Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2000, 41, 231± 241

Dimensions of fatigue in different working populations

ELIZABETH AÊHSBERG
National Institute for Working Life, Solna, Sweden

AÊhsberg, E. (2000). Dimensions of fatigue in different working populations. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 41, 231±241.
Perceived fatigue related to work has often been measured in one dimension. The main purpose of the present study was to validate a
proposed five-factor model of perceived fatigue in a new sample. 597 persons, employed in five occupations with different types of work loads,
rated their fatigue after work. The ratings were subjected to analyses of linear structural equation models. The results suggest a slightly revised
model for perceived fatigue, still with the five dimensions; Lack of energy, Physical exertion, Physical discomfort, Lack of motivation and
Sleepiness. As expected, the rating profiles describing fatigue states differed between the five occupations. On the basis of these results, a
revised version of the Swedish Occupational Fatigue Inventory (SOFI) is presented.
Key words: Perceived fatigue, work, ratings, structural equation modelling, confirmatory factor analysis.
Elizabeth AÊhsberg, Ergonomics Program, National Institute for Working Life, S-171 84 Solna, Sweden. E-mail: elizabeth.ahsberg@niwl.se

One of the most commonly used term for describing the
negative effects of work is probably fatigue. The problem
with the concept of fatigue is that it may refer to distinctly
different states. For example, fatigue may stand for states
described with the expressions ``weary'', ``strained'', or
``sleepy''. The concept of fatigue is diffuse in ordinary
language, but also important in that it describes a very
common phenomenon.
Fatigue is of course related to the work task being
performed, and specific work tasks differ in what kind of
demand they impose on a person. Work has generally been
distinguished with regard to physical or mental work.
However, such a distinction may be regarded as one of
degree, where the former involves relatively more use of large
muscles, whereas the latter involves relatively more of the
nervous system (Bills, 1934). In addition to physical (AÊstrand
& Rodahl, 1986) and mental (Reid & Nygren, 1988)
workload, there are other conditions which also affect the
general state of the individual. These include sensory load
(Grandjean, 1988), time of day (Folkard, 1983), psychological
(Eysenck, 1983) and physical (Gamberale & HolmeÂr, 1976)
environment, as well as person-related characteristics (Wendt
& Palmerton, 1976). Many studies of fatigue have conse-
quently used both subjective ratings and physiological
methods of measurement. Changes in performance or sensory
abilities are also frequently reported as signs of fatigue in
relation to work tasks. The choice of measurement method of
course depends on the explicit or implicit definition of fatigue
and on the purpose of the study.
Perceived fatigue has mostly been measured by uni-
dimensional rating scales (Krupp et al., 1989; OÈberg et al.,
1994). However, such general ratings give no information
about the possible qualitative differences between perceived
fatigue in different work situations. With a multi-dimen-
sional approach it may be possible to grasp both the quality
and the intensity of the perceived fatigue simultaneously
(Kinsman & Weiser, 1976). Some attempts have been made
to study the quality of fatigue and to develop multi-
dimensional inventories. It has been common to divide
fatigue into physical and mental dimensions (Cameron,
1973; Grandjean, 1979; Wessely & Powell, 1989), and
Chalder et al. (1993) has developed a rating scale for these
two dimensions. Yoshitake (1978) found three dimensions of
fatigue in a large field study: drowsiness and dullness,
inability to concentrate, and awareness of physical discom-
fort. More recently Smets et al. (1995; 1996) developed a
five-dimensional inventory, with the focus on patients, and
its validity was evaluated through confirmatory factor
analysis. The factors were interpreted as general fatigue,
physical fatigue, mental fatigue, reduced motivation and
reduced activity. Other perceived conditions in studies of
fatigue have been sleepiness (AÊkerstedt et al., 1987), physical
exertion (Borg et al., 1987) and discomfort (Cameron, 1996).
Despite the above mentioned studies, no systematic
attempt has been made to a general understanding of
perceived fatigue related to work. However, an instrument
for measurement of work-related perceived fatigue has
recently been developed, the Swedish Occupational Fatigue
Inventory (SOFI) (AÊhsberg et al., 1997). The instrument
consists of 25 expressions, evenly distributed on five latent
factors. The factors were interpreted as Lack of energy,
Physical exertion, Physical discomfort, Lack of motivation,
and Sleepiness. The factor Lack of energy showed particu-
larly strong correlations with the other four factors, which
indicated that Lack of energy was a more general, and
underlying, dimension of fatigue. Concerning the mental
and physical dimensions of fatigue, the SOFI-factors
Physical exertion and Physical discomfort may be considered
as physical factors, while Lack of motivation and Sleepiness
may be considered as primarily mental factors. Lack of
energy seems to be a more general factor reflecting both
physical and mental aspects of fatigue. In order to test the

