nach oben

Quality of Life Research

Erschienen in:

01.04.2008

The SF-36 scales are not accurately summarised by independent physical and mental component scores

verfasst von: Mark Hann, David Reeves

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 3/2008

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Objectives

The Short Form 36 Health Status Questionnaire (SF-36) has eight scales that can be condensed into two components: physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS). This paper investigates: (1) the assumption that PCS and MCS are orthogonal, (2) the applicability of a single model to different condition-specific subgroups, and (3) a reduced five-scale model.

Study design and setting

We performed a secondary analysis of two large-scale data sets that utilised the SF-36: the Health Survey for England 1996 and the Welsh Health Survey 1998. We used confirmatory factor analysis to compare hypothetical orthogonal and oblique factor models, and exploratory factor analysis to derive data-driven models for condition-specific subgroups.

Results

Oblique models gave the best fit to the data and indicated a considerable correlation between PCS and MCS. The loadings of the eight scales on the two component summaries varied significantly by disease condition. The choice of model made an important difference to norm-referenced scores for large minorities, particularly patients with a mental illness or mental–physical comorbidity.

Conclusions

We recommend that users of the SF-36 adopt the oblique model for calculating PCS and MCS. An oblique five-scale model provides a more universal factor structure without loss of predictive power or reliability.

Vorheriger Artikel Physical activity, quality of life, and weight status in overweight children

Nächster Artikel Aggregated measures of functional disability in a nationally representative sample of disabled people: analysis of dimensionality according to gender and severity of disability

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Ware, J., & Gandek, B. for the IQOLA Project (1998). Overview of the SF-36 Health Survey and the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) Project. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 903–912.

Taft, C., Karlsson, J., & Sullivan, M. (2001). Do SF-36 summary component scores accurately summarize subscale scores? Quality of Life Research, 10(5), 395–404.PubMedCrossRef

Ware, J., Kosinski, M., & Keller, S. (1994). SF-36 physical and mental health summary scales: A user manual. Boston, Massachusetts: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center.

Ware, J. (2004). SF-36 Health Survey Update. Retrieved February 17, 2004, from SF-36.org Web site: http://www.sf-36.org/tools/sf36.shtml.

Kiecolt-Glaser, J., McGuire, L., Robles, T., & Glaser, R. (2002). Psychoneuroimmunology and psychosomatic medicine: Back to the future. Psychosomatic Medicine, 64(1), 15–28.PubMed

Schattner, A. (2003). The emotional dimension and the biological paradigm of illness: time for a change. Quarterly Journal of Medicine, 96(9), 617–621.

Kiecolt-Glaser, J., McGuire, L., Robles, T., & Glaser, R. (2002). Emotions, morbidity, and mortality: New perspectives from psychoneuroimmunology. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 83–107.PubMedCrossRef

Polatin, P., Kinney, R., Gatchel, R., Lillo, E., & Mayer, T. (1993). Psychiatric illness and chronic low-back pain. The mind and the spine—which goes first? Spine, 18(1), 66–71.PubMedCrossRef

Dersh, J., Polatin, P., & Gatchel, R. (2002). Chronic pain and psychopathology: Research findings and theoretical considerations. Psychosomatic Medicine, 64(5), 773–786.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Ware, J., Kosinski, M., Gandek, B., Aaronson, N., Apolone, G., Bech, P., Brazier, J., Bullinger, M., Kaasa, S., Leplège, A., Prieto, L., & Sullivan, M. (1998). The factor structure of the SF-36 health survey in 10 countries: Results from the IQOLA project. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 1,159–1,165.

11.

Ware, J., & Kosinski, M. (2001). Interpreting SF-36 summary health measures: A response. Quality of Life Research, 10(5), 405–413.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Ware, J., & Kosinski, M. Interpreting SF-36 summary health measures: A response —Supplemental documentation. Retrieved from SF-36.org Web site: http://www.sf-36.org/news/responsetotaft.pdf.

13.

Thumboo, J., Fong, K.Y., Machin, D., Chan, S.P., Leong, K.H., Feng, P.H., Thio, S.T., & Boey, M.L. (2001). A community-based study of scaling assumptions and construct validity of the English (UK) and Chinese (HK) SF-36 in Singapore. Quality of Life Research, 10(2), 175–188.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Gandek, B., Sinclair, S., Kosinski, M., & Ware, J. (2004). Psychometric Evaluation of the SF-36 Health Survey in Medicare Managed Care. Health Care Financing Review, 25(4), 5–25.PubMed

15.

Jenkinson, C., Layte, R., & Lawrence, K. (1997). Development and testing of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item short form health survey summary scale scores in the United Kingdom: results from a large-scale survey and a clinical trial. Medical Care, 35(4), 410–416.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Keller, S., Ware, J., Bentler, P., Aaronson, N., Alonso, J., Apolone, G., Bjorner, J., Bullinger, M., Kaasa, S., Leplège, A., Sullivan, M., & Gandek, B. (1998). Use of structural equation modelling to test the construct validity of the SF-36 health survey in ten countries: Results from the IQOLA project. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 1179–1188.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Peek, M.K., Ray, L., Patel, K., Stoebner-May, D., & Ottenbacher, K. (2004). Reliability and validity of the SF-36 among older Mexican Americans. The Gerontologist, 44(3), 418–425.PubMed

18.

