy, Jan 6, 2022.

  1. Andy

    Andy Committee Member

    Messages:
    21,809
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    Abstract

    Background

    Because of the absence of biological parameters for fatigue, appropriate instruments for assessing the degree of fatigue are important in the diagnosis and management of people complaining of fatigue-like symptoms. This study statistically analyzed the fatigue scores from two typical questionnaire-based instruments: the Korean version of the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI-K) and the modified Chalder Fatigue Scale (mKCFQ).

    Methods
    Seventy participants (males n  = 40, females n  = 30, median age 48 years old, range of 25–67) were grouped into three groups (‘mild’  = 20, ‘moderate’  = 42, and ‘severe’  = 8) according to self-reported fatigue levels using a 7-point Likert scale. The similarities and differences between two instrument-derived scores were analyzed using correlations (r) and multidimensional scaling (MDS).

    Results
    The total scores of the two assessments were significantly correlated (r  = 75%, p  < 0.001), as were the subscores (‘Total Physical fatigue’: r  = 76%, p  < 0.001, ‘Total Mental fatigue’: r  = 56%, p  < 0.001). Relative overestimation of the MFI-K (45.8 ± 11.3) compared to the mKCFQ (36.1 ± 16.2) was observed, which was especially prominent in the ‘mild’ group. The scores of the three groups were more easily distinguished by the mKCFQ than by the MFI-K. In terms of the five dimension scores, we found a higher correlation of the two assessments for ‘general fatigue’ (r  = 79%, p  < 0.001) and ‘physical fatigue’ (r  = 66%, p  < 0.001) than for the reductions in ‘motivation’ (r  = 41%, p  < 0.01) and ‘activity’ (r  = 26%, p  > 0.05).

    Conclusions
    Our results may indicate the usefulness of the two instruments, especially for the physical symptoms of fatigue (‘general’ and ‘physical’ fatigue). Furthermore, the MFI-K may be useful for conditions of moderate-to-severe fatigue, such as chronic fatigue syndrome, but the mKCFQ may be useful for all spectra of fatigue, including in subhealthy people.

    Open access, https://translational-medicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12967-021-03219-0
     
  2. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    12,290
    Location:
    Canada
    We calibrated two dowsing rods and found they agree with one another so clearly dowsing rods work.

    S C I E N C E
     
    JoanneS, Missense, CRG and 11 others like this.
  3. ME/CFS Skeptic

    ME/CFS Skeptic Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,491
    Location:
    Belgium
    These Korean researchers modified the Chalder Fatigue Scale because the comparison to "as usual" was confusing. The authors write:

    "To resolve the difficulty of assessment based on the comparison with the “usual” status, the mKCFQ was adapted to a 10-point Likert scale (0= ‘not at all’ to 9= ‘unbearably severe condition’), and its reliability and validity were confirmed with 97 CFS participants."​
     
  4. adambeyoncelowe

    adambeyoncelowe Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,731
    So not the CFQ, then...
     

Share This Page