# 2000 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and
350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. ISSN 0036-5564.
232 E. AÊhsberg
instrument, two experiments and one field study have been
conducted. In the first experiment, two different kinds of
physical work were performed: cycling, which is a dynamic
whole body work, and holding one arm out straight,
which gives a static load on small muscles (AÊhsberg and
Gamberale, 1998). In the second experiment, two different
kinds of mental work were performed: proof reading, which
involves complex information processing, and a vigilance
task, which involves simple perceptual discrimination
(AÊhsberg et al., 2000). The field study was conducted among
shift workers, working at a fast rotating three-shift during
seven weeks (AÊhsberg et al., in press). The results indicated
the discriminatory capacity of the SOFI regarding fatigue
due to physical and mental work, as well as regarding
fatigue due to night work.
The main purpose of the present study was to validate the
proposed five-factor model of perceived fatigue in a new
sample. The sample was chosen from occupations with very
different work conditions, in order to reach persons with
mentally or physically demanding work, as well as shift
working persons. The first occupational group was teachers,
and teaching may be considered as a work with high
demands and a high degree of control in the work situation.
In spite of this, it has been shown that teachers suffer from
work-related stress (Boyle et al., 1995; Pithers & Fogarty,
1995), and they are thereby at risk to suffer from burn-out
(Belcastro et al., 1983). Many teachers also consider their
work to be psychologically demanding (Statistics Sweden,
1997). The second occupational group was firemen. Fire-
fighting may be considered to be a work with high physical
demands of a dynamic character (Barnard & Duncan, 1975;
Lusa, 1994), where both the physical and mental demands
may vary dramatically over a working day (Glazner, 1989).
It has been shown that firemen consider their work to be
both heavy and difficult, as well as mentally demanding
(Fathollahzadeh et al., 1996). The third occupational group
was cashiers, and working at a cash register is a work with
high physical demands of a repetitive and static character.
The physical load may be low per movement, but during a
working day the accumulated total load is very high
(Lundberg et al., 1996). Musculoskeletal disorders in the
neck and shoulder (Baron & Habes, 1992; Panzone et al.,
1996), as well as muscle tension and psychophysiological
stress reactions (Lundberg et al., 1996), have been found to
be work-related among cashiers. The fourth occupational
group was bus drivers. Driving a city bus may be considered
a work with high demands on attention and a low degree of
influence on the work pace. Bus drivers are supposed to
drive safely, to drive according to the time schedule, and to
give good service to the passengers. These demands may be
perceived as conflicting (Evans, 1994), and bus drivers often
complain of excessive fatigue after work (Kompier, 1996).
The fifth occupational group was locomotive engineers
working night shifts. Shift work is associated with sleepiness,
concerning both subjective and physiological changes, as
# 2000 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations.
Scand J Psychol 41 (2000)
well as performance effects. Sleepiness is most prominent
during night shifts, due to both circadian rhythms and lack
of sleep (AÊkerstedt, 1988). Also, negative mood has been
found to increase during night shifts (Paley & Tepas, 1994).
Another purpose was to describe the perceived fatigue
among these five occupations. Some hypotheses, based on
previous knowledge (for example Lundberg et al.; AÊhsberg
et al., 1997; AÊkerstedt, 1988) and assumptions of high work
demands, were formulated. The hypotheses about the
reports of perceived fatigue were; high ratings on Lack of
energy for the teachers, high ratings on Lack of energy and
Physical exertion for the firemen, high ratings on Lack of
energy and Physical discomfort for the cashiers, high ratings
on Lack of energy and Lack of motivation for the bus drivers,
and high ratings on Lack of energy and Sleepiness for the
locomotive engineers.
METHOD
Participants
In total about 1300 employees were asked to participate in the
study, by completing a questionnaire. Forty-six per cent (597
persons) volunteered to participate in the study. The participants
came from five different occupations: teachers (77 women, 17 men);
firemen (3 women, 87 men); cashiers (86 women, 35 men, one person
did not report gender); bus drivers (45 women, 102 men, one person
did not report gender); and locomotive engineers (4 women, 139
men). The mean age varied from 24±46 years for the different
occupational groups.
Procedure
The participants answered a questionnaire after a specified work-
shift. The teachers, who worked in the senior stage of comprehen-
sive schools in Stockholm, rated their fatigue after a day with many
lessons. The firemen, who worked in fire departments in Stockholm,
rated their fatigue after fire-fighting for at least 20 minutes. The fire-
fighting was a simulated practice situation for experienced firemen,
with very high physical demands in heat. The cashiers, who worked
in supermarkets in Stockholm, rated their fatigue after a work shift
with more than two hours at the cash register. The bus drivers, who
worked in the city area of Stockholm, rated their fatigue after a
working day. The work schedules were irregular and based on a
three-shift schedule. The bus drivers were asked to participate in the
study after a morning or afternoon shift, while night shifts were
excluded from the study. The locomotive engineers, who departured
from two railway stations, one in the central part of Sweden and one
in the south of Sweden, rated their fatigue after a night shift with
conveyance of goods.
As the work conditions differed considerably between the
occupations, the working time by necessity also differed. This
means that the occupational groups are not exposed to the same
amount of working time, but all five realistic work situations may be
judged as highly demanding and should lead to substantial fatigue.
Questionnaire
Perceived fatigue was rated with a revised version of the SOFI. The
response scale was modified from an 11-grade to a 7-grade response
Scand J Psychol 41 (2000)
scale, and two SOFI-expressions were replaced according to
previous results (AÊhsberg & Gamberale, 1998; AÊhsberg et al.,
2000). The participants rated 25 verbal expressions, with regard to
how they felt when they were most tired during work. The two
extreme values of the numerical response scale are verbally defined,
0 ˆ ``not at all'' and 6 ˆ ``to a very high degree''.
In order to compare the SOFI with responses to an explicit
question of overall fatigue, and ratings of perceived work load, some
additional questions were administered. The overall perceived
fatigue may be regarded as a measure of reference for each specific
fatigue dimension, and was rated with the CR10-scale (Borg, 1982).
The CR10 is a general intensity scale and has, for example, been
used for ratings of pain, taste and loudness (Borg, 1998). Questions
about work load, supposed to reflect the perceived working
situation, were constructed concerning the aspects of demands and
control (Karasek, 1979; Karasek & Theorell, 1990). The questions
about work demands were ``Do you have too much to do?'' and
``Are your work tasks too difficult?''. The questions about control
were ``Can you regulate the work pace?'' and ``Can you decide how
to perform the work?''. The 5-grade response scale varied from ``not
at all, or short moments'' to ``all, or almost all work time''.
Statistical procedures
To obtain a simple measure of each SOFI-factor, a mean of the
ratings was calculated. Analyses of linear structural equation
models were performed (Gustafsson & Stahl, 1997), in order to
find a model that both fits the data statistically and that may be
meaningfully interpreted. Both Confirmative Factor Analyses
(Crowly & Xitao, 1997; Mueller, 1996) and model generating
analyses (JoÈreskog & SoÈrbom, 1993) were performed. The
covariance matrix was analysed, using the maximum likelihood
estimation method (Hoyle, 1995). Differences between the occupa-
tions were examined with multivariate analyses of variance, and
further univariate effects were tested with Scheffe tests for each
SOFI-factor. The relations between different ratings were calculated
with Pearsons product-moment correlation. The common variance
of the SOFI and the CR10-scale was calculated with multiple
regression analyses. The reliability coefficients, as measures of
internal consistency, were achieved in the structural equation
analyses.
RESULTS
The structure of perceived fatigue
Two Confirmatory Factor Analyses were performed, with
the purpose of testing the proposed five-factor structure of
perceived fatigue (AÊhsberg et al., 1997) on a new sample. As
a start, a simple one-factor model was strictly confirmatively
tested, where the 25 variables were related to one latent
Table 1. Summary of results from confirmatory factor analyses (one-factor model and hypothesised model) and a model generating analysis
(nested model). The hypothesised model is compared to the one-factor model, and the generated nested model to the hypothesised model, (
chi 2=

