Assessment of fatigue among working people: a comparison of six questionnaires

Abstract

Occup Environ Med 2003;60(Suppl I):i10-i15Aims: To compare the psychometric qualities of six fatigue questionnaires in a sample of working persons. Methods: Internal consistency and test-retest reliability, content validity, convergent validity, and the dimensionality of the fatigue instruments were explored. Results: All scales had a satisfactory internal consistency. Furthermore, based on factor analyses and Mokken scale analyses, all scales were unidimensional and appeared to measure an identical construct. The Fatigue Assessment Scale (FAS) had the highest factor loading on the one factor solution obtained in a factor analysis of the total scores of all scales. Conclusions: All the questionnaires were unidimensional and had good reliability and validity. The FAS was the most promising fatigue measure. F atigue is one of the major complaints in primary care settings.1 2 Also in general population studies, fatigue is commonly reported (14-22%).3 In a recent extensive study, it was found that about 25% of Dutch employees report fatigue at work. 4 Another Dutch study showed that over one third of the recipients of work disability benefit are occupationally disabled on mental grounds. 5 The majority of these individuals suffer from chronic job stress and burnout. The most characteristic component of burnout 6 is emotional exhaustion, a fatigue related concept. Emotional exhaustion refers to feelings of being overextended and depleted of one's emotional and physical resources. Fatigue is defined as "an experience of tiredness, dislike of present activity, and unwillingness to continue", 8 or as a "disinclination to continue to performing the task at hand and a progressive withdrawal of attention" from environmental demands.9 As a gradual and cumulative process, fatigue reflects vigilance decrement and decreased capacity to perform, along with subjective states that are associated with this decreased performance. It is a general psychophysiological phenomenon that diminishes the ability of the individual to perform a particular task by altering alertness and vigilance, together with the motivational and subjective states that occur during this transition.10 As a consequence, there is reduced competence and willingness to develop or maintain goal directed behaviour aimed at adequate performance.11 This view of fatigue is used in the present study.There is no standard way to assess fatigue. Fatigue can be measured objectively as well as subjectively. Objective fatigue measures focus on physiological processes or performance such as reaction time or number of errors.12 Subjective ways to assess fatigue include diary studies, interviews, and questionnaires. [13][14][15] Often, questionnaires are used in large scale studies because of their shortness and self report format.Until about 10 years ago, fatigue questionnaires for particular studies were mainly developed on an ad hoc basis. Two recent reviews 16 17 showed that most fatigue questionnaires are developed for specific patient groups, such as patients with cancer...

Depressive symptoms in persons with acute coronary syndrome: Specific symptom scales and prognosis

“…16,[37][38][39] In the present study, the items broke down into several specific scales, which only partially supported the hypothesised scales of Although the BDI-FS did not predict outcomes, an inspection of individual items showed that item 1 'Sadness' was predictive of MACE (data not shown).…”

Exercise to reduce work-related fatigue among employees: a randomized controlled trial

“…A mean score ≥2.2 was considered as high work-related fatigue (31). Overall fatigue represents general mental and physical fatigue (32). It was measured with the 10-item Fatigue Assessment Scale, a valid questionnaire to measure fatigue in the working population (FAS; [32]).…”

“…They were eligible to participate if they were currently employed and had high levels of work-related fatigue, as indicated by a high score on two validated questionnaires (ie, ≥2.2 on the emotional exhaustion scale of the Utrecht Burnout Scale [31], and ≥22 on the Fatigue Assessment Scale [32]). Exclusion criteria were (i) ≥1 hour of exercise/week; (ii) fatigue attributable to a medical condition; (iii) currently or in the past six months receiving psychological and/or pharmacological treatment; (iv) drug dependence; and (v) contra-indications to exercise.…”

Associations between stress, fatigue, sleep disturbances and dental students’ oral health-related behaviours: Changes throughout academic year

“…FAS was originally designed to reveal physical and mental fatigue, yet the scale might also be used as a onedimensional questionnaire when a total score of FAS is measured. 17 Each item is scored on a 5-point Likert scale with the total score ranging from 10 to 50. In the present study FAS score was dichotomized and scores ≥ 22 were considered as indication of fatigue.…”