Cited by 114Multiple Sclerosis Research StudiesPsychometric Methodologies and TestingHealth Education and Validation

Rasch analysis of the Fatigue Severity Scale in multiple sclerosis

Mills, RJ, Young, CA, Nicholas, RS, Pallant, JF, Tennant, A·2009·Multiple Sclerosis Journal

Abstract

Background The 9-item, Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS-9) has been widely used as an outcome measure in multiple sclerosis (MS). Modern psychometric theory, in the form of the Rasch measurement model, has set new quality standards for outcome measures by appraising a broad range of measurement properties in addition to the reliability and validity emphasized by classical test theory. Objective To appraise the FSS-9 by application of the Rasch model. Method The FSS-9 was posted to patients with clinically definite MS in two centers in the United Kingdom. Analysis was based on 416 records (55% response). Results The 9-item scale failed to meet Rasch model expectations. Two items had poor discrimination across the scale, and two further items showed bias for factors such as age. Removal of these four items provided a valid 5-item Rasch scale that satisfied strict tests of unidimensionality. Conclusion Summating the nine items of the FSS-9 is invalid. Five items (FSS-5), which seem to be measuring the social impact of fatigue, provide a strictly unidimensional Rasch scale. Studies using the FSS-9 may need to be re-evaluated using the FSS-5, preferably using the Rasch transformed scores.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1352458508096215

Cites

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mills, R., Young, C., Nicholas, R., Pallant, J., & Tennant, A.
Affiliations
  • Walton Centre (GB)
  • Department of Neurology, West London Neurosciences Centre, Charing Cross Hospital, London, UK
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • Leeds General Infirmary (GB)
Corresponding author
Mills, RJ
Venue
Multiple Sclerosis Journal
Published
2009-01
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
81-87
ISSN
  • 1352-4585 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-0970
OpenAlex
W2015394601
Cited by
114
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 6
FWCI
5.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Multiple Sclerosis Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Multiple Sclerosis Research Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
Fatigue Severity Scale, multiple sclerosis, fatigue, Rasch analysis, psychometric properties, unidimensionality, item discrimination, differential item functioning, outcome measures
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Disability Evaluation, Fatigue, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, Multiple Sclerosis, Psychometrics, Severity of Illness Index, Reproducibility of Results, Young Adult

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