df).
Model ch 2=df diff chi 2=df
One-factor, 25 var. 5692=275 ± ±
Hypothesised 25 var. 1511=265 4180=10
Nested, 20 var. 558=148 923=117
# 2000 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations.
Dimensions of fatigue 233
factor, assuming that fatigue is a coherent concept consist-
ing of only one dimension. The results showed that this
model had a very unsatisfactory fit to the data (Table 1).
Then the hypothetical, but empirically based, model was
tested. The model consisted of 25 observed variables, evenly
distributed on five latent variables. The latent variables were
assumed to be intercorrelated. The results showed that this
theoretical model was significantly better as compared to
the one-factor model, both regarding the RMSEA- and the
GFI-values, but that it still had an unsatisfactory fit to the
data. The RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approx-
imation) is a measure of the discrepancy between the
hypothesised model and the data, and is recommended to
be less than 0.08 and preferable below 0.05. The GFI
(Goodness of Fit Index) is a descriptive measure of model fit
as compared to no model at all, and values above 0.90 are
regarded as indicating acceptable models (Gustafsson and
Stahl, 1997).
To further explore the possibility of finding a theoretical
model that both was possible to interpret and statistically
well-adjusted to the empirical data, some model-generating
analyses were conducted. Stepwise analyses were performed,
where modification index, internal correlations, factor
loadings, and t-values for each manifest variable were
analysed. Together with a subjective judgement, this
information made it possible to formulate a revised model,
where the expressions exhausted, warm, hurting, listless, and
lazy were excluded. The revised model was more simple, as it
included only 20 manifest variables and four latent
variables, but at the same time more complex since a
general latent variable was introduced. The results indicated
an acceptable, even if not wholly satisfactory, fit to the data.
Both according to the chi 2-difference (
chi 2=
df), and the
RMSEA- and GFI-values, it was indicated that the
generated nested model was better than the two previous
models (Table 1).
This combination of a nested and an oblique model means
that the five-factor structure remains, and may be inter-
preted as a model that captures both a general dimension
and some specific dimensions of fatigue (Fig. 1). That is, the
general latent variable is assumed to represent primarily the
variance that stems from the previous specific factor Lack of
energy, as well as much of the common variance that
pervades in different states of fatigue, while the four specific
latent variables are assumed to represent unique differences

chi 2=
df RMSEA p GFI AGFI
0.195 0.00 0.39 0.27
41.8 0.095 0.00 0.80 0.76
7.9 0.076 0.00 0.90 0.85
234 E. AÊhsberg
in different states of fatigue. The general latent variable is
here called ``Lack of energy''. If the nested model is
compared to the hypothesised model from the initial study
(AÊhsberg et al., 1997), the factor loadings of each manifest
variable is roughly on the same level. Further, the
correlations between the specific latent variables are lower
in the nested model, which should be expected when a
general latent variable is included in the model.
The nested model, with the general factor ``Lack of
energy'' indicates that it could be meaningful to calculate a
general fatigue factor on all 20 manifest variables. However,
in order to get a separate measure of the four specific
factors, ``Lack of energy'' is in the following analyses
calculated from the four manifest variables uniquely related
to ``Lack of energy''.
Fig. 1. A revised structure equation model of dimensions of perceived fatigue, with correlations between specific latent factors.
# 2000 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations.
Scand J Psychol 41 (2000)
Perceived fatigue
The results from the model generating analyses indicated a
better model fit for four items per factor in the SOFI. As a
consequence, the further statistical analyses in this study
were performed on four ratings per factor (See Appendix).
The reported fatigue, concerning when they were most
tired during work, differed to some extent between the five
occupations (Table 2). With a multivariate analysis of
variance the differences between the five rating profiles were
found to be statistically significant (Pillais F=df ˆ 42,31=20,
p < 0.001), as illustrated in Fig. 2. In order to further study
the differences in fatigue states, univariate analyses of
variance were conducted, and tested with Scheffe tests for
each SOFI-factor. The ratings on Lack of energy were higher
Scand J Psychol 41 (2000) Dimensions of fatigue 235

