Top

Published in:

Open Access 19-07-2023 | Fatigue

Development and evaluation of the Norwegian Fatigue Characteristics and Interference Measure (FCIM) for stroke survivors: cognitive interviews and Rasch analysis

Authors: Ingrid Johansen Skogestad, Anders Kottorp, Petra Larsson, Therese Marie Moen, Caryl L. Gay, Christine Råheim Borge, Anners Lerdal

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 12/2023

Abstract

Purpose

There is need for a comprehensive measure of post-stroke fatigue with sound measurement properties. This study aimed to develop the Norwegian Fatigue Characteristics and Interference Measure (FCIM) and assess its content validity, structural validity, and internal consistency.

Method

This study consisted of three steps: (1) an expert panel developed version 1.0 of the Norwegian FCIM, (2) its content validity was assessed in cognitive interviews with stroke patients (N = 15), (3) a convenience sample of stroke patients (N = 169) completed an online questionnaire with the FCIM, Fatigue Severity Scale, and sociodemographic information; validity and reliability were assessed using Rasch analysis.

Results

FCIM version 1.0 included a 10-item characteristics subscale, a 20-item interference subscale, and two pre-stroke fatigue items. The cognitive interviews revealed content validity issues, resulting in two interference items being removed and five items being flagged but retained for Rasch analysis (version 2.0). Rasch analysis led to removal of four items from the characteristics subscale and six more from the interference subscale. The final six-item characteristics subscale and 12-item interference subscale (version 3.0) both showed adequate fit to the Rasch model with indications of unidimensionality and local independence. The interference subscale had a high person separation index. No significant differential item function (DIF) was found in relation to gender, but one item demonstrated DIF in relation to age.

Conclusion

The cognitive interviews and Rasch analysis demonstrated that the Norwegian version of the FCIM has high content validity, structural validity, and internal consistency. Future research should assess its construct validity, reliability, and responsiveness.

Available only for authorised users

Paciaroni, M., & Acciarresi, M. (2019). Poststroke fatigue. Stroke, 50(7), 1927–1933. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.119.023552CrossRefPubMed

Lanctot, K. L., Lindsay, M. P., Smith, E. E., Sahlas, D. J., Foley, N., Gubitz, G., Austin, M., Ball, K., Bhogal, S., Blake, T., Herrmann, N., Hogan, D., Khan, A., Longman, S., King, A., Leonard, C., Shoniker, T., Taylor, T., Teed, M., et al. (2020). Canadian stroke best practice recommendations: Mood, cognition and fatigue following stroke, 6th edition update 2019. International Journal of Stroke, 15(6), 668–688.CrossRefPubMed

Norwegian Directorate of Health. The Norwegian guideline for stroke treatment and rehabilitation [in Norwegian] 2017. Retrieved from https://www.helsedirektoratet.no/retningslinjer/hjerneslag.

Wu, S., Kutlubaev, M. A., Chun, H. Y., Cowey, E., Pollock, A., Macleod, M. R., Dennis, M., Keane, E., Sharpe, M., & Mead, G. E. (2015). Interventions for post-stroke fatigue. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 7, CD007030. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007030.pub3CrossRef

Kennedy, C., & Kidd, L. (2018). Interventions for post-stroke fatigue: A Cochrane review summary. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 85, 136–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.11.006CrossRefPubMed

Skogestad, I. J., Kirkevold, M., Indredavik, B., Gay, C. L., Lerdal, A., & Group N. (2019). Lack of content overlap and essential dimensions—A review of measures used for post-stroke fatigue. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 124, 109759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2019.109759CrossRef

Cumming, T. B., Yeo, A. B., Marquez, J., Churilov, L., Annoni, J.-M., Badaru, U., Ghotbi, N., Harbison, J., Kwakkel, G., Lerdal, A., Mills, R., Naess, H., Nyland, H., Schmid, A., Tang, W. K., Tseng, B., van de Port, I., Mead, G., & English, C. (2018). Investigating post-stroke fatigue: An individual participant data meta-analysis. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 113, 107–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2018.08.006CrossRefPubMed

Terwee, C. B., Prinsen, C. A. C., Chiarotto, A., Westerman, M. J., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Bouter, L. M., de Vet, H. C. W., & Mokkink, L. B. (2018). COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: A Delphi study. Quality of Life Research, 27(5), 1159–1170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1829-0CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

de Vet, H., Terwee, C., Mokkink, L., & Knol, D. (2011). Measurement in medicine: A practical guide (practical guides to biostatistics and epidemiology). Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

10.

