Single-item fatigue measure (Van Hooff)
Identity
Version: A one-item state-fatigue question ('How fatigued do you currently feel?'), used as a momentary rating within daily-diary designs; typically a single response scale administered several times per day.
Structure: 1
Original citation: Van Hooff MLM, Geurts SAE, Kompier MAJ, Taris TW (2007). 'How fatigued do you currently feel?' Convergent and discriminant validity of a single-item fatigue measure. Journal of Occupational Health 49(3):224-234. doi:10.1539/joh.49.224
Steward / publisher: Described in the peer-reviewed literature (Journal of Occupational Health). No commercial test publisher or proprietary distribution product; the item is a generic single question.
Constructs claimed
Momentary (state) subjective fatigue, that is how tired or fatigued a person feels at the moment of measurement, as distinct from chronic fatigue or need for recovery.
Evidence
Structural validity Not applicable (category difference)untestedevidence form: canonical
direct category error for a single item
Not applicable by construction; a single item has no internal factor structure to assess (Van Hooff et al. 2007).
Convergent and discriminant validity Lowthinevidence form: canonical
indirect evidence rests on a single Dutch academic-staff diary sample (N=120); not replicated and not UK
This is the one property with direct evidence, and it is the record's anchor. In a 9-day daily-diary study of 120 academic staff (three measurements per day), the single-item fatigue measure correlated strongly with the validated multi-item Profile of Mood States fatigue subscale (r=0.80) and with conceptually related daily and global measures (work-home interference, sleep complaints, work-related effort, job pressure), supporting convergent validity. Correlations with conceptually distinct measures (daily work pleasure, job control, social support, motivation to learn) were weak or non-significant, supporting discriminant validity (Van Hooff et al. 2007). Broader single-item methodological work is consistent with single items tracking their multi-item counterparts for concrete states (Fisher, Matthews & Gibbons 2016; Song et al. 2022).
Criterion validity: reference standard Absent (a finding about the literature)untestedevidence form: canonical
direct no reference-standard study located
No validation of the single fatigue item against a diagnostic or clinical fatigue reference standard was located in the latest review pass. The validating study used a multi-item mood scale (POMS fatigue) as a convergent comparator, not a diagnostic standard (Van Hooff et al. 2007).
Criterion validity: organisational Absent (a finding about the literature)untestedevidence form: canonical
direct no organisational-criterion study located
No study linking the single fatigue item to work outcomes (sickness absence, turnover, objective performance, diagnosed conditions at work) was located in the latest review pass. The original validation concerned convergent and discriminant validity within a diary design, not prediction of organisational outcomes (Van Hooff et al. 2007). This absence is the finding.
Internal consistency Not applicable (category difference)untestedevidence form: canonical
direct category error for a single item
Not applicable; a single item has no inter-item covariance and no alpha or omega can be computed.
Test-retest reliability Absent (a finding about the literature)untested
direct absence applies to the single-item fatigue measure specifically
No conventional test-retest coefficient for the single-item fatigue measure was located in the latest review pass. This is expected in part because the item measures a momentary, deliberately fluctuating state, for which high day-to-day stability would not be desired; the validating study modelled within-person daily variation rather than temporal stability (Van Hooff et al. 2007). The absence of any stability coefficient is nonetheless a genuine gap for the instrument, recorded here explicitly rather than papered over.
Measurement invariance Not applicable (category difference)untestedevidence form: canonical
direct formal invariance modelling is a category error for a single item; substantive comparability is untested
Not applicable in the multi-group confirmatory-factor sense for a single item, and no substantive cross-group comparability evidence (sex, age, occupation, language) for the single fatigue item was located in the latest review pass.
Responsiveness and MIC Very lowthinevidence form: canonical
indirect sensitivity to daily variation is inferred from one diary sample; no formal responsiveness or minimal-important-change evidence exists
The single fatigue item was designed to capture within-day and day-to-day variation, and the diary analysis showed it moved with conceptually related daily variables, which is indirect evidence of sensitivity to change (Van Hooff et al. 2007). However, no formal responsiveness study and no anchored minimal-important-change value were located in the latest review pass, so established responsiveness and minimal important change are Absent.
Populations, languages and norms
Validated in a single sample of Dutch academic staff within a diary design (Van Hooff et al. 2007). No broader population validation, no language-adaptation evidence and no norms were located in the latest review pass. There is no UK working-population evidence for this specific item.
Criticisms and controversies
Beyond the general single-item critique, the specific limitation here is thinness: the psychometric case rests essentially on one 2007 diary study in one occupational group, so external validity is largely unestablished. The item is validated as a momentary state measure, so using it as a general or chronic fatigue indicator, or in single cross-sectional surveys, extends it beyond its evidence. 'Fatigue' also overlaps with sleepiness, need for recovery and emotional exhaustion, and a one-item global rating cannot separate these, which is a construct-clarity concern the wider single-item literature repeatedly raises (Fisher, Matthews & Gibbons 2016).
References (5)
- Van Hooff; Geurts; Kompier et al. (2007). “How Fatigued Do You Currently Feel?” Convergent and Discriminant Validity of a Single‐Item Fatigue Measure https://doi.org/10.1539/joh.49.224
- Fisher; Matthews; Gibbons (2016). Developing and investigating the use of single-item measures in organizational research. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039139
- Song; Howe; Oltmanns et al. (2022). Examining the Concurrent and Predictive Validity of Single Items in Ecological Momentary Assessments https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911221113563
- Diamantopoulos; Sarstedt; Fuchs et al. (2012). Guidelines for choosing between multi-item and single-item scales for construct measurement: a predictive validity perspective https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0300-3
- Bergkvist; Rossiter (2007). The Predictive Validity of Multiple-Item versus Single-Item Measures of the Same Constructs https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.44.2.175
Record notes
Overall confidence: this is a genuinely thin single-item record and is graded conservatively throughout. The only property with direct primary evidence is convergent/discriminant validity (Low/thin, r=0.80 with POMS fatigue in one N=120 Dutch diary study); reference-standard criterion, organisational criterion and test-retest are all Absent; responsiveness is Very low. That thinness is itself the graded finding, per the honesty rules, rather than a reason to inflate grades. The v0.2 schema handled this cleanly: scale-level properties are marked Not-applicable (single item), and the genuinely missing properties are marked Absent with the absence stated as a finding. Population indirectness is severe for a UK working-adult audience (one non-UK academic sample).