Psychometric Properties of Three Instruments to Measure Fatigue With Myocardial Infarction

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of three questionnaires to measure fatigue with myocardial infarction. The Fatigue Symptom Inventory Interference Scale, Profile of Moods States Fatigue subscale (POMS-F), and Short Form 36 (SF-36) Vitality Scale were completed du...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Western journal of nursing research 2010-11, Vol.32 (7), p.967-983
Main Authors: Fink, Anne M., Eckhardt, Ann L., Fennessy, Michelle M., Jones, Jessica, Kruse, Donna, VanderZwan, Kathryn J., Ryan, Catherine J., Zerwic, Julie J.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Acute Disease
Affect
Aged
Cardiovascular diseases
Clinical significance
Emotions
Fatigue
Fatigue - etiology
Fatigue - psychology
Female
Functional impairment
Health risk assessment
Heart attacks
Hospitalization
Hospitals
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Moods
Myocardial infarction
Myocardial Infarction - complications
Myocardial Infarction - psychology
Nursing
Physical ability
Psychometric properties
Psychometrics - instrumentation
Psychometrics - standards
Quantitative psychology
Questionnaires
Risk factors
Surveys and Questionnaires - standards
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The purpose of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of three questionnaires to measure fatigue with myocardial infarction. The Fatigue Symptom Inventory Interference Scale, Profile of Moods States Fatigue subscale (POMS-F), and Short Form 36 (SF-36) Vitality Scale were completed during hospitalization (n = 116) and 30 days after hospital admission (n = 49). Moderate to strong correlations were found among each of these fatigue scales and between each fatigue scale and measures of other variables to include vigor, depressed mood, anxiety, and physical functioning. POMS-F scores decreased significantly at Time 2, but this decline in fatigue was not validated on the other fatigue scales. Patients’ Time 1 scores reflected significantly more fatigue compared to published scores for healthy adults. The ability to discriminate between groups suggests that the instruments may be useful for identifying patients with cardiovascular risk factors who report clinically significant fatigue.
ISSN:0193-9459
1552-8456
DOI:10.1177/0193945910371320