MFI-20
Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI-20)
The MFI-20 is a self-report questionnaire designed to explore fatigue in adults in a multidimensional way. It measures five complementary components: general fatigue, physical fatigue, mental fatigue, reduced activity, and reduced motivation. Its brief format allows rapid identification of the fatigue profile, which is useful in clinical psychology, psycho-oncology, behavioral medicine, and the follow-up of chronic illnesses. It is particularly relevant when the goal is not only to estimate the overall intensity of fatigue but also to identify its dominant forms and their functional impact. The tool is widely used in research and practice for screening, initial assessment, and monitoring change.
- Number of questions
- 20 questions
- Estimated duration
- 5 minutes
- Language
- English
- Original name
- Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory
- Target audience
- Adults
- Authors
- Ellen M. A. Smets, Bert Garssen, Benno Bonke, Hanneke C. J. M. de Haes (1995)
- Category
- General
Scoring & interpretation
Each item is rated on a scale from 1 to 5. Ten positively worded items must be reverse-scored before calculation, namely items 2, 5, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, and 19. Scores are calculated by summing five 4-item subscales: general fatigue, physical fatigue, reduced activity, reduced motivation, and mental fatigue. Each subscale ranges from 4 to 20. A high score indicates more fatigue in the dimension concerned. A total score from 20 to 100 can also be obtained by summing the subscales, but clinical interpretation is generally more useful when based on the profile of the five dimensions than on the total score alone.
Usage
This tool isn't available on Mentaal. To use this questionnaire in your practice, you need a valid license. We invite you to send it directly from the publisher's website.
Available alternatives
What psychologists think
No ratings yet. Be the first to rate this questionnaire.
Clarity and comprehension
—Are the test's instructions and questions easy for patients to understand?
Clinical relevance
—Does the test measure what it's meant to measure, and is it useful in a clinical setting?
Perceived reliability of the results
—Do the results seem reliable and consistent in their interpretation?