Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

Dimensionality, psychometric properties, and population-based norms of the Turkish version of the Chalder Fatigue Scale among adults

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes volume 20, Article number: 161 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Fatigue is emerging as a major public health problem that is highly associated with poor health-related quality of life and disability. Among adults, fatigue has become increasingly common because of workload or lifestyle changes. This study aimed to cross-culturally adapt the Chalder Fatigue Scale (CFS) into Turkish, to investigate its psychometric properties, and to establish normative data in healthy adults by age and gender.

Methods

The validity of the CFS was tested with a total sample of 476 healthy adults aged 20–40 years (264 males and 212 females) and test–retest/measurement error analyses were performed with 161 participants (94 males and 67 females). The test–retest reliability was examined using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and internal consistency was determined using Cronbach's α-coefficient. Predictive validity was assessed using the Receiver Operating Characteristic to validate the cut-off value of the CFS for non-fatigued and fatigued participants. Factor analyses and hypothesis testing were conducted to assess construct validity. Hypothesis testing examined convergent and known-group validity by testing 14 predefined hypotheses.

Results

The mean (SD) and median (25–75%) CFS scores were 10.7 (4.9) and 11 (7–14) for the total sample (n = 476). The cut-off point for CFS was set at ≥ 12 with a sensitivity of 65.8% and a specificity of 85.9%. The CFS provided evidence of excellent fit of the two-factor structure (CFI = 0.963, RMSEA = 0.06, SRMR = 0.02). There was evidence of strong internal consistency demonstrated by Cronbach's α = 0.863 and good test–retest reliability by ICC = 0.76. Thirteen out of 14 hypotheses (92.9%) were confirmed and the scale showed low to moderate correlation with other measurement instruments (r = 0.31–0.51).

Conclusions

The CFS has been shown to be a reliable and valid instrument that can be used in various populations for the assessment of fatigue.

Level of evidence

Level II.

Background

Fatigue is a global phenomenon that negatively affects the biological, psychological, and cognitive processes of individuals. This distressing feeling is one of the most commonly reported symptoms to healthcare professionals [1, 2]. In several areas, fatigue remains an important issue that affects individuals’ health-related quality of life, employee health, safety, and overall work productivity by 54% [3, 4]. Recently, it has become a major concern for the physical and mental health of individuals working under challenging workload conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic [2, 5,6,7]. The prevalence of fatigue among patients who recovered from COVID-19 ranges from 52 to 70% [8, 9]. The assessment of fatigue is therefore becoming increasingly important in both clinical and healthy populations.

Several self-reported fatigue scales are used to evaluate the severity and characteristics of fatigue, and they have some advantages and disadvantages when compared with each other [10]. The Chalder Fatigue Scale (CFS) is an easy-to-understand, brief, and useful scale for individuals. The CFS was developed to measure the severity of perceived fatigue, which consists of two dimensions, including physical and mental fatigue [11, 12]. The measurement properties of the CFS have been studied in the general population and various disease groups but not in healthy adults [11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18].

Physical and mental fatigue affects adversely all segments of the population. In young adults, fatigue increases significantly due to various factors such as lifestyle, occupational overload, or socio-relational difficulties [19,20,21,22]. Population-based norms are needed to determine the prevalence of comorbidity in such a population. However there are few studies addressing this disturbing feeling in healthy young adults [19, 20, 23], and no study has established normative CFS scores in adults by sex or age. The first aim of this study was to cross-culturally adapt the CFS into Turkish and examine its psychometric properties, including criterion validity, construct validity, internal consistency, test–retest reliability, and measurement error. Second, we aimed to establish normative data in healthy adults by age and gender.

Methods

Study design

This study was designed as a methodological study conducted between May 2019 and October 2022. The study was approved by the Non-interventional Clinical Research Ethics Committee of Hacettepe University (May 14, 2019, GO 19/512). The study was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, the cross-cultural adaptation of the CFS was performed by following the guidelines provided by Beaton et al. [24]. In the second phase, the psychometric properties of the CFS -Turkish were evaluated in healthy adults according to the COSMIN criteria (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) [25].

Phase 1: The translation process

The translation of the CFS into Turkish was completed in six steps (Fig. 1) [24].

Fig. 1
figure 1

Translation process of the Turkish version of the Chalder Fatigue Scale

Full size image

Step 1-Translation: Two bilingual Turkish translators were involved in the first step: a physiotherapist who is familiar with the instrument and an English linguist who has no medical background and is not familiar with the instrument. The translation of the CFS from English to Turkish was performed independently (T1 and T2).

Step 2-Synthesis: The two translated versions were compared and synthesized into one translated version (T12).

Step 3-Back-translation: Two native English speakers, fluent in Turkish and unfamiliar with the original instrument, performed the back translation of the T12 from Turkish into English and developed two new versions of the scale (TB1 and TB2).

Step 4-Expert committee review: An expert committee of researchers and translators compared the original CFS with the five translated versions (T1, T2, T12, TB1, TB2) to determine if all instruments were similar. After an agreement, the committee developed the prefinal Turkish version of the CFS (pCFS-T).

Step 5-Pretesting: The pCFS-T was tested on 56 volunteer healthy young adults (not included in the study sample). The participants rated the comprehensibility of items based on a three-point Likert scale (clearly/partially/not understandable). This strategy aimed to establish whether the pCFS-T was intelligible for this population. After the pretesting, it was determined that all participants rated all items in the scale as ‘clearly understandable’, which indicated that the pCFS-T was appropriate for this population.

Step 6- Final Version: All reports and forms were confirmed by the original developer. Consequently, the pCFS -T was introduced in its final version (CFS-T).

Phase 2: Evaluation of the psychometric properties

Sample and data collection

Healthy young adults aged 20–40 years, who could read and speak Turkish, were included in the study. Exclusion criteria included acute/chronic illness, a surgical procedure in the past 6 months, use of prescribed or over-the-counter medications or supplements, < 17 kg/m2 body mass index > 30 kg/m2, depression with a score of ≥ 21 on the Beck Depression Scale (BDS), and pain with a score of > 0 on the pain subscale of the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP). Female participants were also excluded if they suffered from premenstrual syndrome or had been pregnant within the past year.

