1. Sign our petition calling on Cochrane to withdraw their review of Exercise Therapy for CFS here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 8th April 2024 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

The Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory

Discussion in 'Subjective outcome measures (questionnaires)' started by Ravn, Mar 24, 2022.

  1. Ravn

    Ravn Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,059
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
    Posts have been copied from this thread about a study that used the MFI.

    The intro to the linked MFI questionnaire says
    Does anyone know what validation study they refer to? Because, applied to ME, some of the MFI questions are extremely open to different interpretations. Not to mention patronisingly phrased, e.g. what has 'feeling' to do with anything in for example "Physically, I feel only able to do a little"? This MFI, like most other questionnaires, should never have passed validation for ME.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 26, 2022
    petrichor and Snowdrop like this.
  2. Andy

    Andy Committee Member

    Messages:
    21,912
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    Well this paper is referenced at the bottom of the linked questionnaire, so presumably it is this one

    The multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) psychometric qualities of an instrument to assess fatigue

    Abstract
    The Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) is a 20-item self-report instrument designed to measure fatigue. It covers the following dimensions: General Fatigue, Physical Fatigue, Mental Fatigue, Reduced Motivation and Reduced Activity. This new instrument was tested for its psychometric properties in cancer patients receiving radiotherapy, patients with the chronic fatigue syndrome, psychology students, medical students, army recruits and junior physicians. We determined the dimensional structure using confirmatory factor analyses (LISREL's unweighted least squares method). The hypothesized five-factor model appeared to fit the data in all samples tested (AGFIs > 0.93). The instrument was found to have good internal consistency, with an average Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.84. Construct validity was established after comparisons between and within groups, assuming differences in fatigue based on differences in circumstances and/or activity level. Convergent validity was investigated by correlating the MFI-scales with a Visual Analogue Scale measuring fatigue (0.22 < r < 0.78). Results, by and large, support the validity of the MFI.

    Paywall, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/002239999400125O
     
    petrichor and shak8 like this.
  3. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    52,220
    Location:
    UK
    Here's a link to a short intro to the MFI scale. The scale itself is on the second page.
    https://www.med.upenn.edu/cbti/asse.../Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI).pdf

     
    petrichor and Lilas like this.
  4. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    52,220
    Location:
    UK
    petrichor likes this.
  5. Medfeb

    Medfeb Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    565
    This 2017 paper by Murdock et al evaluated the MFI-20 in ME and reported ceiling effects, and problems with validity and reliability. From the abstract:

    The general and physical fatigue subscales on Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory-20, as well as the role of physical health on the RAND SF-36, demonstrated questionable or unacceptable internal consistency and problematic ceiling effects.

    Significant ceiling effects and concerns with reliability and validity were observed among Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory-20 and RAND SF-36 subscales for ME/CFS patients.
     
  6. Lilas

    Lilas Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    364
    Location:
    Canada

Share This Page