Cited by 258Cancer survivorship and careCancer-related cognitive impairment studiesChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Measurement of fatigue in cancer patients: Further validation of the Fatigue Symptom Inventory

Hann, Danette M., Denniston, Maxine M., Baker, Frank·2000·Quality of Life Research

Abstract

Fatigue is one of the most common and debilitating symptoms experienced by cancer patients, yet until recent years it has received little systematic attention, due in part to the lack of adequate instruments to measure fatigue. The primary aim of this report is to further validate a recently developed measure of fatigue for use with cancer patients: the Fatigue Symptom Inventory (FSI). This 13-item self-report measure was designed to measure the intensity and duration of fatigue and its interference with quality of life. The FSI was originally validated in a sample of breast cancer patients and a sample of healthy individuals. In this study, the FSI was evaluated in an outpatient sample that included male and female cancer patients, as well as some older patients, with a variety of cancer diagnoses. A seven-item interference scale was found to have good internal consistency, with alpha coefficients above 0.90. Convergent validity was demonstrated via comparisons with an existing measure of fatigue. Construct validity was demonstrated via comparisons with measure of life satisfaction and depression as well as comparisons among subgroups of patients expected to differ in their experience of fatigue. Overall, the FSI was further established as a valid and reliable measure of fatigue in cancer patients. The potential application of this measure in psychosocial oncology research is discussed.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1023/a:1008900413113

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. McNair DM, Lorr M, Droppleman LF. The Manual for the Profile of Mood States. San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service, 1981.
  2. Nunnally JM, Bernstein IH. Psychometric Theory 3rd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Hann, D. M., Denniston, M. M., & Baker, F.
Affiliations
American Cancer Society (US)
Venue
Quality of Life Research
Published
2000-07
Volume
9
Issue
7
Pages
847-854
ISSN
  • 0962-9343 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2649
OpenAlex
W1548686894
Cited by
258
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 8
FWCI
0.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Quality of Life Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › 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, psychometric validation, construct validity, convergent validity, internal consistency, quality of life, depression, life satisfaction, psycho-oncology
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Fatigue, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results

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