CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 144Cancer survivorship and careFibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome ResearchPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Identifying Clinically Meaningful Fatigue with the Fatigue Symptom Inventory

Open access
Donovan, Kristine A., Jacobsen, Paul B., Small, Brent J., Munster, Pamela N., Andrykowski, Michael A.·2008·Journal of Pain and Symptom Management
DOI 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2007.11.013PMC PMC2590752
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The Fatigue Symptom Inventory has been used extensively to assess and measure fatigue in a number of clinical populations. The purpose of the present study was to further establish its utility by examining its operating characteristics and determining the optimal cutoff score for identifying clinically meaningful fatigue. The MOS 36-Item Short Form Vitality scale, a measure widely used to identify individuals with significant fatigue-related disability, was used to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the Fatigue Symptom Inventory. Results indicate that a score of 3 or greater on those items assessing fatigue in the past week is the optimal cutoff score for identifying clinically meaningful fatigue. Individuals who scored at or above the cutoff also reported significantly greater fatigue interference, more days of fatigue on average, and fatigue a greater proportion of each day in the past week. Findings suggest that the Fatigue Symptom Inventory can be used to discriminate effectively between individuals with and without clinically meaningful fatigue.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2007.11.013

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 33 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–144 of 144

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Donovan, K. A., Jacobsen, P. B., Small, B. J., Munster, P. N., & Andrykowski, M. A.
Affiliations
  • Moffitt Cancer Center (US)
  • University of South Florida (US)
  • University of Kentucky (US)
Corresponding author
Donovan, Kristine A.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-11
Volume
36
Issue
5
Pages
480-487
ISSN
0885-3924 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2007.11.013
PMC
PMC2590752
OpenAlex
W2169942357
Cited by
144
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 5
FWCI
1.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Pain and Symptom Management (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (R01 CA82822, R01CA082822)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
cut-off values, sensitivity and specificity, fatigue interference, fatigue measurement
MeSH terms
Fatigue, Female, Florida, Humans, Middle Aged, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Prevalence

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