INTRODUCTION: Chinese is the world's largest ethnic group but few health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measures have been tested on them. The aim of this study was to determine if the standard SF-12 was valid and equivalent for a Chinese population. METHODS: The SF-36 data of 2410 Chinese adults randomly selected from the general population of Hong Kong (HK) were analysed. The Chinese (HK) specific SF-12 items and scoring algorithm were derived from the HK Chinese population data by multiple regressions. The SF-36 PCS and MCS scores were used as criteria to assess the content and criterion validity of the SF-12. The standard and Chinese (HK) specific SF-12 PCS and MCS scores were compared for equivalence. RESULTS: The standard SF-12 explained 82% and 89% of the variance of the SF-36 PCS and MCS scores, respectively, and the effect size differences between the standard SF-36 and SF-12 scores were less than 0.3. Six of the Chinese (HK) specific SF-12 items were different from those of the standard SF-12, but the effect size differences between the Chinese (HK) specific and standard SF-12 scores were mostly less than 0.3. CONCLUSIONS: The standard SF-12 was valid and equivalent for the Chinese, which would enable more Chinese to be included in clinical trials that measure HRQoL.
INTRODUCTION: Chinese is the world's largest ethnic group but few health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measures have been tested on them. The aim of this study was to determine if the standard SF-12 was valid and equivalent for a Chinese population. METHODS: The SF-36 data of 2410 Chinese adults randomly selected from the general population of Hong Kong (HK) were analysed. The Chinese (HK) specific SF-12 items and scoring algorithm were derived from the HK Chinese population data by multiple regressions. The SF-36 PCS and MCS scores were used as criteria to assess the content and criterion validity of the SF-12. The standard and Chinese (HK) specific SF-12 PCS and MCS scores were compared for equivalence. RESULTS: The standard SF-12 explained 82% and 89% of the variance of the SF-36 PCS and MCS scores, respectively, and the effect size differences between the standard SF-36 and SF-12 scores were less than 0.3. Six of the Chinese (HK) specific SF-12 items were different from those of the standard SF-12, but the effect size differences between the Chinese (HK) specific and standard SF-12 scores were mostly less than 0.3. CONCLUSIONS: The standard SF-12 was valid and equivalent for the Chinese, which would enable more Chinese to be included in clinical trials that measure HRQoL.
Authors: B Gandek; J E Ware; N K Aaronson; G Apolone; J B Bjorner; J E Brazier; M Bullinger; S Kaasa; A Leplege; L Prieto; M Sullivan Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Carlos K H Wong; Edmond P H Choi; James H L Tsu; Brian S H Ho; Ada T L Ng; W Y Chin; M K Yiu Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2015-04-16 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Qiang Huang; Zong Ke Zhou; Bin Shen; Xiao Bo Yang; Yong Li; Peng De Kang; Jing Yang; Fu Xing Pei Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2012-05-08 Impact factor: 2.631
Authors: Eric Yuk Fai Wan; Colman Siu Cheung Fung; Carlos King Ho Wong; Edmond Pui Hang Choi; Fang Fang Jiao; Anca Ka Chun Chan; Karina Hiu Yen Chan; Cindy Lo Kuen Lam Journal: Endocrine Date: 2016-10-03 Impact factor: 3.633
Authors: Carlos K H Wong; Cindy L K Lam; Eric Y F Wan; Anca K C Chan; C H Pak; Frank W K Chan; William C W Wong Journal: Endocrine Date: 2016-09-13 Impact factor: 3.633