Table 2. Means (m), standard deviations (sd), skewness (skew) and kurtosis (kurt), for ratings of fatigue on the SOFI-factors and the CR10-
scale, from five different occupations

Lack of energy Physical exertion Physical discomfort Lack of motivation Sleepiness CR10

Teachers
m 3.01 0.86 1.42 1.19 1.16 4.84
sd 1.39 1.03 1.18 1.21 1.14 2.38
skew 0.59 1.40 0.83 1.01 0.95 0.13
kurt 0.67 1.35 0.20 0.35 0.33 0.70
Firemen
m 2.21 2.88 0.93 0.77 0.79 5.40
sd 1.34 1.30 0.77 0.90 0.88 2.47
skew 0.02 0.43 1.24 1.37 1.26 0.09
kurt 0.99 0.57 1.51 1.78 0.97 0.61
Cashiers
m 2.24 0.69 2.08 1.84 1.85 3.99
sd 1.40 0.76 1.29 1.37 1.23 2.31
skew 0.14 1.29 0.26 0.20 0.34 0.80
kurt 1.07 1.12 0.92 1.14 0.60 0.88
Bus drivers
m 2.72 0.85 1.95 2.16 2.32 5.04
sd 1.41 0.93 1.19 1.45 1.24 2.57
skew 0.38 1.35 0.06 0.10 0.20 0.28
kurt 0.94 2.01 0.93 1.06 0.92 0.79
Loc.engineers
m 2.55 0.44 1.17 2.27 3.27 6.29
sd 1.44 0.70 1.10 1.31 1.10 2.49
skew 0.23 1.72 0.86 0.06 0.77 0.50
kurt 1.06 2.17 0.27 0.92 0.20 0.17


Response scale for the SOFI factors ˆ 0±6, and response scale for the CR±10 scale ˆ 0±11.

among the teachers than among the cashiers (p < 0.05),
while the ratings on Physical exertion were higher among the
fire fighters than among the other groups (p < 0.001) as well
as higher among the teachers and the bus drivers than
among the locomotive engineers (p < 0.01).The ratings on
Physical discomfort were higher among the cashiers than
among the teachers (p < 0.001), fire fighters (p < 0.001) and
the locomotive engineers (p < 0.001), as well as higher
among the bus drivers than among the teachers (p < 0.01),
firefighters (p < 0.001) and the locomotive engineers
(p < 0.001). The ratings on Lack of motivation were higher
among the locomotive engineers as compared to the teachers
(p < 0.001), fire fighters (p < 0.001) and the cashiers
(p < 0.05), higher among the bus drivers than among the
teachers (p < 0.001) and fire fighters (p < 0.001), as well as
higher among the cashiers as compared to the fire fighters
(p < 0.001). Finally, the ratings on Sleepiness were higher
among the locomotive engineers as compared to the other
groups (p < 0.001), higher among the bus drivers than
among the teachers (p < 0.001) and the fire fighters
(p < 0.001), as well as higher among the cashiers than
among the teachers (p < 0.001) and the fire fighters
(p < 0.001).
The most characteristic rating profiles were found
among the teachers, who rated Lack of energy higher
than any other condition of fatigue, while the firemen
rated highest on Physical exertion, and the locomotive
engineers rated highest on the factor Sleepiness. The
cashiers and the bus drivers had similar rating profiles,
even if the cashiers rated somewhat higher on Physical
discomfort and the bus drivers reported somewhat higher
ratings on Lack of energy, Lack of motivation and
Sleepiness.
Also, the ratings of overall fatigue (CR10) differed
between the occupations (F=df ˆ 14,35=4, p < 0.001), where
the locomotive engineers rated the highest, and the cashiers
the lowest level of fatigue (Table 2). Some of the cashiers
worked part time, which to some extent could explain the
lower ratings.
The correlations between the overall fatigue (CR10-scale)
and the qualitative dimensions of fatigue (SOFI) differed
somewhat between the different occupational groups. In
general, the highest correlations were found between the
CR10-scale and the most dominant SOFI-factor (that is
where the highest ratings were reported), except for the
cashiers and the bus drivers (Table 3). The internal
consistency, or reliability, for each factor varied between
0.81 ±0.92, which may be regarded as satisfactory. The
internal consistency was also calculated for the 20 variables,
as a test for the possible general fatigue factor discussed

# 2000 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations.

236 E. AÊhsberg Scand J Psychol 41 (2000)

Fig. 2. Means of ratings on each SOFI-factor. The ratings were made by the teachers after a day with many lessons, by the firemen after fire-
fighting for at least 20 minutes, by the cashiers after a day with at least two hours at the cash register, by the bus drivers after a day of driving
in a city area, and by the locomotive engineers after a night shift with conveyance of goods. The differences between occupations were all
statistically significant, between p < 0.01 and p < 0.001.