U. S. Department of Health Human Services, & F. D. A. (2006). Guidance for industry: Patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: Draft guidance. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4, 79.

11.

Prinsen, C. A. C., Mokkink, L. B., Bouter, L. M., Alonso, J., Patrick, D. L., de Vet, H. C. W., & Terwee, C. B. (2018). COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research, 27(5), 1147–1157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Skogestad, I. J., Kirkevold, M., Larsson, P., Borge, C. R., Indredavik, B., Gay, C. L., & Lerdal, A. (2021). Post-stroke fatigue: An exploratory study with patients and health professionals to develop a patient-reported outcome measure. Journal of Patient Reported Outcomes, 5(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-021-00307-zCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Nadarajah, M., & Goh, H. T. (2015). Post-stroke fatigue: A review on prevalence, correlates, measurement, and management. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 22(3), 208–220. https://doi.org/10.1179/1074935714Z.0000000015CrossRefPubMed

14.

Lerdal, A., & Kottorp, A. (2011). Psychometric properties of the Fatigue Severity Scale-Rasch analyses of individual responses in a Norwegian stroke cohort. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 48(10), 1258–1265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.02.019CrossRefPubMed

15.

Krupp, L. B., LaRocca, N. G., Muir-Nash, J., & Steinberg, A. D. (1989). The fatigue severity scale. Application to patients with multiple sclerosis and systemic lupus erythematosus. Archives of Neurology, 46(10), 1121–1123.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Elbers, R. G., Rietberg, M. B., van Wegen, E. E., Verhoef, J., Kramer, S. F., Terwee, C. B., & Kwakkel, G. (2012). Self-report fatigue questionnaires in multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease and stroke: A systematic review of measurement properties. Quality of Life Research, 21(6), 925–944. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-0009-2CrossRefPubMed

17.

Oosterveld, P., Vorst, H. C. M., & Smits, N. (2019). Methods for questionnaire design: A taxonomy linking procedures to test goals. Quality of Life Research, 28(9), 2501–2512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02209-6CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. (2010). The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(7), 737–745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006CrossRefPubMed

19.

Andrich, D., & Marais I. (2019). A course in Rasch measurement theory. D Andrich y I Marais (Coords), Measuring in the Educational, Social and Health Sciences, 41, 53.

20.

Edelen, M. O., & Reeve, B. B. (2007). Applying item response theory (IRT) modeling to questionnaire development, evaluation, and refinement. Quality of Life Research, 16(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9198-0CrossRefPubMed

21.

Mead, G., Lynch, J., Greig, C., Young, A., Lewis, S., & Sharpe, M. (2007). Evaluation of fatigue scales in stroke patients. Stroke, 38(7), 2090–2095.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 349–357. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042CrossRefPubMed

23.

Mallinson, T., Kozlowski, A. J., Johnston, M. V., Weaver, J., Terhorst, L., Grampurohit, N., Juengst, S., Ehrlich-Jones, L., Heinemann, A. W., Melvin, J., Sood, P., & Van de Winckel, A. (2022). Rasch reporting guideline for rehabilitation research (RULER): The RULER statement. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 103(7), 1477–1486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2022.03.013CrossRefPubMed

24.

Mokkink, L. B., Prinsen, C. A., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Bouter, L. M., de Vet, H. C., & Terwee, C. B. (2019). COSMIN study design checklist for patient-reported outcome measurement instruments. The Netherlands.

25.

Patrick, D. L., Burke, L. B., Gwaltney, C. J., Leidy, N. K., Martin, M. L., Molsen, E., & Ring, L. (2011). Content validity–establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: Part 1–eliciting concepts for a new PRO instrument. Value in Health, 14(8), 967–977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.06.014CrossRefPubMed

26.

Patrick, D. L., Burke, L. B., Gwaltney, C. J., Leidy, N. K., Martin, M. L., Molsen, E., & Ring, L. (2011). Content validity–establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO Good Research Practices Task Force report: Part 2–assessing respondent understanding. Value in Health, 14(8), 978–988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.06.013CrossRefPubMed

27.

Gagnier, J. J., Lai, J., Mokkink, L. B., & Terwee, C. B. (2021). COSMIN reporting guideline for studies on measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research, 30(8), 2197–2218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02822-4CrossRefPubMed

28.

