Development and preliminary testing of the cancer‐related fatigue comprehensive assessment scale in cancer survivors

Abstract Background Tailored management of cancer‐related fatigue (CRF) is important for effective coping; however, it has been hindered by the lack of a comprehensive tool that assesses both symptoms and treatable influencing factors. Aims and Objectives The aim was to develop a cancer‐related fatigue comprehensive assessment scale (CRF‐CAS) and assess its psychometric properties. Design This was a mixed‐method study. Methods The study included two phases which were conducted in Zhejiang Province, China. In phase one, a literature search, brainstorming sessions, Delphi studies, cognitive interviews and a pilot study were conducted to construct and revise CRF‐CAS indicators. In phase two, a questionnaire‐based survey was conducted among cancer survivors. Item analysis was used to select and optimize indicators. Cronbach's α was calculated for reliability analysis. Validity analysis included concurrent validity and structural validity. Results A 93‐item tool was initially constructed. Phase one ended with revision and optimization. The preliminary scale included five dimensions (CRF symptoms, physical activity, cognitive‐emotional status, sleep status, nutritional status) and 30 items. The mean item‐content validity index (I‐CVI) and scale‐level CVI universal agreement (S‐CVI/UA) were .98, and the adjusted mean values of Kappa for indicators ranged from .91–1, as evaluated by the expert group. The Pearson correlation coefficient between the CRF‐CAS and criterion scales ranged from .337–.862. Cronbach's α coefficient ranged from .624–.728. Respondents agreed that the scale was acceptable for administration and that it contributed to decision‐making in fatigue management. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) indicated that the CRF‐CAS fit well. Conclusions The construction process of the CRF‐CAS, involving panel discussion and expert and participant evaluations, was shown to be scientific and feasible. The CRF‐CAS had relatively good validity and reliability in version 5 of its preliminary scale, which requires further improvement in future studies.