The Reliability and Validity of the Turkish Version of the Mental Fatigue Scale In Healthy Individuals

MUHAMMED KILINÇ, (Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Fizik Tedavi ve Rehabilitasyon Fakültesi, Ankara, Türkiye)
Gizem Murat, (Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi, Sağlık Bilimleri Fakültesi, Fizyoterapi ve Rehabilitasyon Bölümü, Muğla, Türkiye)
GİZEM İREM KINIKLI (Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Fizik Tedavi ve Rehabilitasyon Fakültesi, Ankara, Türkiye)
Clinical and Experimental Health Sciences
9 0
Yıl: 2021 Cilt: 11 Sayı: 3 Sayfa Aralığı: 381 - 386 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.33808/clinexphealthsci.715517 İndeks Tarihi: 14-01-2022

The Reliability and Validity of the Turkish Version of the Mental Fatigue Scale In Healthy Individuals

Öz:
Objectives: The aim of the study was to investigate the reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Mental Fatigue Scale (MFS) in healthy Turkish population. Methods: This study was held in Hacettepe University, Faculty of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation between April and August 2019. A total of one hundred thirty-two healthy participants aged between 18-50 years were recruited. Reliability was investigated using test-retest reliability. The internal consistency of MFS was calculated using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. The validity of the MFS was assessed by comparing the MFS score with the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and Checklist Individual Strength Questionnaire (CIS-T) scores. Pearson correlation coefficient was used to evaluate validity. Results: The test–retest reliability of the MFS were excellent in healthy Turkish population (ICC: 0.91, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.88– 0.94). The scale had high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α 0.86). For the validity, the correlations between the MFS and the total/subscales of CIS-T scores and SF-36 scores were good (p<0.001). The correlations between the MFS and CIS-T subscales (subjective feeling of fatigue, r=0.50; concentration, r=0.53; motivation, r=0.42) and CIS-T total (r=0.56) were good (p<0.001). Significant correlations were found between the MFS and SF-36 subscales (energy/fatigue, r=0.54; emotional well-being, r=0.54, general health, r=0.41) (p<0.001). Conclusion: The Turkish version of the Mental Fatigue Scale has been demonstrated to be valid and reliable to assess mental fatigue in Turkish population. The Turkish Mental Fatigue Scale is suggested to be a valuable tool for assessment of mental fatigue in healthy Turkish population.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • [1] Pawlikowska T, Chalder T, Hirsch S, Wallace P, Wright D, Wessely S. Population based study of fatigue and psychological distress. BMJ 1994;308(6931):763-766.
  • [2] Başoğlu F, Öncü J, Kuran B, Alptekin HK. The reliability and validity of The Turkish version of Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory-20 for the evaluation of different dimensions of fatigue in patients with fibromyalgia. Turk J Phys Med Rehabil 2020, 66.4: 436.
  • [3] Aaronson LS, Teel CS, Cassmeyer V, Neuberger GB, Pallikkathayil L, Pierce J, Press AN, Williams PD, Wingate A. Defining and measuring fatigue. Image J Nurs Sch 1999;31(1):45-50.
  • [4] Lewis G, Wessely S. The epidemiology of fatigue: more questions than answers. J Epidemiol Community Health 1992;46(2):92.
  • [5] Boksem MA, Tops M. Neurocognitive Disorders. Mental fatigue: costs and benefits. Brain Res Rev 2008;59(1):125-139.
  • [6] Black DW, Grant JE. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5). USA: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2013.p.366-389
  • [7] Van der Linden D, Eling P. Mental fatigue disturbs local processing more than global processing. Psychol Res 2006;70(5):395-402.
  • [8] Boksem MA, Meijman TF, Lorist MM. Mental fatigue, motivation and action monitoring. Biol Psychol 2006;72(2):123-132.
  • [9] Krupp LB, Alvarez LA, LaRocca NG, Scheinberg LC. Fatigue in multiple sclerosis. Arch Neurol 1988;45(4):435-437.
