Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 4, 2026

Measuring the Motor Aspect of Cancer-Related Fatigue using a Handheld Dynamometer
Published on: February 20, 2020
Development and validation of the rest experience scale for adults with chronically fatiguing conditions
Martin Ackah1, Ulric S Abonie1, Florentina Johanna Hettinga1,2
1Department of Sport Exercise and Rehabilitation, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Introduction:
Rest is a key component of rehabilitation but remains understudied and underspecified in research and practice, partly due to limited conceptual understanding and comprehensive assessment tools. This gap may hinder the integration of rest advice into physical activity and fatigue management protocols. This study aimed to develop and validate the Multidimensional Rest Experience Scale (MRES) for adults with Chronically Fatiguing Conditions (CFC).
Methods:
Conducted in three phases, Phase 1 involved MRES development via a modified Delphi method to ensure content validity. Phase 2 included preliminary validation by administering the MRES to a representative sample of adults with CFC to assess construct validity and factor structure. Phase 3 evaluated reliability, examining internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Descriptive and inferential analyses were performed.
Results:
The Delphi process reached consensus on 25 items. Exploratory factor analysis refined the scale to 22 items with six factors: resting activity, restorative rest, planning and prioritising rest, physical and psychological barriers to rest, emotional response to rest, and risk of under-resting. Resting Activity showed significant positive correlations with Chronic Pain Coping Inventory (CPCI) Rest subscale (r = 0.572, p < 0.001) and Pacing Engagement (r = 0.332, p < 0.001). Planning and Prioritising Rest correlated with CPCI-Rest (r = 0.532, p < 0.001) and Pacing Engagement (r = 0.681, p < 0.0001). Under-resting risk correlated with Over-Activity risk (r = 0.504, p < 0.001). Discriminant validity for the MRES-22 subscales was established, with Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratios ≤ 0.85. Internal consistency was acceptable to good (Cronbach's α = 0.773-0.829, CR = 0.752-0.830), and test-retest reliability was good to excellent (ICC = 0.816-0.943).
Conclusion:
The MRES-22 is a valid and reliable tool for capturing the multidimensional components of rest experience, which are often overlooked in fatigue management protocols. This finding supports the use of the MRES-22 in both clinical and research settings to enhance understanding of rest in relation to key health outcomes and to optimise fatigue interventions in rehabilitation.

