Author
Listed:
- Meng-Juan Jing
(Institute of Public Health, School of Nursing, Henan University, Kaifeng 475000, China)
- Wei-Quan Lin
(Department of Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou 510182, China)
- Qiang Wang
(Institute of Public Health, School of Nursing, Henan University, Kaifeng 475000, China)
- Jia-Ji Wang
(Department of Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou 510182, China)
- Jie Tang
(Department of Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou 510182, China)
- En-She Jiang
(Institute of Public Health, School of Nursing, Henan University, Kaifeng 475000, China)
- Yi-Xiong Lei
(Department of Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou 510182, China)
- Pei-Xi Wang
(Institute of Public Health, School of Nursing, Henan University, Kaifeng 475000, China
Department of Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou 510182, China)
Abstract
The 14-item Chalder Fatigue Scale (CFS) is widely used, while the 11-item version is seldom to be found in current research in mainland China. The objectives of the present study is to compare the reliability and construct validity between these two versions and to confirm which may be better for the mainland Chinese setting. Based on a cross-sectional health survey with a constructive questionnaire, 1887 individuals aged 18 years or above were selected. Socio-demographic, health-related, gynecological data were collected, and 11-item and 14-item Chalder Fatigue Scale (CFS) were used to assess fatigue. Confirmatory factor analysis and exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) were performed to test the fit of models of the two versions. Confirmatory factor analysis of the two versions of CFS did not support the two-factor theorized models. In addition, a three-factor ESEM model of the 11-item version, but not the 14-item version, showed better factor structure and fitness than the other models examined. Both the versions had good internal consistency reliability and a satisfactory internal consistency (Ω = 0.78–0.96, omega coefficient indicates the internal consistency reliability) was obtained from the optimal model. This study provided evidence for satisfactory reliability and structural validity for the three-factor model of the 11-item version, which was proven to be superior to the 14-item version for this data.
Suggested Citation
Meng-Juan Jing & Wei-Quan Lin & Qiang Wang & Jia-Ji Wang & Jie Tang & En-She Jiang & Yi-Xiong Lei & Pei-Xi Wang, 2016.
"Reliability and Construct Validity of Two Versions of Chalder Fatigue Scale among the General Population in Mainland China,"
IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-10, January.
Handle:
RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:13:y:2016:i:1:p:147-:d:62576
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:13:y:2016:i:1:p:147-:d:62576. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.