The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Fatigue among working people: validity of a questionnaire measure
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the validity of the checklist individual strength questionnaire (CIS) in the working population. This 20 item self reported questionnaire has often been used in patients with chronic fatigue. To date, no research has focused on the validity of the CIS in occupational groups. METHODS: To evaluate the discriminant validity the CIS was filled out by five groups of employees with expected differences in fatigue. The convergent validity was evaluated by comparing the results of the CIS with the results of three related measures: measured unidimensional fatigue, burnout, and need for recovery. RESULTS: The CIS was able to discriminate between fatigued and non-fatigued employees in occupational groups. The expected agreement between the results of the CIS and related measures was confirmed. CONCLUSIONS: The CIS seems to be an appropriate instrument for measuring fatigue in the working population.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Psychometric qualities of a brief self-rated fatigue measure
Michielsen, H. J., De Vries, J., & Van Heck, G. L. (2003) · Journal of Psychosomatic Research · doi:10.1016/s0022-3999(02)00392-6 · Cited by 860
Cognitive behaviour therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome: a multicentre randomised controlled trial
Prins, J. B., Bleijenberg, G., Bazelmans, E., Elving, L. D., de Boo, T. M., Severens, J. L., van der Wilt, G. J., Spinhoven, P., & van der Meer, J. W. (2001) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(00)04198-2 · Cited by 531
Self-citationGielissen, M. F. M., Verhagen, S., Witjes, F., & Bleijenberg, G. (2006) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2006.06.8270 · Cited by 349
Self-citationHallquist, M. N., Wright, A. G. C., & Molenaar, P. C. M. (2021) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1080/00273171.2019.1640103 · Cited by 292
de Croon, E. M., Sluiter, J. K., Blonk, R. W. B., Broersen, J. P. J., & Frings-Dresen, M. H. W. (2004) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.442 · Cited by 252
Metadata
- Authors
- Beurskens, A. J. H. M., Bültmann, U., Kant, I., Vercoulen, J. H. M. M., Bleijenberg, G., & Swaen, G. M. H.
- Venue
- Occupational and Environmental Medicine
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2000-05-01
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 353-357
- ISSN
- 0007-1072 (ISSN-L)
- 1351-0711
- 1470-7926
- OpenAlex
- W2060384003
- Cited by
- 525
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 18.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Fatigue among working people: validity of a questionnaire measure. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/oem.57.5.353
- The paper
- Beurskens, A. J. H. M., Bültmann, U., Kant, I., Vercoulen, J. H. M. M., Bleijenberg, G., & Swaen, G. M. H. (2000). Fatigue among working people: validity of a questionnaire measure. Occupational and Environmental Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.57.5.353
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
