Fatigue Assessment Scales: A comprehensive literature review

Rahimian Aghdam, Sahar; Alizadeh , Seyed Shamseddin; Rasoulzadeh, Yahya; Safaiyan, Abdolrasoul

doi:10.29252/ArchHygSci.8.3.145

Volume 8, Issue 3 (Summer 2019) Arch Hyg Sci 2019, 8(3): 145-153 | Back to browse issues page

‎ 10.29252/ArchHygSci.8.3.145

‎ 20.1001.1.22519203.2019.8.3.4.8

Mendeley

Zotero

RefWorks

Rahimian Aghdam S, Alizadeh S S, Rasoulzadeh Y, Safaiyan A. Fatigue Assessment Scales: A comprehensive literature review. Arch Hyg Sci 2019; 8 (3) :145-153
URL: http://jhygiene.muq.ac.ir/article-1-399-en.html

Fatigue Assessment Scales: A comprehensive literature review

Sahar Rahimian Aghdam¹

, Seyed Shamseddin Alizadeh ^*

², Yahya Rasoulzadeh²

, Abdolrasoul Safaiyan³

1- Department of Occupational Health Engineering, Health Faculty, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences
2- Department of Occupational Health Engineering, Health Faculty, Tabriz Medical Sciences University
3- Road Traffic Center and Department of Bio-statistical and Epidemiology, Health Faculty, Tabriz Medical Sciences University

Abstract: (5900 Views)

Background & Aims of the Study: Fatigue is one of the most important issues relating with safety and other aspects of human life. To understand fatigue and its relative factors and causes, there is a need to useful instruments, such as self-reported scales. The purpose of this study is to identify and present useful self-reported scales to measure fatigue.
Materials & Methods: Data were extracted from following three databases, ISI Web of Science, Scopus and Science direct and the search was undertaken for the period of 1996-2018. The search scope of this study was in ergonomics and health outcomes and the language of elected scales was in English. The articles that used objective fatigue scales or used the subjective scales for sleep-related studies were excluded from the review. Screening and appraisal of 12540 articles resulted in 115 articles being included in this review.
Results: According to the obtained results, details of 12 self-reported fatigue scales are reported. These scales are divided in two types; five scales of them are in unidimensional scale group and the others are multidimensional scales. The Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) scale is the shortest form of scales in this study. Although, the Multidimensional Fatigue Symptom Inventory (MFSI) and Swedish Occupational Fatigue Inventory (SOFI) scales by more items can evaluate five aspects of fatigue. Six questionnaires of these scales were measured fatigue among working people.
Conclusion: There are several scales with acceptable validation to distinguish and measuring fatigue in studies or at work.

Keywords: Subjective Scale, Ergonomics, Instrument, Reliability, Work-related Fatigue

Full-Text [PDF 387 kb] (1541 Downloads) | | Full-Text (HTML) (2420 Views)

Type of Study: Review Article | Subject: Occuptional Health
Received: 2019/08/3 | Accepted: 2019/08/17 | Published: 2020/01/15

References

1. 1. Di Milia L, Smolensky MH, Costa G, Howarth HD, Ohayon MM, Philip P. Demographic factors, fatigue, and driving accidents: An examination of the published literature. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2011;43(2):516-32. [DOI:10.1016/j.aap.2009.12.018]

2. Ji Q, Lan P, Looney C. A probabilistic framework for modeling and real-time monitoring human fatigue. IEEE Transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics-Part A: Systems and humans. 2006;36(5):862-75. 10.1109/TSMCA.2005.855922 [DOI:10.1109/TSMCA.2005.855922]

3. Dittner AJ, Wessely SC, Brown RG. The assessment of fatigue: a practical guide for clinicians and researchers. Journal of psychosomatic research. 2004;56(2):157-70. [DOI:10.1016/S0022-3999(03)00371-4]

4. Lee KA, Hicks G, Nino-Murcia G. Validity and reliability of a scale to assess fatigue. Psychiatry Research. 1991;36(3):291-8. [DOI:10.1016/0165-1781(91)90027-M]

5. Smets E, Garssen B, Bonke Bd, De Haes J. The Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) psychometric qualities of an instrument to assess fatigue. Journal of psychosomatic research. 1995;39(3):315-25. [DOI:10.1016/0022-3999(94)00125-O]

