Why the study?
Fatigue is common in patients with coronary artery disease, but the multidimensional structure of the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory has not been consistent across studies.
The Lithuanian version of the modified 16-item Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory is a valid tool for assessing fatigue in CAD patients, though the reduced motivation subscale performs poorly.
MFI-20 multidimensional validity requires caution in CAD; leaves open CAD-specific factor structure for clinical use.
Background: Fatigue is a common distressing symptom in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). The Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) is used for measuring fatigue in various clinical settings. Nevertheless, its multidimensional structure has not been consistent across studies. Thus, we aimed to psychometrically evaluate the MFI in patients with CAD. Methods: In sum, 1162 CAD patients completed questionnaires assessing their subjective fatigue level (MFI-20), mental distress symptoms (HADS, STAI), and health-related quality of life (SF-36). Participants also completed exercise capacity (EC) testing. Results: Confirmatory factor analysis of the four-factor model, showed acceptable fit (CFI = 0.905; GFI = 0.895; NFI = 0.893, RMSEA = 0.077). After eliminating four items, confirmatory factor analysis testing showed improvement in the four-factor model of the MFI-16 (CFI = 0.910; GFI = 0.909; NFI = 0.898, RMSEA = 0.077). Internal consistency values were adequate for the total score and four MFI-16 subscales: General fatigue, physical fatigue, reduced activity, and mental fatigue with Cronbach’s α range: 0.60–0.82. The inadequate value (Cronbach’s α = 0.43) was received for the subscale of reduced motivation in both MFI-20 and MFI-16. Correlations between the MFI-16 and HADS, STAI, SF-36, and EC measures were statistically significant (all p’s < 0.001). Conclusions: The Lithuanian version of the modified MFI of 16 items showed good factorial structure and satisfactory psychometric characteristics, except for reduced motivation subscale.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gečaitė-Stončienė et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: