Back to Journals » Patient Related Outcome Measures » Volume 10

Validation study of the Parkinson’s Fatigue Scale in advanced Parkinson’s disease

Authors Martinez-Martin P, Wetmore JB, Arbelo JM, Catalán MJ, Valldeoriola F, Rodriguez-Blazquez C

Received 26 November 2018

Accepted for publication 12 March 2019

Published 17 April 2019 Volume 2019:10 Pages 141—152

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/PROM.S196042

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewer comments 2

Editor who approved publication: Dr Robert Howland


Pablo Martinez-Martin,1,2 John B Wetmore,1 José Matías Arbelo,3 María José Catalán,4 Francesc Valldeoriola,5 Carmen Rodriguez-Blazquez1,2

1National Center of Epidemiology, Carlos III Institute of Health, Madrid, Spain; 2Center for Networked Biomedical Research in Neurodegenerative Diseases (CIBERNED), Carlos III Institute of Health, Madrid, Spain; 3Movement Disorders Unit, Hospital Universitario Insular de Gran Canaria, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain; 4Department of Neurology, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain; 5Department of Neurology, Hospital Clínico de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

Purpose: To validate the Parkinson’s Fatigue Scale (PFS-16) in advanced Parkinson Disease (APD) patients using the scale’s Spanish version.
Patients and methods: In a clinical study for Levodopa-Carbidopa Intestinal Gel (LCIG), 59 patients were assessed over six months using the PFS-16 and other instruments. The psychometric properties of the PFS-16 were then analyzed.
Results: Patients (60.7% men) were aged 68.02±7.43 years. PD duration was 12.57±5.97 years. Median Hoehn and Yahr (HY) stage of patients in “on” was 2 (range: 1–4). There were excellent data quality and acceptability for the PFS-16 as a whole, except for moderate-to-high ceiling effects in its items. Two factors explained 67% of the variance, yet parallel analysis demonstrated the unidimensional nature of the PFS-16, whose internal consistency was satisfactory (Cronbach’s alpha=0.93; item homogeneity coefficient=0.19, and item total-corrected correlations=0.50–0.84). PFS-16 total score showed moderate-to-high correlations with fatigue-specific questions within clinical tools, namely item 20 of the Beck Depression Inventory (rS=0.65) and item 4 of the Non-Motor Symptoms Scale (rS=0.33). Weak-to-moderate correlations were observed between the PFS-16 and measures of anxiety, depression, apathy, and quality of life. There were no significant differences in PFS-16 total scores when grouped by age, sex, time from diagnosis, HY, and CGI-S. After treatment with LCIG, the relative change in PFS-16 total score was −17.6% and the effect size (Cohen’s d) was 0.92. Moderate correlations between changes in the PFS-16 and several other clinical tools were also found.
Conclusion: In APD patients, the PFS-16 showed satisfactory acceptability, internal consistency, construct validity, and responsiveness.

Keywords: Parkinson’s disease, fatigue, Parkinson’s Fatigue Scale, PFS-16, advanced Parkinson’s disease, psychometric properties

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]