Cited by 55Multiple Sclerosis Research StudiesPsychometric Methodologies and TestingHealth Education and Validation

Psychometric properties of the Fatigue Severity Scale: Rasch analyses of responses in a Norwegian and a Swedish MS cohort

Open access
Lerdal, A., Johansson, S., Kottorp, A., von Koch, L.·2010·Multiple Sclerosis Journal

Abstract

Background Rigorous testing of the original Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS-9) with modern psychometric methods is warranted. Objective To determine the psychometric properties of the FSS-9 in multiple sclerosis (MS): internal scale validity; person response validity; unidimensionality; uniform differential item functioning; temporal stability of response patterns; and ability to separate people into distinct groups of fatigue. Methods Rasch analyses were conducted on data from a Norwegian and a Swedish MS cohort followed for two years. Results Item estimations in the FSS-9 did not differ between sex or levels of education but between the cohorts with regard to disability, disease course and time for evaluation, however, items 1 and 2 demonstrated unacceptable high outfit mean-square values in both cohorts. In an FSS-7 item version, items 3 and 4 in the Norwegian and 4 in the Swedish cohort demonstrated unacceptable goodness of fit but high separation indexes. In the FSS-7, the first unidimensional factor explained 87.5% (Norwegian cohort) and 86.4% (Swedish cohort) of the total variation. Conclusions In MS, the FSS-7 demonstrates better psychometric properties than the FSS-9; items 1 and 2 neither empirically nor conceptually fit with the other seven items.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1352458510370792

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lerdal, A., Johansson, S., Kottorp, A., & von Koch, L.
Affiliations
  • Oslo University Hospital (NO)
  • Karolinska Institutet (SE)
  • Division of Neurology, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, Division of Occupational Therapy, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
Corresponding author
Lerdal, A.
Venue
Multiple Sclerosis Journal
Published
2010-06
Volume
16
Issue
6
Pages
733-741
ISSN
  • 1352-4585 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-0970
OpenAlex
W2145084282
Cited by
55
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4
FWCI
3.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Multiple Sclerosis Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zürcher Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften digital collection (Zurich University of Applied Sciences) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
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, psychometric properties, Rasch analysis, unidimensionality, differential item functioning, temporal stability, item fit
MeSH terms
Adult, Fatigue, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Multiple Sclerosis, Norway, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Severity of Illness Index, Sweden, 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