Basia BelzaChristina E. MiyawakiMinhui LiuSuparb Aree-UeMelissa FesselKenya R. MinottXi ZhangZhengzhou Railway Vocational & Technical CollegeSeattle Rhumatology AssociatesUniversity of Washington, SeattleMahidol UniversityJohns Hopkins University School of NursingUniversity of Houston2019-08-282019-08-282018-01-01Journal of Nursing Measurement. Vol.26, No.1 (2018), 36-75106137492-s2.0-85059289541https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/47288© Springer Publishing Company. Purpose: To review how the Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue (MAF) has been used and evaluate its psychometric properties. Methods: We conducted a database search using "multidimensional assessment of fatigue" or "MAF" as key terms from 1993 to 2015, and located 102 studies. Results: Eighty-three were empirical studies and 19 were reviews/evaluations. Research was conducted in 17 countries; 32 diseases were represented. Nine language versions of the MAF were used. The mean of the Global Fatigue Index ranged from 10.9 to 49.4. The MAF was reported to be easy-to-use, had strong reliability and validity, and was used in populations who spoke languages other than English. Conclusion: The MAF is an acceptable assessment tool to measure fatigue and intervention effectiveness in various languages, diseases, and settings across the world.Mahidol UniversityNursingArticleSCOPUS10.1891/1061-3749.26.1.36