Psychometric Evaluation of the Korean Version of the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue

3Citations
Citations of this article
6Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Background: The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue) instrument is a fatigue measure widely used on patients with cancer worldwide. The psychometric quality of the Korean version of the FACIT-Fatigue instrument has never been systematically evaluated. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the reliability and validity of the Korean version of the FACIT-Fatigue instrument. Methods: This study used data collected from 170 patients with cancer and 120 healthy individuals. Internal consistency reliability was analyzed using Cronbach's α and item–total correlation. Construct validity was analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis, and known-group validity was tested using t tests. Convergent validity was analyzed using Pearson's correlation with pain and functional limitations. Predictive validity was analyzed using receiver operating characteristic curves. Results: The Cronbach's α was .93 for the reliability evaluation, and the item–total correlation ranged from .27 to .84. In the construct validity evaluation, the bifactor model showed good fit (Q = 1.93, comparative fit index = .97, Tucker–Lewis index = .96, root mean square error of approximation = .05), indicating using the instrument's total score to be more appropriate than using the subscale scores (explained common variance = .76, ω = .95, ωH = .85, ωH/ω = .89). The group of patients with cancer showed significantly higher fatigue than the healthy subject group, showing known-group validity (t = −10.40, p < .05). Fatigue showed significant and strong correlations with functional limitations and pain (all ps

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Lee, W. G., & Kim, H. J. (2022). Psychometric Evaluation of the Korean Version of the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue. Journal of Nursing Research, 30(3), E206. https://doi.org/10.1097/jnr.0000000000000484

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free