The functional assessment of chronic illness therapy-fatigue (FACIT-F) is commonly used to assess fatigue across diseases. The degree to which the FACIT-F demonstrates measurement equivalence across disease groups, however, is not known. The purpose of this study was to assess differential item functioning (DIF) of FACIT-F items between patients with cancer and systemic sclerosis (SSc or scleroderma).
Methods
Secondary analysis of FACIT-F data from cancer and SSc patients. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to assess the factor structure of the FACIT-F in cancer and SSc patients. The multiple-indicator, multiple-cause model was utilized to assess DIF, comparing responses from cancer and SSc patients.
Results
A unidimensional factor structure for the FACIT-F was demonstrated with the cancer (n = 1141), SSc (n = 1186), and combined samples. Statistically significant, but small-magnitude, DIF was found for four items. Compared to cancer patients with the same level of fatigue, SSc patients had lower scores (more fatigue) for item 2 (bodily weakness), 7 (energy), and 8 (ability to perform daily activities); and higher scores (less fatigue) for item 9 (need to sleep throughout the day). For the entire scale, SSc patients had 0.47 SD lower FACIT-F latent factor scores (more fatigue) than cancer patients. After correcting for DIF, there was a change of only 0.03 SD in this difference (0.44 SD lower).
Conclusions
Although statistically significant DIF was detected for four FACIT-F items, the magnitude was small and the effect on fatigue latent scores was minimal. Thus, FACIT-F scores can be used equivalently in cancer and SSc.
SwainMGFatigue in chronic disease.Clin Sci (Lond)200099 (1):1–8
3.
HjollundNHAndersenJHBechPAssessment of fatigue in chronic disease: a bibliographic study of fatigue measurement scales.Health Qual Life Outcomes2007;5 (1):12
4.
DittnerAJWesselySCBrownRGThe assessment of fatigue: a practical guide for clinicians and researchers.J Psychosom Res2004;56 (2):157–170
5.
YellenSBCellaDFWebsterKBlendowskiCKaplanEMeasuring fatigue and other anemia-related symptoms with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) measurement system.J Pain Symptom Manage1997;13 (2):63–74
6.
HaysRDMoralesLSReiseSPItem response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century.Med Care2000;389 SupplII28–II42
7.
TeresiJAFleishmanJADifferential item functioning and health assessment.Qual Life Res2007;161 Suppl 133–42
8.
SeiboldJScleroderma. In: Harris ED, Budd RC, Firestein GS, et al, eds.Kelley's textbook of rheumatology7th ed.Philadelphia:Elsevier2005;1279-1308.
9.
MayesMDLaceyJVJrBeebe-DimmerJet al.Prevalence, incidence, survival, and disease characteristics of systemic sclerosis in a large US population.Arthritis Rheum2003;48 (8):2246–2255
10.
WigleyFMHummersLKClinical features of systemic sclerosis. In: Hochberg MC, Silman AJ, Smolen JS, Weinblatt ME, Weismann WH, eds.Rheumatology3rd ed.Philadelphia:Mosby2003;1463-80.
11.
MintonOStonePHow common is fatigue in disease-free breast cancer survivors? A systematic review of the literature.Breast Cancer Res Treat2008;112 (1):5–13
12.
HofmanMRyanJLFigueroa-MoseleyCDJean-PierrePMorrowGRCancer-related fatigue: the scale of the problem.Oncologist2007;12Suppl 14–10
13.
CellaDDavisKBreitbartWCurtGFatigue Coalition.Cancer-related fatigue: prevalence of proposed diagnostic criteria in a United States sample of cancer survivors. J Clin Oncol200119 (14):3385–3391
14.
WagnerLICellaDFatigue and cancer: causes, prevalence and treatment approaches.Br J Cancer2004;91 (5):822–828
15.
RichardsHLHerrickALGriffinKGwilliamPDHLoukesJFortuneDGSystemic sclerosis: patient perceptions of their condition.Arthritis Rheum2003;49 (5):689–696
16.
Suarez-AlmazorMEKallenMARoundtreeAKMayesMDisease and symptom burden in systemic sclerosis: a patient perspective.J Rheumatol2007;34 (8):1718–1726
17.
van LankveldWGJMVonkMCTeunissenHvan den HoogenFHJAppearance self-esteem in systemic sclerosis subjective experience of skin deformity and its relationship with physician-assessed skin involvement, disease status and psychological variables.Rheumatology (Oxford)2007;46 (5):872–876
18.
KwakkenbosLMintonOStonePCet al;Canadian Scleroderma Research Group.Can the cancer-related fatigue case-definition criteria be applied to chronic medical illness? A comparison between breast cancer and systemic sclerosis. J Rheumatol201542 (7):1156–1162
19.
AndrykowskiMABishopMMHahnEAet al.Long-term health-related quality of life, growth, and spiritual well-being after hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation.J Clin Oncol200523 (3):599–608
20.
YostKJEtonDTGarciaSFCellaDMinimally important differences were estimated for six Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Cancer scales in advanced-stage cancer patients.J Clin Epidemiol2011;64 (5): 507–516
21.
PetermanALecciLPersonal projects in health and illness.In: Little B, Salmela-Aro K, Phillips SD, eds. Personal projects pursuit: goals, action and human flourishingLondon, UK:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates2007;329-353.
22.
LeRoyECBlackCFleischmajerRet al.Scleroderma (systemic sclerosis): classification, subsets and pathogenesis.J Rheumatol1988;15 (2):202–205
23.
CellaDYountSSorensenMChartashESenguptaNGroberJValidation of the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue Scale relative to other instrumentation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.J Rheumatol2005;32 (5):811–819
24.
KwakkenbosLWillemsLMBaronMet al;Canadian Scleroderma Research Group. The comparability of English, French and Dutch scores on the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F): an assessment of differential item functioning in patients with systemic sclerosis.PLoS ONE2014;9 (3):e91979
25.
CellaDLaiJSStoneASelf-reported fatigue: one dimension or more? Lessons from the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness TherapyFatigue (FACIT-F) questionnaire.Support Care Cancer2011;19 (9):1441–1450
ReiseSPWidamanKFPughRHConfirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: two approaches for exploring measurement invariance.Psychol Bull1993;114 (3):552–566
28.
TuckerLRLewisCA reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis.Psychometrika1973;38 (1):1–10
29.
BentlerPMComparative fit indexes in structural models.Psychol Bull1990;107 (2):238–246
30.
SteigerJHStructural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach.Multivariate Behav Res199025 (2):173–180
31.
HuLBentlerPMCutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives.Struct Equ Modeling1999;6 (1):1–55
32.
KlineRBPrinciples and practice of structural equation modelling.2nd ed.New York:Guilford Press2005.
33.
BrowneMWCudeckRAlternative ways of assessing fit. In: Bollen KA, Long JS, eds.Testing structural equation modelsNewbury Park:Sage1993;136-162.
34.
McDonaldRPHoMHRPrinciples and practice in reporting structural equation analyses.Psychol Methods2002;7 (1):64–82
35.
HommelGA stagewise rejective multiple test procedure based on a modified Bonferroni test.Biometrika1988;75 (2):383–386
36.
CohenJStatistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.2nd ed.Hillsdale:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates1988.
37.
ZwickRThayerDTMazzeoJDescribing and categorizing differential item functioning in polytomous items: research report. Princeton: Educational Testing Service 1997. Report No.: 97-05 Contract No.: 97-05.Available from https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-97-05-Zwick.pdf. Accessed December 11, 2016.
38.
BjornerJBRoseMGandekBStoneAAJunghaenelDUWareJEJr.Method of administration of PROMIS scales did not significantly impact score level, reliability, or validity.J Clin Epidemiol2014;67 (1):108–113