The sample size for reliability and validity analysis was determined in accordance with the literature [26,27,28]. A sample size of at least 200 individuals is required for validation studies and a sample size of at least 50 individuals per group is required for known group validity studies [26, 27]. For the analysis of internal consistency and test–retest reliability, a sample size of at least 100 and 30 individuals, respectively, is recommended [27, 28].

Test Group: We used snowball sampling, starting with 20 individuals (primary seeds) from all regions of Turkey. A research file (measurement instruments with written instructions and an introductory letter) was distributed in envelopes in person or by post to the authors' acquaintances who agreed to participate, and they were asked to invite others they knew who met the inclusion criteria and could participate in the study. All participants were informed about the study in advance and provided written informed consent. In all cases, participants received written instructions and an introductory letter explaining the scope of the study ("the study in which you will participate aims to assess the CFS in our culture"). The envelopes of the research files were returned in person or by post.

Special care was taken to ensure that the number of participants was representative of the entire age range of young adults and that the distribution of both genders was representative. Eight hundred and seventy participants were invited and 845 volunteers participated in the study. Of the 845 volunteers, 41 did not return their research file (real response rate: 801/870, 92.1%) and 47 did not complete measurement instruments properly (see missing item analysis). Based on the exclusion criteria, 281 individuals were excluded from the study. A total of 476 individuals participated in the initial assessment (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Flow diagram of the study

Full size image

Re-test Group: To investigate test–retest reliability, 540 of 845 volunteers were randomized using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 26.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA) before sample selection. This resulted in 161 individuals being included in the reassessment survey based on the research criteria. The re-test group completed the CFS within 3–7 days. To minimize diurnal variation in fatigue levels, the reassessment was administered at the same time of day as the initial assessment [29].

The present study reached a sufficient sample size with 476 participants for the validity and internal consistency analyses and 161 participants for the test–retest and measurement error analysis. The flowchart of the study is shown in Fig. 2.

Missing item analysis: The quality of the data collected was checked for each outcome measure. Participants who did not answer a particular outcome measure or more than 10% of the total variables (110 items for validity, 11 items for internal consistency, 22 items for reliability analyses) were excluded (n = 47) from the study (Fig. 2). Missing values that were present in the research data were analyzed and imputed using SPSS as medians of the corresponding items. Incidental missing values were 2.8% (1466 of 52360 (110 × 476) items), 2.2% (115 of 5236 (11 × 476) items), and 2.9% (102 of 3542 (22 × 161) items) for the validity, internal consistency, and test–retest/measurement error analysis, respectively. Due to the small percentage of the missing data (< 3%), the imputation of the missing items did not significantly affect the results of the study [30].

Measurements

All participants completed the CFS, Checklist Individual Strength (CIS), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), NHP, BDS, and Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) at the initial assessment [31,32,33,34,35]. Participants were asked to complete sociodemographic profile information, including age, gender, weight, height, marital status, type of employment, working hours per week, education level, and usage of prescribed or over-the-counter medications/nutritional supplements.

Chalder Fatigue Scale: The 14-item scale (CFS-14) was first developed in 1993 to assess perceived fatigue [11]. In 2010, a revised version (CFS-11) of the original scale was published with three items removed [12]. The final version of the CFS with 11 items consists of 2 subscales: physical fatigue (CFS-PF) and mental fatigue (CFS-MF), and it can be rated on 2 different methods (bi-modal scoring {0–1} and 4-point Likert scoring {0–3}) [12]. The score of the CFS-PF ranges from 0–7, 0–21; the CFS-MF ranges from 0–4, 0–12, and the CFS-total ranges from 0–11, 0–33 points on the bi-modal and Likert scoring systems, respectively. Lower scores indicate a low level of fatigue [12]. Individuals with a total score of ≥ 4 are identified to be severely fatigued in bi-modal scoring and this scoring system is used in epidemiological studies [11, 15]. The CFS is available in 7 languages: Portuguese [36], Chinese [13], Korean [14], Norwegian [15], Japanese [16], Dutch [37], and Polish [38]. Its validity and reliability have been demonstrated in chronic fatigue syndrome [12, 39], multiple sclerosis [17], hemodialysis [40], primary care patients [36], pregnant women [38], and the general population [12,13,14,15]. The CFS has been found to be reliable (Cronbach's α for the subscales = 0.72–0.87 and for the CFS = 0.73–0.89) and to be valid in several studies [12, 13, 36, 37].

Checklist Individual Strength: The CIS consists of a total of 20 items and four subscales: subjective perception of fatigue (CIS-FS) (8 items), concentration (CIS-C) (5 items), motivation (4 items), and physical activity (3 items). The total score ranges from 20 to 140 and high scores indicate severe fatigue, low motivation, low concentration, and low physical activity [31]. The CIS is found to be a valid and reliable scale for assessing fatigue in healthy adults [10, 41]. The Turkish version of the scale was showed to have validity and good reliability (ICC = 0.92, Cronbach's α = 0.87) [31]. A total score of 76 and above is interpreted as fatigued for healthy adults [42].

Visual Analog Scale: The VAS has been shown to be a reliable outcome measure (ICC = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.39–0.83) for assessing the severity of fatigue [32]. In the present study, physical fatigue (VAS -PF) and mental fatigue (VAS-MF) were assessed using 100 mm-VAS, with a high value indicating a high level of fatigue. The scores for VAS-PF and VAS-MF were summed to obtain a total fatigue score (VAS) [43].

Nottingham Health Profile: The NHP measures the health-related quality of life and the impact of the individual's problems on the functions of her/his social roles [33]. The first part of the scale, consisting of 38 items, measures the individual's quality of life; the second part, consisting of 6 items, measures the impact of the individual's problems on her/his social roles. The first part which has six subscales including physical mobility, sleep, pain, energy level, emotional reactions, and social isolation was used in this study. The score for each subscale ranges from 0–100, and the total score is calculated by the sum of the scores of the six subscales. Higher scores indicate poorer quality of life [33]. The Turkish version of the scale is found to be reliable (r = 0.70–0.92, Cronbach's α = 0.56–0.83) and valid [33].