previously. The reliability coefficient, 0.95, showed that a
one-dimensional model of fatigue gives only a slightly higher
internal consistency than ``Lack of energy'' calculated from
four variables (Table 3), despite the larger number of
variables.
In order to investigate the common variance of the SOFI-
factors with the explicit rating of overall fatigue (CR10),
multiple regressions were conducted. The CR10-scale
constituted the dependent variable, while the SOFI-factors
constituted the independent variables. Together the SOFI-
factors explained 43% (adj. r 2 ˆ 0.43) of the variance in the
CR10-scale, for all participants. This is a lesser amount of
explained variance as compared to the 68% achieved in
the initial study (AÊhsberg et al., 1997). Separate analyses
indicated that, depending on occupation, different SOFI-
factors contributed with different amount of explained
variance to the CR10-scale. Regression coefficients showed
that the factor Lack of energy explained a large share of the
variance in the CR10-scale for four of the occupations
(Table 4). Lack of energy appeared to be the prime fatigue
dimension for the teachers. For the firemen a large amount
of variance was also explained by the factor Physical
exertion, for the cashiers and the bus drivers also by
Sleepiness. For the locomotive engineers the largest amount
of variance was explained by Sleepiness, but a certain
amount also by Lack of energy. Thus, the factor called Lack
of energy seemed to be relevant for all occupations.
Perceived work load
The reported work load differed to some extent between the
five occupations. Analysing the four ratings assumed to

Table 3. Pearson product moment correlations (r ) between the ratings on SOFI- factors and the CR10-scale, as well as the internal consistency
(rel) for each SOFI-factor

Lack of energy Physical exertion Physical discomfort Lack of motivation Sleepiness

Teachers, r 0.54 0.30 0.30 0.12 0.19

Firemen, r 0.72 0.72 0.53 0.12 0.29
Cashiers, r 0.54 0.36 0.32 0.35 0.52
Bus drivers, r 0.67 0.33 0.38 0.48 0.62
Loc.engineers, r 0.55 0.21 0.27 0.43 0.69

all subjects, r 0.57 0.28 0.22 0.34 0.48

all subjects, rel 0.92 0.87 0.81 0.92 0.89

  
ˆ p < 0.05, ˆ p < 0.01, ˆ p < 0.001.

# 2000 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations.

Scand J Psychol 41 (2000) Dimensions of fatigue 237

Table 4. Regression coefficients (b) and adjusted squared multiple correlation coefficients (adj. R 2 ) from multiple regression analyses, with the
CR10-scale as the dependent variable and the SOFI-factors as the independent variables

Lack of energy Physical exertion Physical discomfort Lack of motivation Sleepiness adj. r 2

Teachers, b 0.79 0.27 0.01 0.04 0.11 0.24

Firemen, b 0.77 0.57 0.62 0.27 0.13 0.57
Cashiers, b 0.61 0.19 0.23 0.09 0.62 0.30
Bus drivers, b 0.93 0.22 0.18 0.14 0.73 0.52
Loc.engineers, b 0.44 0.20 0.03 0.20 1.33 0.48

  
ˆ p < 0.05, ˆ p < 0.01, ˆ p < 0.001.

measure demands and control, with a multivariate analysis of

variance, the differences between occupations were found to
be statistically significant (Pillais F=df ˆ 26, 71=20, p < 0.001).
Mean ratings of the control aspect showed that the bus
drivers, the locomotive engineers, and the teachers reported
that they could control their work pace during about 1=4 of
the work time. The bus drivers, the locomotive engineers,
and the cashiers reported that they could decide how to
perform the work during about half of the work time. Mean
ratings of the demand aspects showed that primarily the
teachers reported that they had too much to do during
about 3=4 of the work time. No group reported that their
work tasks were too difficult to perform (Fig. 3).
Work load related to fatigue
In order to investigate the relation between the ratings of
perceived work load and ratings of fatigue, correlations were
calculated. Low levels of perceived control correlated with
high levels on Lack of energy, Physical discomfort, Lack of
motivation and Sleepiness, while high levels of perceived
demands primarily correlated with high levels on Lack of
energy, Physical exertion and Physical discomfort (Table 5).
Thus, a work situation where the perceived levels of
demands are high and the levels of control are low seems
to be foremost associated with feelings of Lack of energy and
Physical discomfort.

Fig. 3. Ratings of perceived work load. The ratings were made by the teachers after a day with many lessons, by the firemen after fire-fighting
for at least 20 minutes, by the cashiers after at least two hours at the cash register, by the bus drivers after a day of driving in a city area, and
by the locomotive engineers after a night shift with conveyance of goods. Note that the the response scale for control is the reverse as
compared to the response scale for demand.