  • [10] Matthews G, Desmond PA. Stress and driving performance: Implications for design and training. Desmond PA, Hancock PA, editors. Stress, workload, and fatigue. First Edition, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 2001.p.211-231
  • [11] Wascher E, Rasch B, Sänger J, Hoffmann S, Schneider D, Rinkenauer G, Heuer H, Gutberlet I. Frontal theta activity reflects distinct aspects of mental fatigue. Biol Psychol 2014;96:57-65.
  • [12] Ricci JA, Chee E, Lorandeau AL, Berger J. Fatigue in the US workforce: prevalence and implications for lost productive work time. J Occup Environ Med 2007;49(1):1-10.
  • [13] Carlsson G, Moller A, Blomstrand C. Consequences of mild stroke in persons< 75 years–a 1-year follow-up. Cerebrovasc Dis 2004;11:279-280.
  • [14] Schepers VP, Visser-Meily AM, Ketelaar M, Lindeman E. Poststroke fatigue: course and its relation to personal and stroke-related factors. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2006;87(2):184-188.
  • [15] Hockey GRJ. Compensatory control in the regulation of human performance under stress and high workload: A cognitiveenergetical framework. Biol Psychol 1997;45(1-3):73-93.
  • [16] Holding DH. Fatigue. Hockey GRJ, editor. Stress and fatigue in human performance. USA: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 1983.p.123-144.
  • [17] Meijman TF. The theory of the stop-emotion: On the functionality of fatigue. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Ergonomics and Safety for Global Business Quality and Productivity; 2000; Poland; PP. 45-50.
  • [18] Lorist MM, Boksem MA, Ridderinkhof KR. Impaired cognitive control and reduced cingulate activity during mental fatigue. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 2005;24(2):199-205.
  • [19] Boksem MA, Meijman TF, Lorist MM. Effects of mental fatigue on attention: an ERP study. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 2005;25(1):107-116.
  • [20] Armutlu K, Keser İ, Korkmaz N, Akbıyık Dİ, Sümbüloğlu V, Güney Z, Karabudak R. Psychometric study of Turkish version of Fatigue Impact Scale in multiple sclerosis patients. J Neurol Sci 2007;255(1-2):64-68.
  • [21] Yildirim Y, Ergin G. A validity and reliability study of the Turkish Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue (MAF) scale in chronic musculoskeletal physical therapy patients. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil 2013;26(3):307-316.
  • [22] Armutlu K, Korkmaz NC, Keser I, Sumbuloglu V, Akbiyik DI, Guney Z, Karabudak R. The validity and reliability of the Fatigue Severity Scale in Turkish multiple sclerosis patients. Int J Rehabil Res 2007;30(1):81-85.
  • [23] Johansson B, Starmark A, Berglund P, Rödholm M, Rönnbäck L. A self-assessment questionnaire for mental fatigue and related symptoms after neurological disorders and injuries. Brain Inj 2010;24(1):2-12.
  • [24] Tezbasaran, AA. A comparison of conventional item analysis techniques to construct Likert type scales. TPD. 2004;19:77-88.
  • [25] Karakoç F, Dönmez L. Basic principles of scale development. Tıp Eğitimi Dünyası. 2014;40:39-49 (Turkish).
  • [26] Vercoulen JH, Swanink CM, Fennis JF, Galama JM, van der Meer JW, Bleijenberg G. Dimensional assessment of chronic fatigue syndrome. J Psychosom Res 1994;38(5):383-392.
  • [27] Ergin G, Yildirim Y. A validity and reliability study of the Turkish Checklist Individual Strength (CIS) questionnaire in musculoskeletal physical therapy patients. Physiother Theory Pract 2012;28(8):624-632.
  • [28] McHorney CA, Ware JE, Raczek AE. The MOS 36-Item ShortForm Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care 1993;31:247-263.
  • [29] Koçyiğit H, Aydemir Ö, Fişek G, Ölmez N, Memiş A. The validity and reliability of Turkish version of the Short Form 36 (SF-36). Turkish J Drugs Therap 1999;12:102-106 (Turkish).
  • [30] Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. Validity. Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J, editors. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford University Press, USA; 2015.p.227-250.
  • [31] Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977:159-174.
  • [32] Alpar R. Geçerlik ve güvenirlik. Spor, sağlık ve eğitim bilimlerinden örneklerle uygulamalı istatistik ve geçerlikgüvenirlik: Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık; 2010.p.493-497 (Turkish).