Beck Depression Scale: The 21-item scale assesses the severity of physical, emotional, motivational, and cognitive depressive symptoms experienced in the past week [34]. The total score ranges from 0 to 63, with a score of 0–3 for each item. High scores indicate increased severity of depressive symptoms [34]. Meites et al. reported that individuals with a score of 21 and above had severe depressive symptoms [44]. The Turkish version of the BDS has shown acceptable measurement properties (Cronbach's α = 0.80, r = 0.50) [34].

Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index: This 18-item scale assesses sleep quality in the past month. The total score range is 0 to 21 and the higher scores indicate poorer sleep quality [45]. The Turkish version of the scale has shown acceptable measurement properties [35].

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using MedCalc version 19.2.6 (MedCalc Software Ltd., Ostend, Belgium), SPSS version 26.0, and AMOS version 23.0. Participant characteristics are presented as means/standard deviations (SD) and medians/ 25%-75% for numerical data, and counts/percentages for categorical data. The normal distribution of continuous variables was tested using visual (histogram and probability plots) and analytic methods (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test). Nonparametric tests (Spearman correlation coefficient and Mann–Whitney's U test) were used because the variables were not distributed normally. The level of statistical significance for all inferential analyses was set at p < 0.05.

Reliability

Test–retest reliability of the CFS and the subscales was examined using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and 95% confidence interval based on a single measure and a 2-way mixed effects model with absolute agreement. The ICC value of < 0.50 indicates poor reliability, 0.50–0.75 indicates moderate reliability, 0.75–0.90 indicates good reliability, and > 0.90 indicates excellent reliability [28]. Test–retest reliability for the items of the CFS was examined using weighted kappa (κ) and 95% confidence interval. The weighted kappa value ≤ 0.20 indicates slight reliability, 0.21- 0.40 indicates fair reliability, 0.41–0.60 indicates substantial reliability, and 0.81–1.00 indicates almost perfect reliability [46]. Internal consistency was determined with Cronbach's α coefficient and item-total score correlations. The level of the correlation coefficient for the item-total correlation was interpreted as negligible (< 0.20), low (0.20–0.40), moderate (0.40–0.70), high (0.70–0.90), and very high (> 0.90) [47, 48]. The Cronbach's α value of ≥ 0.70 is considered acceptable, 0.80 good, and < 0.60 poor or unacceptable [49].

Measurement error

Measurement error was calculated by the smallest detectable change with 95% confidence (SDC95) based on the standard error of measurement (SEM) using the test–retest reliability statistics with the following formula [50]:

$$\begin{gathered} {\text{SEM}} = {\text{SD}} \times \sqrt {\left( {1 - ICC} \right)} \quad ({\text{SD:}}\,{\text{standard}}\,{\text{deviation}}\,{\text{of}}\,{\text{test}}\,{\text{and}}\,{\text{retest}}\,{\text{data}}) \hfill \\ {\text{SDC}}_{95} = {\text{SEM}} \times 1.96 \times \surd 2 \hfill \\ \end{gathered}$$

Criterion validity

Predictive validity was measured using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and the area under the ROC curve (AUC). Participants were divided into two groups using the CIS cut-off score to determine whether the CFS discriminated between non-fatigued (group-non-fatigued) and fatigued (group-fatigued) participants [42]. An AUC value of 0.50 represents non-sensitivity, while a value of 1.00 represents perfect sensitivity and specificity [27]. The AUC value of at least 0.70 is recommended to show adequate validity of a scale [27]. The appropriate cut-off value of the CFS was determined through the Youden index (J) method (J = sensitivity + specificity − 1) [51].

Construct validity

Factor analysis and hypothesis testing were used to assess construct validity.

Factor Analysis: The construct validity of the CFS was assessed with exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. First, exploratory factor analysis was conducted because the CFS was translated into a new language and tested on a new population in which the factor structure of the scale had not yet been tested [52]. A confirmatory factor analysis was then conducted to verify the factor structure identified in the exploratory factor analysis [52].

The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (the value must be greater than 0.50) and Bartlett's test for sphericity (p value must be less than 0.05) were performed to determine whether the data and sample were suitable for exploratory factor analysis [53]. The analysis was performed using principal component analysis with varimax rotation [52] since varimax rotation was preferred over oblimin rotation in previous studies [11, 12, 39]. Factors were selected based on eigenvalues greater than one [54]. Factor loadings were considered meaningful if they were greater than 0.40, and it was accepted that factors should explain at least 50% of the total variance [26]. After the exploratory factor analysis, we hypothesized that the second-order 2-factor structure was appropriate for validating the dimensional structure of the scale. Then, the hypothesized factor structure was tested with the confirmatory factor analysis. The second-order 2-factor structure model was evaluated using the maximum likelihood method. Model fit was examined using the criteria of the following goodness-of-fit indices: (1) chi-square/degree of freedom ratio (CMIN/df) of ≤ 5.0, (2) significant chi-square result (p < 0.05), (3) comparative fit index (CFI) of ≥ 0.95, (4) standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) of ≤ 0.08, (5) non-normed fit index (NNFI) of ≥ 0.90, (6) goodness-of-fit index (GFI) of ≥ 0.90, and (7) root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) of ≤ 0.08 [26, 55,56,57]. A model modification was performed based on the modification index with respect to the standardized expected parameter change [58].

Hypothesis Testing:

Hypothesis testing examined convergent and known-group validity by testing a total of 14 predefined hypotheses. The hypotheses were defined before data collection to prevent statistical bias in the evaluation of the results of the hypotheses. Rejection of less than 25% of hypotheses indicates good construct validity [27].

Convergent validity was assessed using 11 predefined hypotheses (Table 6) that examined the relationship between the CFS and other measurement instruments (CIS, VAS, NHP, BDS, PSQI) using Spearman correlation coefficient (r). The level of correlation coefficients was interpreted as negligible (< 0.20), low (0.20–0.40), moderate (0.40–0.70), high (0.70–0.90), and very high correlation (> 0.90) [47, 48]. The hypotheses were based on knowledge from research literature [13, 14, 38, 41, 43, 59]. These measures were chosen because the relationships between the CFS and the scales have been shown in the literature.

