Cited by 98Cancer survivorship and careCancer-related cognitive impairment studiesChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life

Comparison of SF-36 vitality scale and Fatigue Symptom Inventory in assessing cancer-related fatigue

Brown, Linda F., Kroenke, Kurt, Theobald, Dale E., Wu, Jingwei·2011·Supportive Care in Cancer

Abstract

Purpose Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is an important symptom in clinical practice and research. The best way to measure it, however, remains unsettled. The SF-36 vitality scale, a general measure of energy/fatigue, is a frequently cited measure. With only four items, however, its ability to adequately represent multiple CRF facets has been questioned. The 13-item Fatigue Symptom Inventory (FSI) was developed to assess multidimensional aspects of CRF. Our objectives were to assess the convergent validity and to compare the sensitivity to change of the two scales.Methods We administered both scales at 1 month (n = 68) and 6 months (n = 96) to a subset of heterogeneous patients receiving treatment in 16 cancer centers who were enrolled in a clinical trial of pain and depression. Distributions of standardized response means (SRMs) were compared to assess sensitivity to change. Results of both scales were compared to scores on a single fatigue item from the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ).Results Mean scores for both the FSI and the vitality scale demonstrated clinically significant fatigue in the sample. The vitality scale was strongly correlated with all three FSI scales (r = -0.68 to -0.77). The vitality and FSI scales also correlated strongly with the PHQ fatigue item. Moreover, distributions of SRMs for both scales were approximately normal.Conclusions Both the FSI and the vitality scale are supported as valid measures of CRF. Both demonstrated sensitivity to change across a range of effect sizes. The vitality scale may be an excellent choice when brevity is paramount; the FSI may be more appropriate when tapping specific dimensions is warranted.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00520-011-1148-2

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brown, L. F., Kroenke, K., Theobald, D. E., & Wu, J.
Affiliations
  • Regenstrief Institute (US)
  • Community Health Network (US)
Corresponding author
Brown, Linda F.
Venue
Supportive Care in Cancer
Published
2011-04-10
Volume
19
Issue
8
Pages
1255-1259
ISSN
  • 0941-4355 (ISSN-L)
  • 1433-7339
OpenAlex
W2089999284
Cited by
98
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
FWCI
1.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Supportive Care in Cancer (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (2r25ca117865-06)
  • National Cancer Institute (R25 – CA117865, R25 CA 117865-01A11, R01CA115369)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Cancer-related cognitive impairment studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Childhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Keywords
cancer-related fatigue, fatigue measurement, convergent validity, sensitivity to change, standardized response mean, Patient Health Questionnaire, multidimensional fatigue, cancer patients
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Fatigue, Health Status Indicators, Health Surveys, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Neoplasms, Psychometrics, Statistics as Topic, Stress, Psychological

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review