6. Stein KD, Martin SC, Hann DM, Jacobsen PB. A multidimensional measure of fatigue for use with cancer patients. Cancer practice. 1998;6(3):143-52. [DOI:10.1046/j.1523-5394.1998.006003143.x]

7. Beurskens AJ, Bültmann U, Kant I, Vercoulen JH, Bleijenberg G, Swaen GM. Fatigue among working people: validity of a questionnaire measure. Occupational and environmental medicine. 2000;57(5):353-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/oem.57.5.353 [DOI:10.1136/oem.57.5.353]

8. Mendoza TR, Wang XS, Cleeland CS, Morrissey M, Johnson BA, Wendt JK, et al. The rapid assessment of fatigue severity in cancer patients. Cancer. 1999;85(5):1186-96. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19990301)85:5<1186::AID-CNCR24>3.0.CO;2-N https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19990301)85:5<1186::AID-CNCR24>3.0.CO;2-N [DOI:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19990301)85:53.0.CO;2-N]

9. Hadzi-Pavlovic D, Hickie I, Wilson A, Davenport T, Lloyd A, Wakefield D. Screening for prolonged fatigue syndromes: validation of the SOFA scale. Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology. 2000;35(10):471-9. [DOI:10.1007/s001270050266]

10. Van Veldhoven M, Broersen S. Measurement quality and validity of the "need for recovery scale". Occupational and environmental medicine. 2003;60(suppl 1):i3-i9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/oem.60.suppl_1.i3 [DOI:10.1136/oem.60.suppl_1.i3]

11. Michielsen HJ, De Vries J, Van Heck GL, Van de Vijver FJ, Sijtsma K. Examination of the Dimensionality of Fatigue: The Construction of the Fatigue Assessment Scale (FAS). European Journal of Psychological Assessment. 2004;20(1):39. [DOI:10.1027/1015-5759.20.1.39]

12. Group W. Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. Psychological medicine. 1998;28(3):551-8. [DOI:10.1017/S0033291798006667]

13. Chalder T, Berelowitz G, Pawlikowska T, Watts L, Wessely S, Wright D, et al. Development of a fatigue scale. Journal of psychosomatic research. 1993;37(2):147-53. [DOI:10.1016/0022-3999(93)90081-P]

14. Hann D, Jacobsen P, Azzarello L, Martin S, Curran S, Fields K, et al. Measurement of fatigue in cancer patients: development and validation of the Fatigue Symptom Inventory. Quality of Life research. 1998;7(4):301-10. [DOI:10.1023/A:1024929829627]

15. Piper BF, Dibble SL, Dodd MJ, Weiss MC, Slaughter RE, Paul SM, editors. The revised Piper Fatigue Scale: psychometric evaluation in women with breast cancer. Oncology nursing forum; 1998: Oncology Nursing Society. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-14585-001 [DOI:10.1037/t18854-000]

16. Åhsberg E. Dimensions of fatigue in different working populations. Scandinavian Journal of psychology. 2000;41(3):231-41. [DOI:10.1111/1467-9450.00192]

17. Ahsberg E, Gamberale F, Gustafsson K. Perceived fatigue after mental work: an experimental evaluation of a fatigue inventory. Ergonomics. 2000;43(2):252-68. [DOI:10.1080/001401300184594]

18. Åhsberg E, Gamberale F. Perceived fatigue during physical work: an experimental evaluation of a fatigue inventory. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 1998;21(2):117-31. [DOI:10.1016/S0169-8141(96)00071-6]

19. Winwood PC, Winefield AH, Dawson D, Lushington K. Development and validation of a scale to measure work-related fatigue and recovery: the Occupational Fatigue Exhaustion/Recovery Scale (OFER). Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2005;47(6):594-606. [DOI:10.1097/01.jom.0000161740.71049.c4]

20. Jackson C. The Chalder fatigue scale (CFQ 11). Occupational Medicine. 2014;65(1):86-. [DOI:10.1093/occmed/kqu168]

21. Grandjean E. Fitting the task to the Man. A Texbook of Occupational Ergonomics. Taylor & Francis. London; 1988. [DOI:10.1201/9780367807337]

22. Li Z, Jiao K, Chen M, Wang C. Reducing the effects of driving fatigue with magnitopuncture stimulation. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2004;36(4):501-5. [DOI:10.1016/S0001-4575(03)00044-7]

23. Barker LM, Nussbaum MA. The effects of fatigue on performance in simulated nursing work. Ergonomics. 2011;54(9):815-29. [DOI:10.1080/00140139.2011.597878]