Known-group validity of the CFS was determined using 3 predefined hypotheses designed to investigate whether the scale could differentiate fatigue levels between male and female groups. Females are expected to have higher levels of fatigue based on research literature [15, 60, 61]. The known group validity was assessed using Mann–Whitney's U test. The predefined hypotheses were as follows:

  • H1: The female group has significantly higher CFS scores than the male group.

  • H2: The female group has significantly higher CFS-PF scores than the male group.

  • H3: The female group has significantly higher CFS-MF scores than the male group.

Results

Cross-cultural validity

The researchers and translators did not encounter any problems during the translation process. The expert committee reached a consensus and confirmed the items as adequate in accordance with the following equivalences: semantic, idiomatic, experiential, and conceptual.

Characteristics of the participants and normative data

Sociodemographic data and the results of outcome measures are shown in Table 1. The prevalence of fatigue was found 27.7% with a cut-off score of 4 points (bi-modal scoring) and 39.5% with a cut-off score of 12 points (Likert scoring). The mean (SD) CFS score was 12.2 (4.8) and 9.4 (4.6) for female and male participants, respectively. Female participants had higher scores than male participants obviously. There were no marked changes in values with increasing age. Normative data for the CFS and its subscales by sex and age are presented in Table 2.

Table 1 Sociodemographic and outcomes data of the participants
Full size table
Table 2 Normative data of the CFS by age and gender
Full size table

Reliability

Test–retest analysis was performed with 161 healthy young adults. Participants' demographic and socioeconomic characteristics were similar in the test and retest groups. The distribution of demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of participants is shown in Table 1. Test–retest reliability analysis revealed that the CFS-PF had good reliability, the CFS-MF had moderate reliability, and the CFS had good reliability. The ICC values with 95% confidence intervals were 0.76 (0.67–0.82), 0.67 (0.55–0.76), and 0.76 (0.68–0.83) for the CFS-PF, the CFS-MF, and the CFS, respectively. Item 2 and item 7 had the lowest weighted kappa value, while item 6 had the highest value. The results of the test–retest analysis are shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Test–retest reliability and internal consistency of the Chalder Fatigue Scale
Full size table

The CFS-PF had good internal consistency, the CFS-MF had acceptable internal consistency, and the CFS had good internal consistency. The Cronbach's α-values were 0.862, 0.704, and 0.863 for the CFS-PF, the CFS-MF, and the CFS, respectively. Item-total correlations ranged from 0.37 to 0.70, and Cronbach's α values ranged from 0.840 to 0.863 when an item was deleted. Deletion of the items did not increase Cronbach's alpha of the scale; therefore, no item was omitted. The reliability analyses of the CFS are shown in Table 3.

Measurement error

The SEM and SDC95 values were 1.75 and 4.85 for the CFS-PF, 0.95 and 2.62 for the CFS-MF, and 2.30 and 6.38 for the CFS, respectively.

Criterion validity

Predictive validity: Group-non-fatigued (CIS < 76) included 242 participants and group-fatigued (CIS ≥ 76) included 234 participants. Group non-fatigued had a mean (SD) CFS score of 7.99 (3.62) and group-fatigued had a mean CFS score of 13.4 (4.52). A significant difference was found between group-non-fatigued and group-fatigued (p < 0.001). The AUC value was 0.817 (95% CI 0.779–0.851). The ROC curve is shown in Fig. 3. The optimal cut-off point for the CFS was set at ≥ 12 with a sensitivity of 65.8% (95% CI 59.3–71.9) and a specificity of 85.9% (95% CI 80.9–90.1). The criterion values of the ROC curve are shown in Table 4.

Fig. 3
figure 3

The receiver operating characteristic curve for the cut-off values of the Chalder Fatigue Scale (grey square: The optimal cut-off point was set at ≥ 12 with a sensitivity of 68.6% and a specificity of 82.5%)

Full size image
Table 4 Sensitivity and specificity values for different cut-off scores for the Chalder Fatigue Scale
Full size table

Construct validity

Factor analysis: The results of the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin and Bartlett's sphericity test indicated that the sample size was adequate (KMO = 0.838) and the items were appropriate (Bartlett's test of sphericity: χ2 = 2215.12, p < 0.001). Two factors were identified as a result of the analysis: Factor 1, physical fatigue (CFS-PF), and Factor 2, mental fatigue (CFS-MF) (Table 5). Seven items (items 1–7) were loaded onto Factor 1 (range 0.560–0.785), while four items (items 8–11) were loaded onto Factor 2 (range 0.430–0.867). Item 4 ("Do you have problems starting things?") and item 8 ("Do you have difficulty concentrating?") also loaded significantly on mental fatigue (0.432) and physical fatigue (0.477), respectively (Table 5). Using the same method, the unidimensionality of the subscales is shown in Table 5.

Table 5 Factor loadings for the items of the Chalder Fatigue Scale following principal component analysis with varimax rotation
Full size table

After the two unidimensional factors were identified with exploratory factor analysis, the hypothesized dimensional structure of the scale (the second-order 2-factor) was validated by confirmatory factor analysis. Modifications were made to optimize the dimensional structure of the scale according to the modification indices, which suggested adding covariance between error items 1–2; 6–7; and 9–10. After the modifications, the second-order 2-factor model (Fig. 4) showed acceptable goodness-of-fit indices (CMIN/df: 3.03, p < 0.001, CFI:0.96, SRMR:0.02, NNFI: 0.95, GFI: 0.96, RMSEA: 0.06).

Fig. 4
figure 4

The second-order 2-factor model of the Chalder Fatigue Scale with standardized parameter estimates

Full size image

Hypothesis testing: Thirteen out of 14 predefined hypotheses (92.9%) were confirmed for the CFS and the subscales. Table 6 shows the results of the convergent validity analysis according to predefined hypotheses. The CFS had a moderate positive correlation with CIS and VAS, and a low positive correlation with BDS, NHP, and PSQI. The CFS-PF had a moderate positive correlation with CIS-FS and VAS-PF while a low positive correlation with BDS. The CFS-MF had a moderate positive correlation with CIS-C while a low positive correlation with VAS-MF and BDS. Overall female participants (20–40 age) had higher fatigue in the CFS-PF (p < 0.001), in the CFS-MF (p < 0.001), and in the CFS (p < 0.001) (Table 2).

