Measurement of Cancer-Related Fatigue: Dimensional Structure and Internal Consistency of the Brazilian Version of The EORTC QLQ-FA12 Instrument
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32635/2176-9745.RBC.2026v72n2.5622Keywords:
Neoplasms/complications, Fatigue, ; Evaluation of Research Programs and ToolsAbstract
Introduction: European studies have demonstrated the three-dimensional structure and adequate reliability of the EORTC QLQ-FA12 for assessing cancer-related fatigue. Objective: To evaluate the dimensional structure and internal consistency of the Brazilian version of the EORTC QLQ-FA12. Method: A cross-sectional study with 278 patients at a High-Complexity Oncology Care Center located in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed using the Weighted Least Squares Mean and Variance Adjusted estimator and polychoric correlation matrices. Exploratory structural equation models were tested using confirmatory factor analysis methods and geomin oblique rotation. The Comparative Fit Index, Tucker-Lewis Index, and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) were used to evaluate model fit. Internal consistency was assessed through composite reliability, and correlations between dimensions were examined to investigate discriminant factorial validity. Results: The confirmatory factor analysis of the three-dimensional structure, despite a borderline RMSEA, showed overall good statistical fit, with factor loadings ranging from 0.608 to 0.873 in the original dimensions, adequate internal consistency, and acceptable discriminant validity. However, in exploratory structural equation models, this structure presented cross-loadings as well as a borderline RMSEA. Internal consistency was considered adequate, and correlations between dimensions were acceptable. Conclusion: The Brazilian version of the EORTC QLQ-FA12 appears to be three-dimensional, with all items coherently representing the construct of cancer-related fatigue.
Downloads
References
Berger AM, Mooney K, Alvarez-Perez A, et al. Cancer-related fatigue, version 2.2015. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2015;13(8):1012-39. doi: https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2015.0122 DOI: https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2015.0122
Ma Y, He B, Jiang M, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of cancer-related fatigue: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2020;111:103707. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103707 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103707
Poopady A, Nayak S, D’Silva F, et al. Cancer related fatigue measurement scales: a systematic review. Indian J Public Health Res Dev. 2023;67(3):448-54. doi: https://doi.org/10.4103/ijph.ijph_1025_22 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/ijph.ijph_1025_22
Weis J, Arraras JI, Conroy T, et al. Development of an EORTC quality of life phase III module measuring cancer-related fatigue (EORTC QLQ-FA13). Psychooncology. 2013;22(5):1002-7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.3092 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.3092
Weis J, Tomaszewski KA, Hammerlid E, et al. International psychometric validation of an EORTC quality of life module measuring cancer related fatigue (EORTC QLQ-FA12). J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017;109(5):djw273. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djw273 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djw273
Kecke S, Ernst J, Einenkel J, et al. Psychometric properties of the fatigue questionnaire EORTC QLQ-FA12 in a sample of female cancer patients. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2017;54(6):922-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2017.08.007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2017.08.007
Friedrich M, Nowe E, Hofmeister D, et al. Psychometric properties of the fatigue questionnaire EORTC QLQ-FA12 and proposal of a cut-off value for young adults with cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018;16(125):1-11. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-018-0949-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-018-0949-0
Hinz A, Weis J, Brähler E, et al. Fatigue in the general population: german normative values of the EORTC QLQ-FA12. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(10):2681-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1918-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1918-0
Viana AFV, Rocha LF, Carvalho MS, et al. Equivalência de itens e semântica da versão brasileira do EORTC QLQ-FA13. Rev Bras Pesqui Saúde [Internet]. 2017[acesso 2025 dez 12];19(4):16-22. Disponível em: https://ninho.inca.gov.br/jspui/handle/123456789/8598 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21722/rbps.v19i4.19798
Herdman M, Fox-Rushby J, Badia X. A model of equivalence in the cultural adaptation of HRQoL instruments: the universalist approach. Qual Life Res. 1998;7(4):323-35. doi: https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1024985930536 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024985930536
Silva DGF, Souza ALLP, Martins TCF, et al. Confiabilidade teste-reteste do instrumento EORTC QLQ FA13 para avaliação de fadiga em pacientes oncológicos. Cad saúde colet. 2017;25(2):152-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/1414-462X201700020061 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/1414-462x201700020061
Instituto Nacional de Câncer. TNM: classificação de tumores malignos. 8. ed. Rio de Janeiro: INCA; 2022.
Brown TA. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. 2. ed. New York: The Guilford Press; 2015. p. 74-5.
Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, et al. SEM: confirmatory factor analysis. 6. ed. Porto Alegre: Bookman; 2009.
Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 4. ed. New York: The Guilford Press; 2015.
Loehlin JC. Latent variable models: an introduction to factor, path, and structural equation analysis. 4. ed. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2003.
Reichenheim ME, Hökerberg YHM, Moraes CL. Assessing construct structural validity of epidemiological measurement tools: a seven-step roadmap. Cad Saúde Pública. 2014;30(5):927-39. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-311X00143613 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-311X00143613
Mplus [Internet]. Versão 7.1. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén; 2015 [acesso 2025 jan 23]. Disponível em: www.statmodel.com
Conselho Nacional de Saúde (BR). Resolução nº 466 de 12 de dezembro de 2012. Aprova diretrizes e normas regulamentadoras de pesquisas envolvendo seres humanos. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, DF. 2013 jun 13; Edição 112; Seção 1:59.
Costello A, Osborne J. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pract Ass Res Eval. 2005;10(7):1-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.7275/jyj1-4868
Velicer WF, Fava JL. Effects of variable and subject sampling on factor pattern recovery. Psychol Methods. 1998;3(2):231-51. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.2.231 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.2.231
Pett MA, Lackey NR, Sullivan JJ. Making sense of factor analysis: the use of factor analysis for instrument development in health care research. London: Sage Publications; 2003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412984898
Marsh HW, Hau KT, Balla JR, et al. Is more ever too much? The number of indicators per factor in confirmatory factor analysis. Multivariate Behav Res. 1998;33(2):181-220. doi: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3302_1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3302_1
Reichenheim ME, Bastos JLD, Moraes CL. Instrumentos de aferição para uso em epidemiologia. In: Medronho RA, Bloch KV, Luiz RR, et al., editores. Epidemiologia. 3. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Atheneu; 2025.
Zhang B, Randhawa A, Patel A, et al. Comparing FACIT-fatigue and EORTC QLQ-FA12 for assessing the quality of life in people with cancer-related fatigue. Curr Opin Support Palliat Care. 2026;20(1):52-61. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/SPC.0000000000000791 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SPC.0000000000000791
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Os direitos morais e intelectuais dos artigos pertencem aos respectivos autores, que concedem à RBC o direito de publicação.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
