Rasch analysis of the Fatigue Severity Scale in multiple sclerosis
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The FSS is a validated 9-item measure; average scores of ≥4 are suggestive of fatigue.
“Fatigue severity was assessed with the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS)40, a validated 9-item measure; average scores of ≥4 are suggestive of fatigue40–44.”
From Ecological momentary assessment of pain, fatigue, depressive, and cognitive symptoms reveals significant daily variability in multiple sclerosis (2017) · cites this paper as [43]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kratz, A. L., Murphy, S. L., & Braley, T. J. (2017) · Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2017.07.002 · Cited by 109 · see citing works
- 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
- ORCID
- Venue
- Multiple Sclerosis Journal
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- 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