Hobart, J., Freeman, J., Lamping, D., Fitzpatrick, R., & Thompson, A. (2001). The SF-36 in multiple sclerosis: Why basic assumptions must be tested. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 71(3), 363–370.CrossRef

19.

Hobart, J., Williams, L., Moran, K., & Thompson, A. (2002). Quality of life measurement after stroke: Uses and abuses of the SF-36. Stroke, 33(5), 1348–1356.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Nortvedt, M., Riise, T., Myhr, K-M., & Nyland, H. (2000). Performance of the SF-36, SF-12, and RAND-36 summary scales in a multiple sclerosis population. Medical Care, 38(10), 1,022–1,028.CrossRef

21.

Farivar, S., Cunningham, W., & Hays, R. (2007). Correlated physical and mental health summary scores for the SF-36 and SF-12 Health Survey, V.1. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 5, 54.

22.

Simon, G., Revicki, D., Grothaus, L., & Vonkorff, M. (1998). SF-36 Summary scores—Are physical and mental health truly distinct? Medical Care, 36(4), 567–572.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Anagnostopoulos, F., Niakas, D., & Pappa, E. (2005). Construct validation of the Greek SF-36 health survey. Quality of Life Research, 14(8), 1959–1965.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Guthlin, C., & Walach, H. (2007). MOS SF-36: Structural equation modelling to test the construct validity of the second-order factor structure. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23(1), 15–23.CrossRef

25.

Hurst, N., Ruta, D., & Kind, P. (1998). Comparison of the MOS short form-12 (SF-12) health status questionnaire with the SF-36 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. British Journal of Rheumatology, 37(8), 862–869.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Taft, C., Karlsson, J., & Sullivan, M. (2001). Interpreting SF-36 summary health measures: A response—Reply. Quality of Life Research, 10(5), 415–420.CrossRef

27.

Joint Health Surveys Unit of Social and Community Planning Research and University College London (2001). Health Survey for England 1996 [computer file]. (3rd ed.). Colchester, Essex: UK Data Archive [distributor], SN: 3886.

28.

National Assembly for Wales (2000). Welsh Health Survey 1998 [computer file]. Colchester, Essex: UK Data Archive [distributor], SN: 4176.

29.

Gribbons, B., & Hocevar, D. (1998). Levels of aggregation in higher level confirmatory factor analysis: Application for academic self-concept. Structural Equation Modeling, 5(4), 377–390.CrossRef

30.

Bentler, P. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software, Inc.

31.

Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66(4), 507–514.CrossRef

32.

Bentler, P., & Wu, E. (1995). EQS for Windows user’s guide. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software, Inc.

33.

Nunnally, J., & Durham, R. (1975). Validity, reliability, and special problems of measurement in evaluation research. In: E. Struening, &M. Guttentag (Eds.), Handbook of Evaluation Research—Volume 1. (pp. 289–354). Beverly Hills/London: Sage Publications.

34.

Hu, L-T., & Bentler, P. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453.CrossRef

35.

Norman, G., Sloan, J., & Wyrwich, K. (2004). The truly remarkable universality of half a standard deviation: Confirmation through another look. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 4(5), 581–585.CrossRef

36.

Farivar, S., Liu, H., & Hays, R. (2004). Half standard deviation estimate of the minimally important difference in HRQOL scores? Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 4(5), 515–523.CrossRef

37.

Samsa, G., Edelman, D., Rothman, M., Williams, G., Lipscomb J., & Matchar, D. (1999). Determining clinically important differences in health status measures: A general approach with illustration to the health utilities index mark II. Pharmacoeconomics, 15(2), 141–155.PubMedCrossRef

38.

Schmitz, N., & Kruse, J. (2007). The SF-36 summary scores and their relation to mental disorders: Physical functioning may affect performance of the summary scores. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(2), 163–170.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: The SF-36 scales are not accurately summarised by independent physical and mental component scores
verfasst von: Mark Hann
David Reeves
Publikationsdatum: 01.04.2008
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 3/2008
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-008-9310-0

Springer Professional

Abstract

Objectives

Study design and setting

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2008

Improving quality of life using compound mind-body therapies: evaluation of a course intervention with body movement and breath therapy, guided imagery, chakra experiencing and mindfulness meditation

The adaptation into Spanish of the Coddington Life Events Scales (CLES)

Aggregated measures of functional disability in a nationally representative sample of disabled people: analysis of dimensionality according to gender and severity of disability

The effects of exercise training on quality of life in HAART-treated HIV-positive Rwandan subjects with body fat redistribution

Validation of the French version of the colorectal-specific quality-of-life questionnaires EORTC QLQ-CR38 and FACT-C

Quantification of the level descriptors for the standard EQ-5D three-level system and a five-level version according to two methods

Premium Partner