BMC Geriatrics (May 2021)

Validation of perceived physical fatigability using the simplified-Chinese version of the Pittsburgh Fatigability Scale

  • Yixin Hu,
  • Hangming Zhang,
  • Weihao Xu,
  • Ming Zhao,
  • Juan Liu,
  • Linna Wu,
  • Lin Zou,
  • Jing Zuo,
  • Yunxia Liu,
  • Li Fan,
  • Woei-Nan Bair,
  • Yujia (Susanna) Qiao,
  • Nancy W. Glynn

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-021-02275-x
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 21, no. 1
pp. 1 – 8

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background The Pittsburgh Fatigability Scale (PFS) was developed to capture fatigue and demand in a single tool, filling a gap that no validated questionnaire existed to measure perceived fatigability. Since fatigability is a more sensitive measure of a person’s susceptibility to fatigue, we validated the simplified-Chinese version of the PFS among Chinese community-dwelling older adults. Methods This cross-sectional study was conducted in an urban community in Beijing between November 2018 and July 2019. The PFS was translated into simplified-Chinese by the translation, retro-translation method. Internal consistency of the Physical subscale of the PFS was evaluated by Cronbach’s alpha. Convergent validity and discriminant validity were evaluated against physical performance measures (i.e., Short Physical Performance Battery & Timed Up and Go Test) and daily living performance (i.e., Barthel Index & Instrumental activity of daily living). Results Our study included 457 participants, including 182 men (39.8%) and 275 women (60.2%). The age range of the included participants was 61–96 years (mean = 84.8 years, SD = 5.8 years). The simplified-Chinese version of PFS Physical scores showed strong internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.81). Higher PFS Physical scores were associated with worse physical performance, and daily living performance (|correlation coefficient| range: 0.36–0.56, p < .001). Age- and sex-adjusted PFS Physical scores had moderate to good overall discrimination for correctly classifying people by their physical performance and daily living performance (AUCs range 0.70–0.87, p < .001). Conclusions The PFS simplified-Chinese version is a valid instrument to assess perceived physical fatigability in Chinese-speaking older adults with good convergent validity. Thus, the PFS, with low cost and greater feasibility, is a desired tool to measure fatigability in large population studies.

Keywords