4.6 Article

Classical test theory and item response theory/Rasch model to assess differences between patient-reported fatigue using 7-day and 4-week recall periods

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 62, Issue 9, Pages 991-997

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.007

Keywords

Cancer-related Fatigue; Recall; Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue

Funding

  1. National Cancer Institute [CA60068]
  2. National Institutes of Health [U01 AR 052177-01]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: This study compared self-reported fatigue between 7-day and 4-week time frames and explored factors that affect patients' responses. Study Design and Setting: Two hundred and sixteen cancer patients completed either 7-day or 4-week version of the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F). Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics and Cochran-Armitage trend tests were used to assess the association between time frame and item scores. Information function curves at both item and scale levels were depicted to evaluate the precision along the fatigue continuum. Differential item functioning (DIF) was used to examine the stability of the psychometric properties between time frames. Results: Time frame did not influence patients' item responses. Examination of information function curves at item level did not clearly favor either time frame. At the scale level, the 7-day time frame was slightly more precise overall than the 4-week time frame. No item demonstrated DIF between time frames. Neither gender nor fatigue severity had an impact on above results. Conclusion: This study suggests 7-day and 4-week time frame are equally appropriate in measuring fatigue, preference might be given to the more informative 7-day time frame. However, substantive considerations regarding the appropriate time frame should outweigh statistical ones. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available