Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 28, 2025
Measuring the Motor Aspect of Cancer-Related Fatigue using a Handheld Dynamometer
Published on: February 20, 2020
Minimal and robust clinically important difference of three fatigue measures in chronic stroke survivors
Moslem Cheraghifard1, Nazanin Sarlak2, Ghorban Taghizadeh3
1PhD Student of Occupational Therapy, Rehabilitation Research Center, Department of Occupational Therapy, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Background:
Fatigue assessment scale (FAS), fatigue subscale of the Profile of Mood States (POMS-F), and vitality subscale of the Short Form Health Survey (SF-36-VT) are among the first and most widely used adapted tools for assessing post-stroke fatigue.
Objective:
To identify the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and robust clinically important difference (RCID) of FAS, POMS-F, and SF-36-VT in stroke survivors.
Methods:
Participants completed the FAS, POMS-F, and SF-36-VT before and after receiving 6-week intervention including graded activity training and pacing therapy. MCID was calculated using the distribution-based and anchor-based methods. Further, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of calculated values using the distribution-based method were used for determining RCID.
Result:
A total of 124 stroke survivors participated in this study. MCID for FAS, POMS-F, and SF-36-VT was found to be 4.86, 3.32, and -10.10 (using score change) and 3.5, 2.5, and -10.5 (using ROC analysis), respectively. Using the distribution-based method, the MCID value obtained for the FAS was in the range of 3.16 to 8.76, for the POMS-F was in the range of 1.49 to 5.63, and for the SF-36-VT was in the range of -15.43 to -5.58. ½SD for FAS, ½ SD and 1.96 SEM for POMS-F, and 1.96 SEM and SD for SF-36-VT showed the best discriminative ability to use as the RCID.
Conclusions:
The MCID and RCID were calculated for FAS, POMS-F, and SF-36-VT using different methods. The results can be used by researchers and clinicians for interpreting their findings in subjects similar to those who participated in this study.