Table 6 The results of the convergent validity analysis according to predefined hypotheses
Full size table

Power analysis

A post-hoc power analysis was conducted using R version 4.2.1 (packages ‘semPower’ and ‘ICC.sample.size’, R Core Team, 2022) to determine the exact power of the present study. The post-hoc power for the confirmatory factor analysis (alpha = 0.05, degrees of freedom: 40, n = 476, null hypothesized RMSEA value of 0.08, and alternative hypothesized RMSEA value of 0.06) and the ICC (obtained ICC = 0.67, null hypothesized ICC = 0.50, number of ratings:2, alpha = 0.05, two-tailed, n = 161) were 80.32% and 91.1%, respectively. Results show that the achieved power was sufficient to draw valid and reliable conclusions based on obtained data.

Discussion

Fatigue is a worldwide problem that significantly affects an individual's physical, cognitive, emotional, or social abilities. In this study, the cross-cultural adaptation of the CFS into Turkish was conducted and its psychometric properties were investigated in healthy adults. The results of the study show that the Turkish CFS has a 2-factor structure and the scale and its subscales have strong measurement properties that make it a reliable and valid instrument for research and practice. The present study also established normative data of the CFS for healthy young adults by sex and age to determine the expected prevalence and comorbidity in a patient population.

Culture may have an impact on fatigue through differences in culture-specific lifestyle and norms of illness behavior [62, 63]. The prevalence of fatigue in Lausanne (Switzerland) middle-aged population (age range 45–86 years) was reported to be 22.1% as measured by the Fatigue Severity Scale at a score of ≥ 4 points [64], whereas Lerdal et al., reported 46.7% in the Norwegian population aged 19–82 years with the same outcome measure [65]. The increased prevalence was explained by the younger study population. In a study conducted among general practice registered individuals aged 18–45 years, a prevalence of fatigue of 38% was reported using the CFS [61]. In men, the mean fatigue score was 24.1 (95% CI 24–24.2) and in women, 25.2 (95% CI 25.1–25.3), increasing slightly with age [61]. However, Loge et al. reported a lower prevalence of 22% in the general population aged 19–80 years as measured by CFS (bi-modal scores of ≥ 4 points) with lower scores in both genders [15]. Female participants had the CFS scores of 12.3 and 12.5, and male participants had the scores of 11.1 and 11.5 at ages < 29 and 30–39, respectively. In the present study, the prevalence of fatigue was 27.7% at a cut-off score of 4 points (bi-modal scoring) and 39.5% at a cut-off score of 12 points (Likert scoring). The mean CFS scores for female participants were 12.3 and 12, and for male participants were 9.5 and 9.3 at similar age groups. Male participants had relatively lower CFS scores in Turkish adults compared with the Norwegian population [15]. Female participants had significantly higher scores than male participants in both studies. Loge et. al. reported positive correlations with age in both genders with the highest scores occurring in individuals aged 60 years or older [15]. In addition, recent studies have shown an increased prevalence of fatigue (46–52%) measured with CFS during the COVID-19 pandemic in different countries in population-based cohorts [7, 66]. The use of such instruments is necessary to compare with the norms of the general population to facilitate the interpretation of fatigue scores. Further studies are needed to establish a normative database for different age groups in the clinical and healthy Turkish population.

Test–retest reliability is a measure of reliability determined by administering the same test twice over a period of time. Test–retest reliability of the CFS was examined in the Japanese version, which was administered to 52 healthy children aged 11–13 years. The reliability of the scale was found to be moderate (ICC = 0.55) [16]. In the Turkish CFS, the ICC values with 95% confidence intervals were 0.76 (0.67–0.82), 0.67 (0.55–0.76), and 0.76 (0.68–0.83) for the CFS-PF, the CFS-MF, and the CFS, respectively. The weighted kappa values of the items ranged from 0.21 to 0.45, with the item 2 and the item 7 having the lowest weighted kappa value and the item 6 having the highest weighted kappa value. The overall scale and its subscales proved to be reliable in this study. Previous studies have not considered the test–retest reliability of the CFS in adults; hence the results of this study may add value to the research literature.

The internal consistency of a scale can be assessed by the analysis of the item-total score correlation and Cronbach's α. The item-total score correlation tests the homogeneity of a scale. The CFS is found to have low to moderate item-total correlations in the present study (0.36 < r < 0.71). However, compared to our study, the Norwegian version of the scale showed lower item-total correlations (0.11 < r < 0.66) [15]. Another indicator of the internal consistency of a scale is Cronbach's α coefficient. In the original study, the CFS-PF, the CFS-MF, and the CFS were found to have good internal consistency among individuals registered in general practice (Cronbach's α = 0.86, 0.82, and 0.89, respectively) [12]. The other versions of the scale also showed acceptable to good internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.70–0.89) [11,12,13, 36]. Consistent with previous studies, the Turkish CFS showed acceptable to good internal consistency in adults (Cronbach's α = 0.862, 0.704, and 0.863, respectively). Additionally, the measurement error of the scale was further analyzed. Minimal clinical significance for the overall CFS score was reported to be ≥ 9 points in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome [67]. In the present study, the measurement error was found to be 7 (6.38) points in healthy adults.

Criterion validity compares the responses of a new measurement with those of other, better-established instruments (concurrent validity) or a future standard (predictive validity). The predictive validity of the original CFS was examined using ROC analysis and showed good performance in distinguishing patients with chronic fatigue syndrome from the general population [12]. A score of 29 points and above was established as the cut-off value for chronic fatigue syndrome [12]. Similarly, in the present study, a ROC curve analysis was used to evaluate the ability of the scale to discriminate between non-fatigued and fatigued healthy individuals. The CFS cut-off value was found to be ≥ 12 points, which demonstrated a sensitivity of 65.8% and a specificity of 85.9%. The ROC curve analysis showed acceptable accuracy.

