Matthias Morfeld1, Monika Bullinger, Juliane Nantke, Elmar Brähler. 1. Zentrum für Psychosoziale Medizin, Institut und Poliklinik für Medizinische Psychologie, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Deutschland. morfeld@uke.uni-hamburg.de
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The SF-36 is an internationally approved instrument to assess subjective health. In its second version the SF-36 contains modifications to version 1.0 in several item formulations and response categories. The second version is translated in German but a psychometric analysis and standardisation are still lacking. METHODS: The SF-36, version 2.0, was administered in a representative German sample (n = 2043), analysed concerning its scale structure, reliability, dissemination characteristics and differences in traits of populations and compared to version 1.0 (German health survey). RESULTS: Version 2.0 shows high reliability in subscales and has a scale structure which is comparable to that of version 1.0. The scale values in the actual population-representative sample survey are rather distributed obliquely and effects of sex, age and residence (Eastern/Western Germany) have been found in regression analyses. CONCLUSION: The psychometric comparability of both versions is given but should interpreted with caution as regards content because of the different enquiry periods. Though the expected gain in psychometric quality and discrimination of version 2.0 to version 1.0 is evident, but does not justify a preference to version 2.0.
OBJECTIVES: The SF-36 is an internationally approved instrument to assess subjective health. In its second version the SF-36 contains modifications to version 1.0 in several item formulations and response categories. The second version is translated in German but a psychometric analysis and standardisation are still lacking. METHODS: The SF-36, version 2.0, was administered in a representative German sample (n = 2043), analysed concerning its scale structure, reliability, dissemination characteristics and differences in traits of populations and compared to version 1.0 (German health survey). RESULTS: Version 2.0 shows high reliability in subscales and has a scale structure which is comparable to that of version 1.0. The scale values in the actual population-representative sample survey are rather distributed obliquely and effects of sex, age and residence (Eastern/Western Germany) have been found in regression analyses. CONCLUSION: The psychometric comparability of both versions is given but should interpreted with caution as regards content because of the different enquiry periods. Though the expected gain in psychometric quality and discrimination of version 2.0 to version 1.0 is evident, but does not justify a preference to version 2.0.
Authors: Cyrill Wehling; Daniel Hornuss; Pasquale Schneider; Christoph Springfeld; Katrin Hoffmann; De-Hua Chang; Patrick Naumann; Markus Mieth; Thomas Longerich; Clemens Kratochwil; Arianeb Mehrabi; Annika Gauss; Karl Heinz Weiss; Jan Pfeiffenberger Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2019-08-19 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: D Jahandar Lashki; C Zelenak; E Tahirovic; T D Trippel; P Kolip; A Busjahn; M Rauchfuß; K Nolte; S Schwarz; R Wachter; G Gelbrich; M Halle; B Pieske; C Herrmann-Lingen; F Edelmann; H-D Düngen Journal: Herz Date: 2016-07-13 Impact factor: 1.443
Authors: Cornelia Albani; Gerd Blaser; Joachim Völker; Michael Geyer; Gabriele Schmutzer; Harald Bailer; Norbert Grulke; Elmar Brähler; Harald C Traue Journal: Psychosoc Med Date: 2007-09-10