Cross-cultural translation, validation, and responsiveness of the Pittsburgh Fatigability Scale - Italian version (PFS-I) in a mixed-sample of older adults.

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q2 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
Stefano Vercelli, Elisabetta Zampogna, Francesco Negrini, Chiara Pietraroia, Giuseppe D'Antona, Sonia Papa, Emiliano Soldini, Marco Barbero, Nancy W Glynn, Matteo Beretta-Piccoli
{"title":"Cross-cultural translation, validation, and responsiveness of the Pittsburgh Fatigability Scale - Italian version (PFS-I) in a mixed-sample of older adults.","authors":"Stefano Vercelli, Elisabetta Zampogna, Francesco Negrini, Chiara Pietraroia, Giuseppe D'Antona, Sonia Papa, Emiliano Soldini, Marco Barbero, Nancy W Glynn, Matteo Beretta-Piccoli","doi":"10.1186/s12877-024-05603-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Older adults experience fatigue which impacts health-related quality of life. The Pittsburgh Fatigability Scale (PFS) was specifically designed to assess perceived physical and mental fatigability in older adults. The aim of this study was to translate the PFS into Italian (PFS-I) and to investigate its psychometric properties.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The PFS-I was translated in accordance with international standards. The following properties were evaluated: structural validity, internal consistency, hypotheses testing for construct validity, test-retest reliability using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for responsiveness.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 87 older adults with cardiovascular/respiratory diseases (CVRD), 46 with Parkinson disease (PD), and 67 healthy controls (HC). The PFS-I Physical and Mental subscales scores were significantly different in these populations, with HC reporting the lowest fatigability. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis showed a two-factor structure for both subscales, with good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha: 0.86 and 0.89, respectively). The PFS-I Physical subscale showed weak goodness-of-fit of the confirmatory factor analysis models, whereas the PFS-I Mental subscale was deemed acceptable. Construct validity of the PFS-I was excellent with 75% (18 out of 24) of hypotheses accepted. Test-retest reliability was analyzed in a subset of 23 patients with CVRD and showed excellent results for both the PFS-I Physical and Mental subscales (ICC = 0.93 and 0.92, respectively). MCID ranged between 6 and 7 points for the Physical and 7-9 points for the Mental subscale.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The PFS-I is a valid, reliable, and responsive instrument to assess perceived fatigability for healthy older adults as well as those with CRVD and PD.</p>","PeriodicalId":9056,"journal":{"name":"BMC Geriatrics","volume":"24 1","pages":"1016"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Geriatrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-05603-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Older adults experience fatigue which impacts health-related quality of life. The Pittsburgh Fatigability Scale (PFS) was specifically designed to assess perceived physical and mental fatigability in older adults. The aim of this study was to translate the PFS into Italian (PFS-I) and to investigate its psychometric properties.

Methods: The PFS-I was translated in accordance with international standards. The following properties were evaluated: structural validity, internal consistency, hypotheses testing for construct validity, test-retest reliability using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for responsiveness.

Results: The study included 87 older adults with cardiovascular/respiratory diseases (CVRD), 46 with Parkinson disease (PD), and 67 healthy controls (HC). The PFS-I Physical and Mental subscales scores were significantly different in these populations, with HC reporting the lowest fatigability. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis showed a two-factor structure for both subscales, with good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha: 0.86 and 0.89, respectively). The PFS-I Physical subscale showed weak goodness-of-fit of the confirmatory factor analysis models, whereas the PFS-I Mental subscale was deemed acceptable. Construct validity of the PFS-I was excellent with 75% (18 out of 24) of hypotheses accepted. Test-retest reliability was analyzed in a subset of 23 patients with CVRD and showed excellent results for both the PFS-I Physical and Mental subscales (ICC = 0.93 and 0.92, respectively). MCID ranged between 6 and 7 points for the Physical and 7-9 points for the Mental subscale.

Conclusions: The PFS-I is a valid, reliable, and responsive instrument to assess perceived fatigability for healthy older adults as well as those with CRVD and PD.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Geriatrics
BMC Geriatrics GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY-
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
7.30%
发文量
873
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Geriatrics is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in all aspects of the health and healthcare of older people, including the effects of healthcare systems and policies. The journal also welcomes research focused on the aging process, including cellular, genetic, and physiological processes and cognitive modifications.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信