Cited by 381Multiple Sclerosis Research StudiesPsychometric Methodologies and TestingCancer survivorship and care

Evaluation of the modified fatigue impact scale in four different European countries

Kos, D, Kerckhofs, E, Carrea, I, Verza, R, Ramos, M, Jansa, J·2005·Multiple Sclerosis Journal

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the psychometric properties of the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS) in four different European countries. METHODS: Individuals with definite multiple sclerosis (MS) were selected from centres in Italy (n =50), Spain (n =30), Slovenia (n =50) and Belgium (n =51) and completed the MFIS and the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) twice (interval < or =3 days). RESULTS: In all four samples, the MFIS demonstrated a good reproducibility (intraclass correlation coefficient > or = 0.84), with no significant differences between countries (P =0.77). Moderate correlations were found between the MFIS and FSS. No significant correlations were found between the MFIS and age, gender, type of MS, duration of the disease or EDSS score. Factor analysis of all samples (n = 181) could not completely confirm the original assumptions concerning the physical, cognitive and psychosocial component The total score, the physical and the cognitive subscale of the scale were homogeneous (Cronbach's alpha 0.92, 0.88 and 0.92, respectively), but the psychosocial subscale had a Cronbach's alpha of 0.65. CONCLUSIONS: No cultural or linguistic differences were found in the psychometric properties of the Belgian, Italian, Slovenian or Spanish version of the MFIS. We recommend this scale for research purposes and in clinical practice. Due to the limited value of the psychosocial subscale, we recommend interpreting this subscale with caution.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1191/1352458505ms1117oa

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 18 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kos, D., Kerckhofs, E., Carrea, I., Verza, R., Ramos, M., & Jansa, J.
Affiliations
  • Vrije Universiteit Brussel (BE)
  • Associazione Italiana Sclerosi Multipla (IT)
  • Hospital de Dia de Esclerosi Multiple, C/Teodora Lamadrid 21=23, 08022 Barcelona, Spain
  • Department of Neurology, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Zaloska 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
Corresponding author
Kos, D
Venue
Multiple Sclerosis Journal
Published
2005-02
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
76-80
ISSN
  • 1352-4585 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-0970
OpenAlex
W2023604417
Cited by
381
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 9
FWCI
4.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Multiple Sclerosis Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion)
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
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
Keywords
Modified Fatigue Impact Scale, multiple sclerosis, fatigue, psychometric properties, cross-cultural validation, Fatigue Severity Scale, reliability statistics, factor structure, European patients
MeSH terms
Adult, Cross-Cultural Comparison, Disability Evaluation, Europe, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Fatigue, Female, Humans, Language, Male, Middle Aged, Multiple Sclerosis, Psychometrics, 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