Detailled Information

Name of the Instrument/Tool Revised Piper Fatigue Self-Report Scale (PFS-R)
First Description

Piper BF, Dibble SL, Dodd MJ, et al. The revised Piper Fatigue Scale: psychometric evaluation in women with breast cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum. 1998 May;25(4):677-84.

Year 1998
Domains
Concept of constructs Fatigue
Population/Disease Generic
Originally developed for ---
Other rheumatic diseases
where can be applied (only if validated)
Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE), Fibromyalgia (FM)
Additional population with no rheumatic diseases Yes
Cancer
Language: Originally published in English
Available in Language Portuguese, Swedish, French, Greek, Dutch
REFERENCE IDENTIFICATION
Author/s Piper BF, Dibble SL, Dodd MJ, Weiss MC, Slaughter RE, Paul SM
Title The revised Piper Fatigue Scale: psychometric evaluation in women with breast cancer
Journal Oncol Nurs Forum
Year 1998
Vol 25
Num 4
Pages 677-84
Country USA
Language English
Other references of interest
Link http://pubs.sciepub.com/ajnr/6/6/7/index.html
Brief Description

Effectiveness of exercises on fatigue level in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus

Link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17086781/
Brief Description

Factor analysis of the Revised Piper Fatigue Scale in a caregiver sample

Link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33091265/
Brief Description

Measures of Fatigue in Patients With Rheumatic Diseases: A Critical Review

Instrument/Tool Translations References
Link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16713528/
Brief Description

Psychometric properties of the revised Piper Fatigue Scale in Dutch cancer patients were satisfactory

Link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23695719/
Brief Description

The Piper Fatigue Scale-Revised: translation and psychometric evaluation in Spanish-speaking breast cancer survivors

Link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20572586/
Brief Description

The revised piper fatigue scale (PFS-R) for Italian cancer patients: a validation study

DEVELOPER CONTACT INFORMATION
Correspondence to Barbara Fliegel Piper
E-Mail bpiper@shc.org
Address College of Nursing, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, USA.
Website ---
Available ---
Links ---
DESCRIPTION OF THE INSTRUMENT
Type Of Measure Scale
Brief Description

The PFS was developed to assess perceived fatigue in patients with chronic diseases such as cancer. The scale was originally developed in 1989 and was revised in 1998.

The PFS-R consists of four dimensions of subjective fatigue. The subscales are behavioral/severity (six items), affective meaning (five items), sensory (five items), and cognitive/mood (six items). The behavioral/severity subscale consists of items related to the impact and distress of fatigue on activities of daily living, the affective meaning subscale consists of items related to the emotional attributes of fatigue, the sensory subscale consists of items related to physical symptoms of fatigue, and the cognitive/mood subscale consists of items related to mental and mood status

Number of Items 22 questions + 5 additional items (qualitative data)
Range 0-10
Responses options/scale Yes
1 (strong disagreement) - 10 (strong agreement)
Developed for Both
PRACTICAL APPLICATION
Method of administration Self-administered
Recommendations to score

The total score varies from 0 to 10. Total and subscale mean scores are derived from summing up the individual items and dividing this value by the number of items in the subscale/total scale to maintain the 0 to 10 scaling.

In the case of missing item data, if the respondent has answered at least 75% to 80% of the remaining items on that particular subscale, the subscale mean score is calculated based on the number of items answered. The mean value is substituted for the missing item score.

Score Interpretation The higher scores correspond with higher fatigue levels.
Cut-off points The severity codes are as follows: 0 = none, 1 to 3 = mild, 4 to 6 = moderate, and 7 to 10 = severe.
Cut-off points applied to ---
Smallest detectable change if described ---
Smallest detectable change applied to ---
Completion time by the patient - minutes
Scoring time by the assessor - minutes
Training to score Not necessary
Strengths Easy to use
Limitations ---
OTHER COMMENTS
Other Comments ---