Which fatigue scale should I use? A Rasch analysis of two fatigue scales in inflammatory conditions 2023 Bartholomew, Chalder et al

Discussion in 'Research methodology news and research' started by Andy, Dec 11, 2023.

  1. Andy

    Andy Committee Member

    Messages:
    23,034
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    Objectives
    This study aimed to assess the psychometric properties of two widely used fatigue scales in a sample of patients with inflammatory conditions.

    Methods
    Rasch analysis was used to examine scale reliability, item bias, unidimensionality and overall fit to the Rasch model. Sub-test methodology was utilised to attempt to improve model fit for the CFQ and BRAF-MDQ.

    Results
    Initial analysis displayed strong reliability (PSI=0.89 0.96), alongside a lack of item bias in both scales. However, evidence for unidimensionality was not found for either scale. Overall fit to the Rasch model was marginal for the CFQ, and misfitting for the BRAF-MDQ. Local dependency was observed, as well as significant item misfit for both scales. Sub-test modifications resulted in the best model fit for the BRAF-MDQ (χ2(16)=15.77, p=0.469) and the CFQ (χ2(25)=15.49, p=0.929). Modifications resulted in improved fit, reductions in measurement error, and the production of ordinal-to-interval conversion tables for both scales. Conversion tables apply the benefits of enhanced measurement accuracy, valid comparison of BRAF-MDQ and CFQ scores to other interval-level data, appropriate use in parametric statistics, and enhanced precision in clinical cut-off scores—without the need to change administration format.

    Conclusion
    The BRAF-MDQ and CFQ are valid, reliable tools for fatigue assessment. Psychometric indices and content factors suggest the CFQ is suited to measuring general fatigue, particularly when response burden is a concern, while the BRAF-MDQ should be used in clinical presentations where other symptoms are severe and the impact of fatigue on daily living, emotional, and social well-being is of interest.

    Open access, https://academic.oup.com/rheumatology/advance-article/doi/10.1093/rheumatology/kead667/7467076
     
    Peter Trewhitt and Trish like this.
  2. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    55,414
    Location:
    UK
    Amazing what rubbish gets produced in the name of science and statistical analysis.

    The conclusion that the CFQ is valid, reliable, and a suitable tool for measuring general fatigue is, we know, wrong. It's not 'measuring' anything, it's counting responses to random statements of variable relevance to patients. I have only read the abstract, but working backwards from their conclusions, if we know the conclusion is nonsense, then the reasoning that was done to reach that conclusion must be nonense.

    I wonder whether the researchers have actually listened to patients' and scientists' concerns about the ridiculous flaws in the CFQ.
     
  3. EzzieD

    EzzieD Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    611
    Location:
    UK
    Well, as Trudie Chalder was one of the authors of this piece, of course she would find her very own CFQ a valid and reliable tool. A remarkably flagrant case of marking one's own homework there!
     
    MEMarge, Sean, alktipping and 5 others like this.
  4. NelliePledge

    NelliePledge Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    14,850
    Location:
    UK West Midlands
    My one’s the bestest at doing measuring cos I say so ner ner ner :whistle:
     
    MEMarge, alktipping, Trish and 2 others like this.

Share This Page