Validity and reliability of the Traditional Chinese version of the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory in general population.

BACKGROUND

Fatigue is a common symptom in the general population and has a substantial effect on individuals' quality of life. The Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) has been widely used to quantify the impact of fatigue, but no Traditional Chinese translation has yet been validated. The goal of this study was to translate the MFI from English into Traditional Chinese ('the MFI-TC') and subsequently to examine its validity and reliability.

METHODS

The study recruited a convenience sample of 123 people from various age groups in Taiwan. The MFI was examined using a two-step process: (1) translation and back-translation of the instrument; and (2) examination of construct validity, convergent validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and measurement error. The validity and reliability of the MFI-TC were assessed by factor analysis, Spearman rho correlation coefficient, Cronbach's alpha coefficient, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), minimal detectable change (MDC), and Bland-Altman analysis. All participants completed the Short-Form-36 Health Survey Taiwan Form (SF-36-T) and the Chinese version of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) concurrently to test the convergent validity of the MFI-TC. Test-retest reliability was assessed by readministration of the MFI-TC after a 1-week interval.

RESULTS

Factor analysis confirmed the four dimensions of fatigue: general/physical fatigue, reduced activity, reduced motivation, and mental fatigue. A four-factor model was extracted, combining general fatigue and physical fatigue as one factor. The results demonstrated moderate convergent validity when correlating fatigue (MFI-TC) with quality of life (SF-36-T) and sleep disturbances (PSQI) (Spearman's rho = 0.68 and 0.47, respectively). Cronbach's alpha for the MFI-TC total scale and subscales ranged from 0.73 (mental fatigue subscale) to 0.92 (MFI-TC total scale). ICCs ranged from 0.85 (reduced motivation) to 0.94 (MFI-TC total scale), and the MDC ranged from 2.33 points (mental fatigue) to 9.5 points (MFI-TC total scale). The Bland-Altman analyses showed no significant systematic bias between the repeated assessments.

CONCLUSIONS

The results support the use of the Traditional Chinese version of the MFI as a comprehensive instrument for measuring specific aspects of fatigue. Clinicians and researchers should consider interpreting general fatigue and physical fatigue as one subscale when measuring fatigue in Traditional Chinese-speaking populations.