The Reliability and Validity of the Turkish Version of the Mental Fatigue Scale In Healthy Individuals

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 3, 381 - 386, 27.09.2021

Muhammed Kılınç Gizem Murat Gizem İrem Kınıklı

https://doi.org/10.33808/clinexphealthsci.715517

Cited By: 1

Öz

Objectives: The aim of the study was to investigate the reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Mental Fatigue Scale (MFS) in healthy Turkish population.
Methods: This study was held in Hacettepe University, Faculty of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation between April and August 2019. A total of one hundred thirty-two healthy participants aged between 18-50 years were recruited. Reliability was investigated using test-retest reliability. The internal consistency of MFS was calculated using Cronbach's alpha coefficient. The validity of the MFS was assessed by comparing the MFS score with the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and Checklist Individual Strength Questionnaire (CIS-T) scores. Pearson correlation coefficient was used to evaluate validity.
Results: The test–retest reliability of the MFS were excellent in healthy Turkish population (ICC: 0.91, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.88–0.94). The scale had high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α 0.86). For the validity, the correlations between the MFS and the total/subscales of CIS-T scores and SF-36 scores were good (p<0.001). The correlations between the MFS and CIS-T subscales (subjective feeling of fatigue, r=0.50; concentration, r=0.53; motivation, r=0.42) and CIS-T total (r=0.56) were good (p<0.001). Significant correlations were found between the MFS and SF-36 subscales (energy/fatigue, r=0.54; emotional well-being, r=0.54, general health, r=0.41) (p<0.001).
Conclusion: The Turkish version of the Mental Fatigue Scale has been demonstrated to be valid and reliable to assess mental fatigue in Turkish population. The Turkish Mental Fatigue Scale is suggested to be a valuable tool for assessment of mental fatigue in healthy Turkish population.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Mental fatigue, fatigue, reliability, validity, Turkish

Kaynakça

• 1. Budak Kurtgün F. Turkish Validity and Reliability Study of Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory: Near East University; Master's thesis. 2017. 2. Aaronson LS, Teel CS, Cassmeyer V, Neuberger GB, Pallikkathayil L, Pierce J, et al. Defining and measuring fatigue. The Journal of Nursing Scholarship. 1999;31(1):45-50. 3. Lewis G, Wessely S. The epidemiology of fatigue: more questions than answers. Journal of epidemiology community health. 1992;46(2):92. 4. Levine J, Greenwald BD. Fatigue in Parkinson disease, stroke, and traumatic brain injury. Physical Medicine Rehabilitation Clinics. 2009;20(2):347-61. 5. Boksem MA, Tops M. Mental fatigue: costs and benefits. Brain research reviews. 2008;59(1):125-39. 6. Association AP. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5®): American Psychiatric Pub; 2013. 7. Van der Linden D, Eling P. Mental fatigue disturbs local processing more than global processing. Psychological research. 2006;70(5):395-402. 8. Boksem MA, Meijman TF, Lorist MM. Mental fatigue, motivation and action monitoring. Biological psychology. 2006;72(2):123-32. 9. Krupp LB, Alvarez LA, LaRocca NG, Scheinberg LC. Fatigue in multiple sclerosis. Archives of neurology. 1988;45(4):435-7. 10. Desmond PA, Hancock PA. Active and passive fatigue states. 2001. 11. Wascher E, Rasch B, Sänger J, Hoffmann S, Schneider D, Rinkenauer G, et al. Frontal theta activity reflects distinct aspects of mental fatigue. Biological psychology. 2014;96:57-65. 12. Ricci JA, Chee E, Lorandeau AL, Berger J. Fatigue in the US workforce: prevalence and implications for lost productive work time. Journal of Occupational Environmental Medicine. 2007;49(1):1-10. 13. Belmont A, Agar N, Hugeron C, Gallais B, Azouvi P, editors. Fatigue and traumatic brain injury. Annales de réadaptation et de médecine physique; 2006: Elsevier. 14. Carlsson G, Moller A, Blomstrand C. Consequences of mild stroke in persons< 75 years–a 1-year follow-up. European Journal of Neurology Supplement. 2004;11:279-80. 15. Schepers VP, Visser-Meily AM, Ketelaar M, Lindeman E. Poststroke fatigue: course and its relation to personal and stroke-related factors. Archives of physical medicine rehabilitation. 2006;87(2):184-8. 16. Hockey GRJ. Compensatory control in the regulation of human performance under stress and high workload: A cognitive-energetical framework. Biological psychology. 1997;45(1-3):73-93. 17. Hockey R. Stress and fatigue in human performance: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 1983. 18. Meijman T. The theory of the stop-emotion: On the functionality of fatigue. Ergonomics safety for global business quality production. 2000:45-50. 19. Lorist MM, Boksem MA, Ridderinkhof KR. Impaired cognitive control and reduced cingulate activity during mental fatigue. Cognitive Brain Research. 2005;24(2):199-205. 20. Boksem MA, Meijman TF, Lorist MM. Effects of mental fatigue on attention: an ERP study. Cognitive brain research. 2005;25(1):107-16. 21. Armutlu K, Keser İ, Korkmaz N, Akbıyık Dİ, Sümbüloğlu V, Güney Z, et al. Psychometric study of Turkish version of Fatigue Impact Scale in multiple sclerosis patients. Journal of the neurological sciences. 2007;255(1-2):64-8. 22. Yildirim Y, Ergin G. A validity and reliability study of the Turkish Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue (MAF) scale in chronic musculoskeletal physical therapy patients. Journal of back musculoskeletal rehabilitation. 2013;26(3):307-16. 23. Armutlu K, Korkmaz NC, Keser I, Sumbuloglu V, Akbiyik DI, Guney Z, et al. The validity and reliability of the Fatigue Severity Scale in Turkish multiple sclerosis patients. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research. 2007;30(1):81-5. 24. Johansson B, Starmark A, Berglund P, Rödholm M, Rönnbäck L. A self-assessment questionnaire for mental fatigue and related symptoms after neurological disorders and injuries. Brain Injury. 2010;24(1):2-12. 25. Tezbasaran AJTPD. A comparison of conventional item analysis techniques to construct Likert type scales. 2004;19(54):77-+. 26. Karakoç F, Dönmez LJMEW. Basic principles of scale development. 2014;40:39-49. 27. Vercoulen JH, Swanink CM, Fennis JF, Galama JM, van der Meer JW, Bleijenberg G. Dimensional assessment of chronic fatigue syndrome. Journal of psychosomatic research. 1994;38(5):383-92. 28. Ergin G, Yildirim Y. A validity and reliability study of the Turkish Checklist Individual Strength (CIS) questionnaire in musculoskeletal physical therapy patients. Physiotherapy theory practice. 2012;28(8):624-32. 29. McHorney CA, Ware JE, Raczek AE. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. MEDICAL CARE-PHILADELPHIA-. 1993;31:247-. 30. Koçyiğit H, Aydemir Ö, Fişek G, Ölmez N, Memiş A. The validity and reliability of Turkish version of the Short Form 36 (SF-36). Turkish J Drugs Therap. 1999;12:102-6. 31. Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use: Oxford University Press, USA; 2015. 32. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977:159-74. 33. Alpar R. Applied statistics and validity-reliability with examples in sports, health and education sciences. Detay Press, Ankara, Turkey; 2016. 34. Chiu H-Y, Li W, Lin J-H, Su Y-K, Lin E-Y, Tsai P-S. Measurement properties of the Chinese version of the Mental Fatigue Scale for patients with traumatic brain injury. Brain injury. 2018;32(5):652-64.