Tourangeau, R. (1984). Cognitive science and survey methods. In T. B. Jabine, J. M. Tanur, & R. Tourangeau (Eds.), Cognitive aspects of survey design: Building a bridge between disciplines (pp. 73–100). National Academy Press.

29.

Hak, T., Veer, K. V. D., & Jansen, H. (2008). The three-step test-interview (TSTI): An observation-based method for pretesting self-completion questionnaires. Survey Research Methods, 2(3), 143–150.

30.

Elo, S., & Kyngas, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.xCrossRefPubMed

31.

Pallant, J. F., & Tennant, A. (2007). An introduction to the Rasch measurement model: An example using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 46(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466506X96931CrossRefPubMed

32.

Linacre, J. M. (2002). Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. Journal of Applied Measurement, 3(1), 85–106.PubMed

33.

Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2013). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Psychology Press.CrossRef

34.

Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis. MESA Press.

35.

Linacre, J. M. (2006). A user's guide to Winsteps Ministeps Rasch-model computer programs. Program Manual 5222022.

36.

Christensen, K. B., Makransky, G., & Horton, M. (2017). Critical values for Yen’s Q3: Identification of local dependence in the Rasch model using residual correlations. Applied Psychological Measurement, 41(3), 178–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621616677520CrossRefPubMed

37.

Tennant, A., & Conaghan, P. G. (2007). The Rasch measurement model in rheumatology: What is it and why use it? When should it be applied, and what should one look for in a Rasch paper? Arthritis and Rheumatology, 57(8), 1358–1362. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.23108CrossRef

38.

Lerdal, A. (2013). Curvilinear relationship between age and post-stroke fatigue among patients in the acute phase following first-ever stroke. International Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.4172/2329-9096.1000141CrossRef

39.

Lerdal, A., Bakken, L. N., Kouwenhoven, S. E., Pedersen, G., Kirkevold, M., Finset, A., & Kim, H. S. (2009). Poststroke fatigue–a review. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 38(6), 928–949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2009.04.028CrossRefPubMed

40.

Valdez, P. (2019). Circadian rhythms in attention. The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 92(1), 81–92.PubMedPubMedCentral

41.

Willis, G. B. (2004). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Sage Publications.

42.

Smith, A. B., Rush, R., Fallowfield, L. J., Velikova, G., & Sharpe, M. (2008). Rasch fit statistics and sample size considerations for polytomous data. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(1), 1–11.CrossRef

43.

Mokkink, L. B., Prinsen, C. A., Patrick, D., Alonso, J., Bouter, L. M., De Vet, H. C., & Terwee, C. B. (2018). COSMIN methodology for systematic reviews of Patient‐Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) User Manual.

44.

Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Methodological), 57(1), 289–300.CrossRef

45.

Lerdal, A., Bakken, L. N., Rasmussen, E. F., Beiermann, C., Ryen, S., Pynten, S., Drefvelin, A. S., Dahl, A. M., Rognstad, G., Finset, A., Lee, K. A., & Kim, H. S. (2011). Physical impairment, depressive symptoms and pre-stroke fatigue are related to fatigue in the acute phase after stroke. Disability and Rehabilitation, 33(4), 334–342. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2010.490867CrossRefPubMed

Title: Development and evaluation of the Norwegian Fatigue Characteristics and Interference Measure (FCIM) for stroke survivors: cognitive interviews and Rasch analysis
Authors: Ingrid Johansen Skogestad
Anders Kottorp
Petra Larsson
Therese Marie Moen
Caryl L. Gay
Christine Råheim Borge
Anners Lerdal
Publication date: 19-07-2023
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Keywords: Fatigue
Stroke
Published in: Quality of Life Research / Issue 12/2023
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-023-03477-z

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Development and evaluation of the Norwegian Fatigue Characteristics and Interference Measure (FCIM) for stroke survivors: cognitive interviews and Rasch analysis

Abstract

Purpose

Method

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Method

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 12/2023

Health-related quality of life and associated factors in elderly individuals with dyslipidemia in rural Northern China

Psychosocial factors associated with j-pouch surgery for patients with IBD: a scoping review

Impaired health-related quality of life in the HCV cure era: who is concerned? (ANRS CO22 HEPATHER French cohort)

Association of body mass index from childhood to mid-adulthood with health-related quality of life in mid-adulthood

Patient quality of life and caregiver experiences in ovarian cancer: How are they related?

Translation and validation of a Chinese version of the pancreatitis quality of life instrument (PANQOLI) in patients with chronic pancreatitis