# 2000 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations.

238 E. AÊhsberg
Table 5. Pearson product moment correlations (r ) between the ratings of work load (demands and control) and fatigue (SOFI-factors and the
CR10-scale)
Lack of energy Physical exertion
demands
difficult work tasks. r 0.17 0.18
too much to do, r 0.25 0.16
control
not decide how to work, r 0.22 0.05
not control work pace, r 0.29 0.08
  
ˆ p < 0.05, ˆ p < 0.01, ˆ p < 0.001.
DISCUSSION
The data in this study did not demonstrate a satisfactory fit
to the proposed theoretical five factor model, with 25
variables evenly distributed on five latent variables. The
misfit may, for example, be due to either the lesser number
of occupations in the present sample, as compared to the
sample in the study where the SOFI was first presented
(AÊhsberg et al., 1997), or to an inadequate model for
work-related perceived fatigue. However, by means of
model-generating analyses, a slightly revised model reached
statistical acceptance and seemed meaningfully interpretable
(Fig. 1). The five factor structure remains, but Lack of
energy is now defined as a general latent factor (here called
``Lack of energy''), which represents much of the common
variance in all observed variables. In addition, the number
of observed variables is reduced to 20, with four observed
variables in each specific latent variable. The observed
variables in the previous specific factor Lack of energy
contribute uniquely to the general factor, which strengthens
the previously (AÊhsberg et al., 1997) assumed general
character of Lack of energy. That is, the general factor
``Lack of energy'' is uniquely characterised by the items in
the previous specific factor Lack of energy, but contains also
the common variance in the other four specific latent
variables. The remaining correlations between the specific
latent factors seem reasonable, as they are clearly lower than
in the initial study (AÊhsberg et al., 1997), and as different
dimensions of a perception cannot be regarded as indepen-
dent. However, the relatively strong correlation between the
specific latent factors Sleepiness and Lack of motivation
indicate that these states of fatigue are overlapping and
cannot be completely separated. Still, the two factors may be
specified separately in the statistical analysis, which indi-
cates that these states of fatigue do have some substantial
difference.
In sum, the test of SOFI in a new sample indicates validity
for a five-factor model of perceived fatigue in occupational
settings. The reduction of items resulted in an instrument
more easy to use. Despite the nested model, as the major
advantage of SOFI is the possibility to treat different fatigue
states separately and as the internal consistency is not
# 2000 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations.
Scand J Psychol 41 (2000)
Physical discomfort Lack of motivation Sleepiness CR-10
0.15 0.11 0.18 0.06
0.25 0.08 0.17 0.00
0.23 0.33 0.22 0.15
0.23 0.31 0.27 0.20
substantially improved by 20 variables for ``Lack of energy'',
the recommendation is that all five SOFI-factors are
calculated from four variables (See Appendix).
The analyses of variance showed that the five occupations
differed in rating profiles (Fig. 2). As expected, Lack of
energy was important for all occupations, but the main
fatigue dimension for the teachers. The perceived fatigue
among the firemen was primarily described as Physical
exertion, and among the locomotive engineers as Sleepiness.
Surprisingly, the rating profiles of the cashiers and the bus
drivers were rather similar. The perceived fatigue among the
cashiers was primarily characterised by Lack of energy and
Sleepiness according to the regression coefficients (Table 4),
while it was expected that the factor Physical discomfort
should contribute more to the overall rating of fatigue.
However, as compared to the other four occupations in
absolute ratings, the cashiers rated slightly higher on
Physical discomfort. Possibly, the lack of clear dominance
for Physical discomfort may be due either to the fact that the
cashiers in this study were rather young, and that they
therefore did not have the same experience of being tired at
work, or due to ergonomic improvements as compared to
traditional work places. In this study the bus drivers' ratings
were high on Lack of energy, and as opposed to what was
expected, also on Sleepiness. The latter could be attributed
to the fact that the majority of the bus drivers worked on a
shift schedule, even if they rated their fatigue after a day
shift. It is known that shift workers suffer from sleepiness
not only during night shifts, but also during morning shifts,
in particular if the shift starts early (AÊkerstedt, 1995). As
mentioned, it was not possible to clearly discriminate
between the rating profiles from bus drivers and the
cashiers. An explanation may be that these occupations
involve both physical load (moving groceries or operating
the steering wheel and gear lever) and mental load (contact
with customers, as both are service occupations), as well as
that both works are sedentary in rather locked positions.
Some correlations were found between the reported
intensity in the overall fatigue (CR10) and the reported
qualitative dimensions of fatigue (SOFI-factors). The results
showed that the most dominant SOFI-factor (that is where
the highest ratings were reported) in each occupation best
Scand J Psychol 41 (2000)
correlated with the CR10 ratings (Table 2), which indicates
the discriminatory capacity of the SOFI. Further, the results
of the regression analyses showed that, depending on
occupation, different SOFI-factors contributed most to the
overall fatigue (Table 3). However, Lack of energy seemed to
be relevant for all five occupations. As the occupations
differed considerably, this may be interpreted as a support
for the general character of Lack of energy.
The ratings of work load, in terms of ``possibility to
control work pace'' (control) and ``too much to do''
(demand), were rather high for several of the occupational
