Validity of the multidimensional fatigue symptom inventory-short form in an African-American community-based sample

OBJECTIVES: This study examined the psychometric properties of the Multidimensional Fatigue Symptom Inventory-Short Form (MFSI-SF) in a community-based sample of African Americans. Design. A sample of 340 African Americans (116 men, 224 women) ranging in age from 18–81 years were recruited from the community (e.g., churches, health fairs, beauty salons). Participants completed a brief demographic survey, the MFSI-SF and the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule. RESULTS: The structural validity of the MFSI-SF for a community-based sample of African Americans was not supported. The five dimensions of fatigue (General, Emotional, Physical, Mental, Vigor) found for Whites in prior research were not found for African Americans in this study. Instead, fatigue, while multidimensional for African Americans, was best represented by a unique four-four profile in which general and emotional fatigue are collapsed into a single dimension and physical fatigue, mental fatigue, and vigor are relatively distinct. Hence, in the absence of modifications, the MFSI-SF cannot be considered to be structurally invariant across ethnic groups. A modified four-factor version of the MFSI-SF exhibited excellent internal consistency reliability and evidence supports its convergent validity. Using the modified four-factor version, gender and age were not meaningfully associated with MFSI-SF scores. CONCLUSION: Future research should further examine whether modifications to the MFSI-SF would, as the findings suggest, improve its validity as a measure of multidimensional fatigue in African Americans

R.J. Brandes Company

Authorization for use or reproduction of any original material contained in this publication, i.e., not obtained from other sources, is freely granted. The Board would appreciate acknowledgment. The use of brand names in this publication does not indicate an endorsement by the Texas Water Development Board or the State of Texas. With the exception of papers written by Texas Water Development Board staff, views expressed in this report are of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Texas Water Development Board. Published and distributed by th