Lai Jin-Shei, Cook Karon, Stone Arthur, Beaumont Jennifer, Cella David
Center on Outcomes, Research and Education, Evanston Northwestern Healthcare, Evanston, IL 60201, USA.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Sep;62(9):991-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.007. Epub 2009 Feb 12.
This study compared self-reported fatigue between 7-day and 4-week time frames and explored factors that affect patients' responses.
Two hundred and sixteen cancer patients completed either 7-day or 4-week version of the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F). Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics and Cochran-Armitage trend tests were used to assess the association between time frame and item scores. Information function curves at both item and scale levels were depicted to evaluate the precision along the fatigue continuum. Differential item functioning (DIF) was used to examine the stability of the psychometric properties between time frames.
Time frame did not influence patients' item responses. Examination of information function curves at item level did not clearly favor either time frame. At the scale level, the 7-day time frame was slightly more precise overall than the 4-week time frame. No item demonstrated DIF between time frames. Neither gender nor fatigue severity had an impact on above results.
This study suggests 7-day and 4-week time frame are equally appropriate in measuring fatigue, preference might be given to the more informative 7-day time frame. However, substantive considerations regarding the appropriate time frame should outweigh statistical ones.
本研究比较了7天和4周时间框架内自我报告的疲劳情况,并探讨了影响患者反应的因素。
216名癌症患者完成了慢性病治疗功能评估-疲劳量表(FACIT-F)的7天或4周版本。采用 Cochr an-Mantel-Haenszel统计量和 Cochr an-Armitage趋势检验来评估时间框架与项目得分之间的关联。绘制了项目和量表水平的信息功能曲线,以评估疲劳连续体上的精度。采用差异项目功能分析(DIF)来检验不同时间框架中心理测量特性的稳定性。
时间框架不影响患者的项目反应。在项目水平上对信息功能曲线的检查并没有明显偏向于任何一个时间框架。在量表水平上,7天的时间框架总体上比4周的时间框架稍微更精确一些。没有项目在不同时间框架间表现出差异项目功能。性别和疲劳严重程度对上述结果均无影响。
本研究表明,7天和4周的时间框架在测量疲劳方面同样合适,可能更倾向于信息更丰富的7天时间框架。然而,关于合适时间框架的实质性考虑应比统计因素更为重要。