groups. Psychological factors are assumed to be related to
musculoskeletal disorders (Lundberg, 1995), and the results
in this study showed that reports of high levels of demands,
as well as of low levels of control, correlate mainly with
reports of Lack of energy and Physical discomfort. Interest-
ingly, the highest positive correlation between work load
and fatigue is found between ``possibility to control work
pace'' and Lack of motivation. ``Possibility to control work
pace'' was also the control aspect that correlated highest
with the overall ratings of fatigue (CR10). Even if these
questions of demands and control may be considered as
rather limited measures of work load, the results can be
interpreted as indicating that lack of control is important for
the development of mental fatigue, while high demands are
of minor importance.
Due to the very different character of the occupations, the
working time in this study differed considerably between the
occupational groups. It is also necessary to mention that it
seemed irrelevant to test gender differences and age
differences in the ratings, as the distributions were very
different in the occupations. In addition, the participants in
this study were divided into occupational groups. Such a
division is rather inexact, and it is possible that even if two
individuals had the same occupation and were asked to
answer the questionnaire in the same type of work situation,
the actual work tasks may have differed.
In conclusion, the proposed model of perceived fatigue
has been slightly revised, but the five factor structure
remains with a relatively good internal consistency in each
factor. The assumed general character of the factor Lack of
energy has been tested statistically on a new sample, and the
results indicate an interpretable and statistically acceptable
model for perceived fatigue in occupational settings. A
revised version of the SOFI is proposed, with 20 items (See
Appendix).
This study was supported by the Swedish Council for Work Life
Research. The author would like to thank Klas Gustafsson who
administered the data collection.
REFERENCES
AÊhsberg, E. & Gamberale, F. (1998). Perceived fatigue during
physical work: An experimental evaluation of a fatigue
# 2000 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations.
Dimensions of fatigue 239
inventory. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 21,
117±131.
AÊhsberg, E., Gamberale, F. & Gustafssson, K. (2000). Perceived
fatigue after mental work: an experimental evaluation of a
fatigue inventory. Ergonomics, 43, 252± 268.
AÊhsberg, E., Gamberale, F. & Kjellberg, A. (1997). Perceived
quality of fatigue during different occupational tasks. Develop-
ment of a questionnaire. International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics, 20, 121±135.
AÊhsberg, E., Kecklund, G., AÊkerstedt, T., et al. (in press). Shiftwork
and different dimensions of fatigue. International Journal of
Industrial Ergonomics.
AÊkerstedt, T. (1988). Sleepiness as a consequence of shiftwork.
Sleep, 11, 17±34.
AÊkerstedt, T. (1995). Work hours, sleepiness and the underlying
mechanisms. Journal of Sleep Research, 4, 15±22.
AÊkerstedt, T., Torsvall, L., Gillander, K., et al. (1987). Inactivity,
night work, and fatigue, in Work with Display Units 86 B.
Knave, P.-G. WidebaÈck, (Eds.), Amsterdam: Elseviers, 237±242.
AÊstrand, P.-O. & Rodahl, K. (1986). Textbook of Work Physiology.
Physiological Bases of Exercise. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Barnard, R. & Duncan, H. (1975). Heart rate and ECG responses of
fire fighters. Journal of Occupational Medicine, 17, 247±250.
Baron, S. & Habes, D. (1992). Occupational musculoskeletal
disorders among supermarket cashiers, Scandinavian Journal of
Work Environment & Health, 18, 129±129.
Belcastro, P. & Gold, R. S. (1983). Teacher stress and burnout:
Implications for school health personnel. Journal of School
Health, 53, 404±407.
Bills, A. (1934). General experimental psychology, New York:
Longmans, Green and Co.
Borg, G. (1982). A category scale with ratio properties for
intermodal and interindividual comparisons, in Psychophysical
judgment and the process of perception H.-G. Geissler & P.
Petzold, (Eds.), Berlin: VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaf-
ten 25±33.
Borg, G. (1998). Borg's perceived exertion and pain scales,
Champaign: Human Kinetics.
Borg, G., Van den Burg, M., HassmeÂn, P., et al. (1987). Relation-
ships between perceived exertion, HR and HLa in cycling,
running and walking. Scandinavian Journal of Sports Science, 9,
69±77.
Boyle, G., Borg, M., Falzon, J., et al. (1995). A structural model of
the dimensions of teacher stress. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 65, 49±67.
Cameron, C. (1973). A theory of fatigue, Ergonomics, 16, 633±648.
Cameron, J. (1996). Assessing work-related body-part discomfort:
Current strategies and a behaviorally oriented assessment tool.
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 18, 389±398.
Crowley, S. & Xitao, F. (1997). Structural Equational Modeling:
Basic concepts and applications in personality assessment
research. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68, 508±531.
Evans, G. (1994). Working on the hot seat: Urban bus operators.
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 26, 181 ±193.
Eysenck, M. (1983). Incentives, in Stress and fatigue in human
performance. G. Hockey, (Eds.), Norwich: Wiley & Sons, 169±201.
Fathollahzadeh, F., Odenrick, P., Lundberg, U., et al. (1996).
Psychophysiological responses to work load among fire fighters,
as measured by self-reports, ECG, bloodpressure, catechola-
mines and cortisol. In W. Boucsein, H. Luczak, J. Stern, A.
Yagi, (Eds.), Psychophysiology in ergonomics PIE, Lengerich:
Pabst Science Publishers.
Folkard, S. (1983). Diurnal variation. In G. Hockey, (Ed.), Stress
and fatigue in human performance, Norwich: Wiley & Sons, 245±
272.
Gamberale, F. & HolmeÂr, I. (1976). Heart rate and perceived
240 E. AÊhsberg Scand J Psychol 41 (2000)