  • [33] Chiu HY, Li W, Lin JH, Su YK, Lin EY, Tsai PS. Measurement properties of the Chinese version of the Mental Fatigue Scale for patients with traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj 2018;32(5):652-664.
APA Kılınç M, MURAT G, KINIKLI G (2021). The Reliability and Validity of the Turkish Version of the Mental Fatigue Scale In Healthy Individuals. , 381 - 386. 10.33808/clinexphealthsci.715517
Chicago Kılınç Muhammed,MURAT Gizem,KINIKLI Gizem Irem The Reliability and Validity of the Turkish Version of the Mental Fatigue Scale In Healthy Individuals. (2021): 381 - 386. 10.33808/clinexphealthsci.715517
MLA Kılınç Muhammed,MURAT Gizem,KINIKLI Gizem Irem The Reliability and Validity of the Turkish Version of the Mental Fatigue Scale In Healthy Individuals. , 2021, ss.381 - 386. 10.33808/clinexphealthsci.715517
AMA Kılınç M,MURAT G,KINIKLI G The Reliability and Validity of the Turkish Version of the Mental Fatigue Scale In Healthy Individuals. . 2021; 381 - 386. 10.33808/clinexphealthsci.715517
Vancouver Kılınç M,MURAT G,KINIKLI G The Reliability and Validity of the Turkish Version of the Mental Fatigue Scale In Healthy Individuals. . 2021; 381 - 386. 10.33808/clinexphealthsci.715517
IEEE Kılınç M,MURAT G,KINIKLI G "The Reliability and Validity of the Turkish Version of the Mental Fatigue Scale In Healthy Individuals." , ss.381 - 386, 2021. 10.33808/clinexphealthsci.715517
ISNAD Kılınç, Muhammed vd. "The Reliability and Validity of the Turkish Version of the Mental Fatigue Scale In Healthy Individuals". (2021), 381-386. https://doi.org/10.33808/clinexphealthsci.715517
APA Kılınç M, MURAT G, KINIKLI G (2021). The Reliability and Validity of the Turkish Version of the Mental Fatigue Scale In Healthy Individuals. Clinical and Experimental Health Sciences, 11(3), 381 - 386. 10.33808/clinexphealthsci.715517
Chicago Kılınç Muhammed,MURAT Gizem,KINIKLI Gizem Irem The Reliability and Validity of the Turkish Version of the Mental Fatigue Scale In Healthy Individuals. Clinical and Experimental Health Sciences 11, no.3 (2021): 381 - 386. 10.33808/clinexphealthsci.715517
MLA Kılınç Muhammed,MURAT Gizem,KINIKLI Gizem Irem The Reliability and Validity of the Turkish Version of the Mental Fatigue Scale In Healthy Individuals. Clinical and Experimental Health Sciences, vol.11, no.3, 2021, ss.381 - 386. 10.33808/clinexphealthsci.715517
AMA Kılınç M,MURAT G,KINIKLI G The Reliability and Validity of the Turkish Version of the Mental Fatigue Scale In Healthy Individuals. Clinical and Experimental Health Sciences. 2021; 11(3): 381 - 386. 10.33808/clinexphealthsci.715517
Vancouver Kılınç M,MURAT G,KINIKLI G The Reliability and Validity of the Turkish Version of the Mental Fatigue Scale In Healthy Individuals. Clinical and Experimental Health Sciences. 2021; 11(3): 381 - 386. 10.33808/clinexphealthsci.715517
IEEE Kılınç M,MURAT G,KINIKLI G "The Reliability and Validity of the Turkish Version of the Mental Fatigue Scale In Healthy Individuals." Clinical and Experimental Health Sciences, 11, ss.381 - 386, 2021. 10.33808/clinexphealthsci.715517
ISNAD Kılınç, Muhammed vd. "The Reliability and Validity of the Turkish Version of the Mental Fatigue Scale In Healthy Individuals". Clinical and Experimental Health Sciences 11/3 (2021), 381-386. https://doi.org/10.33808/clinexphealthsci.715517
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
24-04-2024 14:32

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları