Development, dimensions, reliability and validity of the novel Manchester COPD fatigue scale
- 1Respiratory Research Group, The University of Manchester, South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
- 2Global Health Outcomes, GlaxoSmithKline, London, UK
- 3School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
- Correspondence to Dr K Al-shair, Respiratory Research Group, 2nd floor The Education and Research Centre, South Manchester University Hospitals Trust NHS Foundation Trust, Wythenshawe, Manchester M23 9LT, UK; Khaled.Al-shair{at}postgrad.manchester.ac.uk; alshair02{at}yahoo.com
- Received 16 April 2009
- Accepted 2 August 2009
- Published Online First 30 August 2009
Abstract
Introduction: Fatigue is a prominent symptom in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and it has distinctive features; however, there is a need for a robust scale to measure fatigue in COPD.
Methods: At baseline, 122 patients with COPD (forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) 52%, women 38%, mean age 66 years) completed a pilot fatigue scale covering a pool of 57 items and underwent a range of tests, including indicators of mood and a short general fatigue questionnaire. All patients responded to the 57-item scale and it was readministered to a subset of 30 patients. The pilot scale was first subjected to constructive validated shortening steps and then to a principal components analysis.
Results: The Manchester COPD fatigue scale (MCFS) consists of 27 items, loading into three dimensions: physical, cognitive and psychosocial fatigue. Internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.97) and test–retest repeatability (r = 0.97, p<0.001) were tested. It had significant convergent validity, correlating with the FACIT (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy) fatigue scale and the fatigue in Borg scale at baseline and after a 6 minute walk distance (6MWD) test (r = −0.81, 0.53 and 0.63, respectively, p<0.001). Its scores were associated with BODE, SGRQ (St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire) and MRC (Medical Research Council) dyspnoea scores (r = 0.46, 0.8 and 0.51, respectively, p<0.001). The scale demonstrated meaningful discriminating ability; patients who walked <350 m in a 6MWD test as well as depressed patients (≥16 scores in the Center for Epidemiologic Study on Depression (CES-D) scale) had nearly twice as high fatigue scores as those who walked ≥350 m or were not depressed (p<0.001).
Conclusion: The MCFS provides a simple, reliable and valid measurement of total and dimensional fatigue in moderate stable COPD.
Footnotes
-
‣ The pilot and final questionnaires together with additional tables and figures are published online only at http://thorax.bmj.com/content/vol64/issue11
-
Competing interests None.
-
Ethics approval The Local Research Ethics Committee in Manchester approved the study.
-
Provenance and Peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.









