This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) eLetters: Submit a response to this article Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services E-mail this article link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints/Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Shun, S.-C. Articles by Richardson, S. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Shun, S.-C. Articles by Richardson, S. J.

Symptom Management and Supportive Care

Assessing Responsiveness of Cancer-Related Fatigue Instruments: Distribution-Based and Individual Anchor-Based Methods

^aSchool of Nursing, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan; ^bCollege of Nursing, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA

Key Words. Fatigue • Individual difference • Instrument • Neoplasm • Sensitivity

Correspondence: Shiow-Ching Shun, R.N., Ph.D. School of Nursing, National Taiwan University, No. 1, Jen-Ai Rd. Sec. 1, Taipei 100, Taiwan, R. O. C. Telephone: 886-2-23123456, ext. 8434; Fax: 886-2-23219913; e-mail: scshun{at}ntu.edu.tw

Background. The aims of the study were to examine the responsiveness of Chinese versions of the Cancer Fatigue Scale (C-CFS), the Schwartz Cancer Fatigue Scale-revised (C-SCFS-r), and the Fatigue Symptom Inventory (C-FSI) based on effect sizes and patient perceptions of change.

Method. Convenience sampling was used to recruit subjects at a chemotherapy treatment center for outpatients in Taiwan. Data were collected twice: on the day cancer patients were receiving chemotherapy treatment (T1) and 2 days post-treatment (T2).

Results. Questionnaires were complete at T2 by 148 subjects (60.9%). The differences between T1 and T2 were statistically significant for all three scales. The effect sizes, ranging from a medium to a large change for the C-CFS, C-SCFS-r, and C-FSI were reported based on four groups (self-reported no increase, small increase, moderate increase, and large increase). Generalized estimating equations were used to compare the fatigue scores based on the four groups by controlling for the fatigue level at baseline and the time effect. The results indicate that the fatigue scores after 2 days of treatment in the three "change" groups were statistically significantly larger than in the "no increase" group. In addition, the pretreatment fatigue level in the "large increase" group was significantly higher than in the other three groups.

Conclusion. Results indicate that the three scales are sensitive to change over 2 days. However, the three scales may not effectively discriminate between a moderate and large change. Therefore, further testing on cancer patients with severe fatigue to examine responsiveness to detect minimal important differences for the three scales is recommended.

Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest is found at the end of this article.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S.-C. Shun, Y.-H. Lai, and F.-H. Hsiao Patient-Related Barriers to Fatigue Communication in Cancer Patients Receiving Active Treatment Oncologist, September 1, 2009; 14(9): 936 - 943. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]