1. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 12th April 2021 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

Self-report fatigue questionnaires in multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease and stroke, 2012, Elbers et al

Discussion in 'Health News and Research unrelated to ME/CFS' started by MSEsperanza, Mar 10, 2019.

  1. MSEsperanza

    MSEsperanza Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,533
    Likes Received:
    11,002
    Location:
    betwixt and between
    Elbers, R.G., Rietberg, M.B., van Wegen, E.E.H. et al. (2012), Self-report fatigue questionnaires in multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease and stroke: a systematic review of measurement properties, Qual Life Res (2012) 21: 925. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-0009-2

    Abstract:
    Chalder Fatigue Scale not mentioned.

    As an aside, none of the included questionnaires is named after a person:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3389599/table/Tab3/?report=objectonly

    Edit: Related S4ME threads:

    S4ME: Submission to the public review on common data elements for ME/CFS: Problems with the Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire:
    https://www.s4me.info/threads/s4me-...-with-the-chalder-fatigue-questionnaire.2065/

    Science Library: Questionnaires and Scales used in ME or CFS research:
    https://www.s4me.info/threads/questionnaires-and-scales-used-in-me-or-cfs-research.879/
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2019
    andypants, MEMarge, Snowdrop and 7 others like this.
  2. adambeyoncelowe

    adambeyoncelowe Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,292
    Likes Received:
    16,581
    Where can these questionnaires be found?
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2019
  3. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,776
    Likes Received:
    150,660
    Location:
    UK
  4. adambeyoncelowe

    adambeyoncelowe Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,292
    Likes Received:
    16,581
  5. NelliePledge

    NelliePledge Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    7,865
    Likes Received:
    46,306
    Location:
    UK West Midlands
    The FSMC is much more relevant to the impact of exhaustion, lack of energy I experience than the general questions Chalder uses.

    Although the question about work doesn’t seem to take account of not being able to work.
     
  6. Skycloud

    Skycloud Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,982
    Likes Received:
    14,905
    Location:
    UK
    For some reason I'm not surprised that the CFQ is:rolleyes:

    This looks interesting, will read later, thanks for posting.
     
  7. MSEsperanza

    MSEsperanza Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,533
    Likes Received:
    11,002
    Location:
    betwixt and between
  8. adambeyoncelowe

    adambeyoncelowe Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,292
    Likes Received:
    16,581
  9. MSEsperanza

    MSEsperanza Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,533
    Likes Received:
    11,002
    Location:
    betwixt and between
    I think there are really not many questionnaires named after a person. I'm only aware of some named after an institution, e.g. DePaul University.
    :)
    (I am not able to explain what I'm thinking about this review ATM. Just thought it was time to release this bit from my drafts folder in case it could be of use for some people here.)
     
    Skycloud likes this.
  10. MSEsperanza

    MSEsperanza Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,533
    Likes Received:
    11,002
    Location:
    betwixt and between
    Couldn't find a thread on the concept of fatigue in chronic illness and assessing fatigue in general, so leave this here:

    Larson R. D. (2013). Psychometric properties of the modified fatigue impact scale. International journal of MS care, 15(1), 15–20. https://doi.org/10.7224/1537-2073.2012-019

    Abstract
    Validity
    As the paper in the opening post, it's an older paper that I only skimmed and I can't assess the quality.

    I wonder though whether a common weakness of fatigue scales might be that they mix up a symptom's assumed etiology, a symptom's manifestation (muscles/ motor /cognitive/ mental) and its impact on different areas of daily life.

    Further thoughts on fatigue assessment see the thread on objective-assessment-of-diverse-types-of-ms-related-fatigue-and-fatiguability .
     
    Snow Leopard, Mithriel and Michelle like this.
  11. Snow Leopard

    Snow Leopard Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,740
    Likes Received:
    18,939
    Location:
    Australia
    Yes, there is a total lack of clarity, or blurring of what is actually being measured. Fatigue usually means many different things when it comes to these questionnaires, but those who use them do not care about specificity.

    Similarly, the measures of "validity" are very superficial (and usually don't account for or even consider factors such as the impact of variation of study (social) contexts) and how this biases responses.

    You can tell by the language used that investigators don't appreciate, or understand the difference. Authors often say patients had higher/lower symptoms such as pain/fatigue etc. They don't realise that this is misleading. Patients simply reported higher/lower responses on symptom questionnaires.
     
  12. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,003
    Likes Received:
    48,646
    Location:
    Canada
    So things are just as broken in "respectable" diseases then. What a disaster. Complete failure at the basic vocabulary level, from which all other failures naturally derive.
    I don't understand this. Words have meaning. Why doesn't the meaning of words matter in scientific literature? A measurement, measuring, a measure, those are words that have a precise meaning, which explicitly excludes whatever it is a psychometric questionnaire delivers.

    In the end it doesn't really matter which words are selected to have one precise meaning as long as this is decided. This is the lesson from technical standards: none are perfect but what matters is that everyone adopt them. In clinical psychology words can have multiple meanings and multiple words can have the same meaning, and those can vary depending on context, on who uses them and for what purpose. That meaning can change within the span of a single sentence.

    Burn it all down and just start over and this time actually leverage patients' knowledge, this is ridiculous and leading nowhere.
     
    Forestvon and Caesar like this.

Share This Page