Exploratory factor analysis revealed that the scale consists of two factors including physical and mental fatigue in the general population [11, 12, 15], in primary care patients [36], and fatigued patients [37]. Similar to the aforementioned studies, in this study, two factors were extracted for healthy adults, including physical fatigue and mental fatigue. The scale was found to have clear item loading for both fatigue subscales. The first factor, which was labeled "physical fatigue," primarily included physical exhaustion related to feeling tired. The second factor, which was labeled "mental fatigue," included items primarily questioning the person's cognitive activity. Furthermore, consistent with the literature [11, 12, 36, 37], item 4 loaded slightly but significantly on the mental fatigue factor and item 8 loaded slightly but significantly on the physical fatigue factor. These results suggest that slight changes to these items may contribute to the factor structure of the scale. Therefore, we suggest revising item 4 as follows: "Do you have difficulty starting something physical?" to emphasize the "physical" aspect of fatigue and item 8 as follows: " Do you have difficulty focusing your attention?” to emphasize the "mental" aspect.

In this study, the 2-factor model for healthy young adults identified by exploratory factor analysis was also demonstrated by confirmatory factor analysis. In line with the present study, in the general Chinese population [13] and university students [38], confirmatory factor analysis of the CFS revealed a two-factor structure identified by exploratory factor analysis. However, in the study by Fong et al. three factors were extracted, including physical fatigue (items 1–3), low energy (items 4–7), and mental fatigue (items 8–11) in the Chinese general population, using exploratory structural equation modeling [59]. Similarly, a 3-factor structure was found in university students in the Korean version of the scale [14]. Different study populations and different analysis methods may explain the differences in the observed structure of CFS between studies.

Regarding convergent validity, the predefined hypotheses were sufficiently confirmed by the study. In the Chinese version, the CFS was found to be moderately correlated with anxiety, depression (r = 0.54–0.68), and quality of life (r = 0.37–0.40) [13]. A moderate correlation was also found with depression, sleep, and quality of life in the Korean (r = 0.52–0.58) and Polish (r = 0.48–0.55) versions, respectively [14, 38]. Fong et al., however, found a low correlation with sleep quality (r = 0.21–0.30) and quality of life (r = 0.21–0.42) and a moderate correlation with depression (r = 0.32–0.46) [59]. In the present study, the CFS had a low correlation with quality of life (r = 0.30), depression (r = 0.31), and sleep quality (r = 0.31). The CFS-PF had a moderate positive correlation with the CIS-FS (r = 0.55) and VAS-PF (r = 0.46), and the CFS-MF had a moderate positive correlation with the CIS-C (r = 0.41) and a low positive correlation with VAS-MF (r = 0.21). Similarly, in the study by Worm-Smeitin, a moderate correlation between CFS-PF and CIS-FS (r = 0.439) and between CFS-MF and CIS-C (r = 0.506) was demonstrated [41]. Consequently, the CFS and its subscales appear to have good convergent validity. In addition, the known group validity analysis showed that the scale could determine differences between two independent groups. The severity of fatigue was found to be greater in women than in men, which is consistent with previous studies [15, 60, 61].

The study has some limitations that can be considered as recommendations for future research. Our respondents were selected from the community using a suboptimal sampling method (snowball sampling), which may limit the generalizability of the present results. In addition, the psychometric properties of the scale should be examined in clinical groups. Because different clinical groups may answer the questions differently, measurement invariance could be investigated in future studies.

Conclusion

Fatigue is an important indicator of overall health in a variety of populations. In healthy individuals, fatigue negatively affects quality of life, sleep quality, and emotional well-being. Measurement of fatigue should be complementary to clinical assessments in order to select appropriate treatment options, and population-based normative data are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of these strategies. The results showed that the scale has good psychometric properties. The CFS seems to be a promising instrument to be used in different study populations for the assessment and management of fatigue.

Availability of data and materials

All data and materials support our claims and comply with field standards.

Abbreviations

CFS:

Chalder Fatigue Scale

COSMIN:

COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments

CFS-T:

Chalder Fatigue Scale-Turkish

pCFS-T:

Prefinal Turkish version of the Chalder Fatigue Scale

BDS:

Beck Depression Scale

NHP:

Nottingham Health Profile

SPSS:

Statistical Package for Social Sciences

CIS:

Checklist Individual Strength

VAS:

Visual Analogue Scale

PSQI:

Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index

ROC:

Receiver operating characteristic

AUC:

Area under the ROC curve

ICC:

Intraclass correlation coefficient

SDC95 :

Smallest detectable change with 95% confidence

SEM:

Standard error of measurement

95% CI:

95% Confidence interval

References

  1. Zwarts MJ, Bleijenberg G, van Engelen BG. Clinical neurophysiology of fatigue. Clin Neurophysiol. 2008;119(1):2–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2007.09.126.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Azzolino D, Cesari M. Fatigue in the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet Healthy Longev. 2022;3(3):e128–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2666-7568(22)00029-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Reynolds KJ, Vernon SD, Bouchery E, Reeves WC. The economic impact of chronic fatigue syndrome. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2004;2(1):4. https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-7547-2-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Jackson C. The Chalder Fatigue Scale (CFQ 11). Occup Med (Lond). 2015;65(1):86. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqu168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Peng R, Zhou WS, Zhou DX, Chu MY, Ling L. The mediating role of fatigue between mental health and its associated factors: evidence from Chinese healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Front Psychiatry. 2021;12:924. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.665992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Alqahtani JS, AlRabeeah SM, Aldhahir AM, Siraj R, Aldabayan YS, Alghamdi SM, Alqahtani AS, Alsaif SS, Naser AY, Alwafi H. Sleep quality, insomnia, anxiety, fatigue, stress, memory and active coping during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(9):4940. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19094940.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Stavem K, Ghanima W, Olsen MK, Gilboe HM, Einvik G. Prevalence and determinants of fatigue after COVID-19 in non-hospitalized subjects: a population-based study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18042030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Liang L, Yang B, Jiang N, Fu W, He X, Zhou Y, Ma WL, Wang X. Three-month follow-up study of survivors of coronavirus disease 2019 after discharge. J Korean Med Sci. 2020;35(47):e418. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e418.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Carfi A, Bernabei R, Landi F, Gemelli Against C-P-ACSG. Persistent symptoms in patients after acute COVID-19. JAMA. 2020;324(6):603–5. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.12603.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Dittner AJ, Wessely SC, Brown RG. The assessment of fatigue: a practical guide for clinicians and researchers. J Psychosom Res. 2004;56(2):157–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3999(03)00371-4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Chalder T, Berelowitz G, Pawlikowska T, Watts L, Wessely S, Wright D, Wallace EP. Development of a fatigue scale. J Psychosom Res. 1993;37(2):147–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3999(93)90081-p.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Cella M, Chalder T. Measuring fatigue in clinical and community settings. J Psychosom Res. 2010;69(1):17–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2009.10.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Wong WS, Fielding R. Construct validity of the Chinese version of the Chalder Fatigue Scale in a Chinese community sample. J Psychosom Res. 2010;68(1):89–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2009.05.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ha H, Jeong D, Hahm BJ, Shim EJ. Cross-cultural validation of the Korean version of the chalder fatigue scale. Int J Behav Med. 2018;25(3):351–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-017-9701-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Loge JH, Ekeberg O, Kaasa S. Fatigue in the general Norwegian population: normative data and associations. J Psychosom Res. 1998;45(1):53–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3999(97)00291-2.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Tanaka M, Fukuda S, Mizuno K, Imai-Matsumura K, Jodoi T, Kawatani J, Takano M, Miike T, Tomoda A, Watanabe Y. Reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the Chalder Fatigue Scale among youth in Japan. Psychol Rep. 2008;103(3):682–90. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.103.3.682-690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chilcot J, Norton S, Kelly ME, Moss-Morris R. The Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire is a valid and reliable measure of perceived fatigue severity in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2016;22(5):677–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458515598019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. De Vries J, Michielsen HJ, Van Heck GL. Assessment of fatigue among working people: a comparison of six questionnaires. Occup Environ Med. 2003;60(Suppl 1):i10-15. https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.60.suppl_1.i10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Aaronson LS, Pallikkathayil L, Crighton F. A qualitative investigation of fatigue among healthy working adults. West J Nurs Res. 2003;25(4):419–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945903025004007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Corwin EJ, Klein LC, Rickelman K. Predictors of fatigue in healthy young adults: moderating effects of cigarette smoking and gender. Biol Res Nurs. 2002;3(4):222–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/109980040200300407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Engberg I, Segerstedt J, Waller G, Wennberg P, Eliasson M. Fatigue in the general population- associations to age, sex, socioeconomic status, physical activity, sitting time and self-rated health: the northern Sweden MONICA study 2014. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):654. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4623-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gledhill, J. A qualitative study of the characteristics and representation of fatigue in a French speaking population of cancer patients and healthy subjects. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2005;9(4):294–312; discussion 313–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2004.11.002

  23. Chen MK. The epidemiology of self-perceived fatigue among adults. Prevent Med. 1986;15(1):74–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/0091-7435(86)90037-X.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(24):3186–91. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(4):539–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Floyd FJ, Widaman KF. Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychol Assess. 1995;7(3):286–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Wood C, Magnello ME. Diurnal changes in perceptions of energy and mood. J R Soc Med. 1992;85(4):191–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. De Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL. Measurement in medicine: a practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  31. Ergin G, Yildirim Y. A validity and reliability study of the Turkish Checklist Individual Strength (CIS) questionnaire in musculoskeletal physical therapy patients. Physiother Theory Pract. 2012;28(8):624–32. https://doi.org/10.3109/09593985.2011.654321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hewlett S, Dures E, Almeida C. Measures of fatigue: Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Multi-Dimensional Questionnaire (BRAF MDQ), Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Numerical Rating Scales (BRAF NRS) for severity, effect, and coping, Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire (CFQ), Checklist Individual Strength (CIS20R and CIS8R), Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), Functional Assessment Chronic Illness Therapy (Fatigue) (FACIT-F), Multi-Dimensional Assessment of Fatigue (MAF), Multi-Dimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI), Pediatric Quality Of Life (PedsQL) Multi-Dimensional Fatigue Scale, Profile of Fatigue (ProF), Short Form 36 Vitality Subscale (SF-36 VT), and Visual Analog Scales (VAS). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken), 2011;63 Suppl 11(S11), S263–286. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.20579

  33. Kücükdeveci AA, McKenna SP, Kutlay S, Gürsel Y, Whalley D, Arasil T. The development and psychometric assessment of the Turkish version of the Nottingham Health Profile. Int J Rehabil Res. 2000;23(1):31–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hisli N. A reliability and validity study of Beck Depression Inventory in a university student sample. J Psychol. 1989;7:3–13.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Agargun MY. Pittsburgh uyku kalitesi indeksinin gecerligi ve guvenirligi. Turk Psikiyatri Dergisi. 1996;7:107–15.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Cho HJ, Costa E, Menezes PR, Chalder T, Bhugra D, Wessely S. Cross-cultural validation of the Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire in Brazilian primary care. J Psychosom Res. 2007;62(3):301–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2006.10.018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Worm M, Nikolaus S, Goldsmith K, Wiborg J, Ali S, Knoop H, Chalder T (2016) Cognitive behaviour therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome: differences in treatment outcome between a tertiary treatment centre in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, vol 87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2016.06.006

