Background: Fatigue is emerging as a major public health problem that is highly associated with poor health-related quality of life and disability. Among adults, fatigue has become increasingly common because of workload or lifestyle changes. This study aimed to cross-culturally adapt the Chalder Fatigue Scale (CFS) into Turkish, to investigate its psychometric properties, and to establish normative data in healthy adults by age and gender. Methods: The validity of the CFS was tested with a total sample of 476 healthy adults aged 20–40 years (264 males and 212 females) and test–retest/measurement error analyses were performed with 161 participants (94 males and 67 females). The test–retest reliability was examined using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and internal consistency was determined using Cronbach's α-coefficient. Predictive validity was assessed using the Receiver Operating Characteristic to validate the cut-off value of the CFS for non-fatigued and fatigued participants. Factor analyses and hypothesis testing were conducted to assess construct validity. Hypothesis testing examined convergent and known-group validity by testing 14 predefined hypotheses. Results: The mean (SD) and median (25–75%) CFS scores were 10.7 (4.9) and 11 (7–14) for the total sample (n = 476). The cut-off point for CFS was set at ≥ 12 with a sensitivity of 65.8% and a specificity of 85.9%. The CFS provided evidence of excellent fit of the two-factor structure (CFI = 0.963, RMSEA = 0.06, SRMR = 0.02). There was evidence of strong internal consistency demonstrated by Cronbach's α = 0.863 and good test–retest reliability by ICC = 0.76. Thirteen out of 14 hypotheses (92.9%) were confirmed and the scale showed low to moderate correlation with other measurement instruments (r = 0.31–0.51). Conclusions: The CFS has been shown to be a reliable and valid instrument that can be used in various populations for the assessment of fatigue. Level of evidence: Level II.

Background: Guidelines and general recommendations are available for multiple sclerosis rehabilitation, but no specific guidance exists for physical therapists. Describing aspects of physical therapy content and delivery in multiple sclerosis and its determinants and analysing whether general recommendations connected with physical therapy are implemented in practice is important for interpreting clinical and research evidence. Methods: An online cross-sectional survey of physical therapists specialized in multiple sclerosis (212 specialists from 26 European countries) was used. Results: There was distinct diversity in service delivery and content across Europe. Perceived accessibility of physical therapy varied from most accessible in the Western region, and least in the Southern region. Sixty-four physical therapists adjusted their approach according to different disability levels, less so in the Eastern region. Duration, frequency and dose of sessions differed between regions, being highest in Southern and Western regions. “Hands on treatment” was the most commonly used therapeutic approach in all apart from the Northern regions, where “word instruction” (providing advice and information) prevailed. Conclusions: The content and delivery of physical therapy differs across Europe. Recommendations concerning access to treatment and adjustment according to disability do not appear to be widely implemented in clinical practice.