exertion in simulated work with high heat stress. In G. Borg, Wessely, S. & Powell, R. (1989). Fatigue syndromes: a comparison
(Ed.), Physical work and effort, Oxford: Pergamon Press, 323± of chronic ``postviral'' fatigue with neuromuscular and affective
332. disorders. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry,
Glazner, L. (1989). (Eds.), Shiftwork and injuries in the fire service, 52, 940 ±948.
Frankfurt an Main: Peter Lang.
Grandjean, E. (1979). Fatigue in industry. British Journal of Received 11 February 1999, accepted 30 August 1999
Industrial Medicine, 36, 175 ±186.
Grandjean, E. (1988). Fitting the task to the man, 4th Basingstoke:
Taylor & Francis.
APPENDIX
Gustafsson, J. & Stahl, P. (1997). STREAMS User's Guide. Version
1.7 for Windows, MoÈlndal, Sweden: Multivariate Ware 294. Think of how it felt when you were most tired. To what
Hoyle, R. (1995). (Eds.), Structural Equation Modeling. Concepts, extent do the expressions below describe how you felt? For
issues and applications, Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Inc. every expression, answer spontaneously, and mark the
JoÈreskog, D. & SoÈrbom, S. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation
modeling with the Simplis command language, Hillsdale: Scientific number that corresponds to how you feel right now. The
Software International. numbers vary between 0 (not at all) and 6 (to a very high
Karasek, R. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental degree).
strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 24, 285±308.
Karasek, R. & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work. Stress, productivity,
and the reconstruction of working life, New York: Basic Books. to a very
Kinsman, R. & Weiser, P. (1976). Subjective symptomatology not at all high degree
during work and fatigue. In E. Simonson & P. Weiser, (Eds.), 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Psychological Aspects and Physiological Correlates of Work and
Fatigue, Springfield: CC Thomas, 336±405. palpitations 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Kompier, M. (1996). Bus drivers: Occupational stress and stress lack of concern 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
prevention, (COND=T=WP.2=1996) Geneva: International worn out 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Labour Office. tense muscles 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Krupp, L., LaRocca, N., Muir-Nash, J., et al., (1989). The fatigue falling asleep 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
severity scale. Application to patients with multiple sclerosis and numbness 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
systemic lupus erythematosus. Archives of Neurology, 46, 1121± sweaty 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
1123. spent 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Lundberg, U. (1995). Methods and applications of stress research. drowsy 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Technology and Health Care, 3, 3±9. passive 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Lundberg, U., Melin, B., Kadefors, R., et al. (1996). Repetitive stiff joints 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
work stress, muscular tension and musculoskeletal disorders. indifferent 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Proceedings of the 25th International Congress on Occupational out of breath 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Health National Institute for Working Life, Stockholm, 246. yawning 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Lusa, S. (1994). Job demands and assessment of physical work drained 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
capacity of fire fighters, Doctoral thesis, University of JyvaÈskylaÈ. sleepy 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mueller, R. (1996). Basic principles of Structural Equation Modeling. overworked 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
An introduction to LISREL and EQS, New York: Springer- aching 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Verlag 229. breathing heavily 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
OÈberg, T., SandsjoÈ, L. & Kadefors, R. (1994). Subjective and uninterested 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
objective evaluation of shoulder muscle fatigue. Ergonomics, 37,
1323±1333. # The Swedish Occupational Fatigue Inventory-20
Paley, M. & Tepas, D. (1994). Fatigue and the shiftworker: Arbetslivsinstitutet, E. AÊhsberg, F. Gamberale, A. Kjellberg, 1998
Firefighters working on a rotating shift schedule. Human
Factors, 36, 269 ±284.
Panzone, I., Melosi, A., Carra, G., et al. (1996). Movimenti ripetitivi
degli arti superiori: Risultati della valutazione dell'esposizione e
dell'indagine clinica nel lavoro di cassa di supermercati. La COMMENTS
Medicina del Lavoro, 87, 634 ±639. The question is usually formulated according to the purpose
Pithers, R. & Fogarty, G. (1995). Symposium on teachers stress.
of the study. The question may concern; for example, ``how
Occupational stress among vocational teachers. British Journal
of Educational Psychology, 65, 3± 14. you feel right now'', how the subject has felt ``during the last
Reid, G. & Nygren, T. (1988). The subjective workload assessment ten minutes'' or ``when you were most tired''.
technique: A scaling procedure for measuring mental workload. The inventory consists of five subscales:
In P. Hancock & N. Meshkati, (Eds.), Human mental workload,
Amsterdam: Elsevier, 185±218. 1. Lack of energy. A dimension which describes general
Statistics, Sweden. (1997). Negativ stress i arbetet. De mest utsatta feelings of diminishing strength. The expressions worn
yrkena, (1) Stockholm: Statistiska centralbyraÊn.
out, spent, drained, overworked belong to this scale.
Wendt, H. & Palmerton, P. (1976). Motivation, values, and
chronobehavioral aspects of fatigue. In E. Simonson & P. 2. Physical exertion. A dimension which describes whole-
Weiser, (Eds.), Psychological aspects and physiological correlates body sensations that may be the result of dynamic work
of work and fatigue, Springfield: CC Thomas 285±335. and to a certain extent a sign of metabolic exhaustion.

# 2000 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations.

Scand J Psychol 41 (2000)
The expressions palpitations, sweaty, out of breath,
breathing heavily belong to this scale.
3. Physical discomfort. A dimension which describes more
local bodily sensations that may result from static or
isometric work load. The expressions tense muscles,
numbness, stiff joints, aching belong to this scale.
4. Lack of motivation. A dimension which describes feelings
of not being involved or enthusiastic. The expressions
# 2000 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations.
Dimensions of fatigue 241
lack of concern, passive, indifferent, uninterested belong to
this scale.
5. Sleepiness. A dimension which describes feelings of
sleepiness. The expressions falling asleep, drowsy, yawn-
ing, sleepy belong to this scale.
To obtain a measure for each subscale, calculate a mean of
the four ratings.