  38. Zdun-Ryżewska A, Basiński K, Michalik A. A confirmatory factor analysis for an adapted and validated Polish version of the Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2020;33(1):67–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Morriss RK, Wearden AJ, Mullis R. Exploring the validity of the Chalder Fatigue scale in chronic fatigue syndrome. J Psychosom Res. 1998;45(5):411–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3999(98)00022-1.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Picariello F, Moss-Morris R, Macdougall IC, Chilcot J. Measuring fatigue in haemodialysis patients: The factor structure of the Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire (CFQ). J Psychosom Res. 2016;84:81–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2016.03.124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Worm-Smeitink M, Gielissen M, Bloot L, van Laarhoven HWM, van Engelen BGM, van Riel P, Bleijenberg G, Nikolaus S, Knoop H. The assessment of fatigue: psychometric qualities and norms for the Checklist individual strength. J Psychosom Res. 2017;98:40–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2017.05.007.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Bultmann U, de Vries M, Beurskens AJ, Bleijenberg G, Vercoulen JH, Kant I. Measurement of prolonged fatigue in the working population: determination of a cutoff point for the checklist individual strength. J Occup Health Psychol. 2000;5(4):411–6. https://doi.org/10.1037//1076-8998.5.4.411.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Tench CM, McCurdie I, White PD, D’Cruz DP. The prevalence and associations of fatigue in systemic lupus erythematosus. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2000;39(11):1249–54. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/39.11.1249.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Meites K, Lovallo W, Pishkin V. A comparison of four scales for anxiety, depression, and neuroticism. J Clin Psychol. 1980;36(2):427–32.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Buysse DJ, Reynolds CF 3rd, Monk TH, Berman SR, Kupfer DJ. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index: a new instrument for psychiatric practice and research. Psychiatry Res. 1989;28(2):193–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-1781(89)90047-4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Williams F, Monge PR. Reasoning with statistics: how to read quantitative research. Cambridge: Harcourt College Publishers; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Connelly LM. Correlations. Medsurg Nurs. 2012;21(3):171–2.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistics notes: Cronbach’s alpha. BMJ. 1997;314(7080):572.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Stratford PW. Estimating the standard error of measurement from reliability studies. Physiother Can. 2004;56(1):27–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Kumar R, Indrayan A. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for medical researchers. Indian Pediatr. 2011;48(4):277–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13312-011-0055-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. De Vet HC, Ader HJ, Terwee CB, Pouwer F. Are factor analytical techniques used appropriately in the validation of health status questionnaires? A systematic review on the quality of factor analysis of the SF-36. Qual Life Res, 2005;14(5):1203–1218; dicussion 1219–1221, 1223–1204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-004-5742-3

  53. Kaiser HF, Rice J. Little jiffy, mark IV. Educ Psychol Measur. 1974;34(1):111–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Kaiser HF. The application of electronic-computers to factor-analysis. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960;20(1):141–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen M. Evaluating model fit: a synthesis of the structural equation modelling literature. In Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies. London, Academic Conferences and Publishing Limited; 2008. p. 195-200.

  56. Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model Multidiscipl J. 1999;6(1):1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Stevens JP. Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. London: Routledge; 2012.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  58. Kaplan D. Model modification in covariance structure analysis: application of the expected parameter change statistic. Multivariate Behav Res. 1989;24(3):285–305. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2403_2.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Fong TC, Chan JS, Chan CL, Ho RT, Ziea ET, Wong VC, Ng BF, Ng SM. Psychometric properties of the Chalder Fatigue Scale revisited: an exploratory structural equation modeling approach. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(9):2273–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-0944-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Bensing JM, Hulsman RL, Schreurs KM. Gender differences in fatigue: biopsychosocial factors relating to fatigue in men and women. Med Care. 1999;37(10):1078–83. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199910000-00011.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Pawlikowska T, Chalder T, Hirsch SR, Wallace P, Wright DJ, Wessely SC. Population based study of fatigue and psychological distress. BMJ. 1994;308(6931):763–6. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.308.6931.763.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Mechanic D. The concept of illness behaviour: culture, situation and personal predisposition. Psychol Med. 1986;16(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291700002476.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Abbey SE, Garfinkel PE. Neurasthenia and chronic fatigue syndrome: the role of culture in the making of a diagnosis. Am J Psychiatry. 1991;148(12):1638–46. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.148.12.1638.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Galland-Decker C, Marques-Vidal P, Vollenweider P. Prevalence and factors associated with fatigue in the Lausanne middle-aged population: a population-based, cross-sectional survey. BMJ Open. 2019;9(8):e027070. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Lerdal A, Wahl A, Rustoen T, Hanestad BR, Moum T. Fatigue in the general population: a translation and test of the psychometric properties of the Norwegian version of the fatigue severity scale. Scand J Public Health. 2005;33(2):123–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/14034940410028406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Townsend L, Dyer AH, Jones K, Dunne J, Mooney A, Gaffney F, O’Connor L, Leavy D, O’Brien K, Dowds J, Sugrue JA, Hopkins D, Martin-Loeches I, Ni Cheallaigh C, Nadarajan P, McLaughlin AM, Bourke NM, Bergin C, O’Farrelly C, Bannan C, Conlon N. Persistent fatigue following SARS-CoV-2 infection is common and independent of severity of initial infection. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(11):e0240784. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240784.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Cleare AJ, Heap E, Malhi GS, Wessely S, O’Keane V, Miell J. Low-dose hydrocortisone in chronic fatigue syndrome: a randomised crossover trial. Lancet. 1999;353(9151):455–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(98)04074-4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper is an extract from the Master of Science thesis of Rıdvan M. Adın. The part of the study was presented at the 2nd International Congress of Health Sciences and Life in Burdur, Turkey. We would like to thank Ece Adın and Şükrü Demircan for their contribution to the translation process, Halil İbrahim Çelik, Ph.D. for his contribution to the statistical analysis, and the participants who patiently filled out the research forms.

Funding

No funding was received for conducting this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey

    Rıdvan M. Adın, Ali Naim Ceren, Yeliz Salcı, Ayla Fil Balkan, Kadriye Armutlu & Çiğdem Ayhan Kuru

Authors
  1. Rıdvan M. Adın
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ali Naim Ceren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yeliz Salcı
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ayla Fil Balkan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kadriye Armutlu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Çiğdem Ayhan Kuru
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Conceptualization, formal analysis, investigation, methodology of the study and writing the original draft were performed by Rıdvan M. Adın. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Ali Naim Ceren, Ayla Fil Balkan and Yeliz Salcı. The supervision and provision of the research setting were performed by Kadriye Armutlu. Project administration, conceptualization, supervision, visualization, writing-review and editing of the study were performed by Çiğdem Ayhan Kuru. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rıdvan M. Adın.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The study was approved by the Non-interventional Clinical Research Ethics Committee of Hacettepe University (May 14, 2019, GO 19/512). All individuals provided written informed consent to participate in the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Adın, R.M., Ceren, A.N., Salcı, Y. et al. Dimensionality, psychometric properties, and population-based norms of the Turkish version of the Chalder Fatigue Scale among adults. Health Qual Life Outcomes 20, 161 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-022-02074-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-022-02074-x

Keywords

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

ISSN: 1477-7525

Contact us