Alex Mutebi1, John E Brazier, Stephen J Walters. 1. College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, 1295 N Martin Drachman Hall 2nd Floor, Tucson, AZ, 85721, USA. mutebi@pharmacy.arizona.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine whether the move from the multidimensional SF-36 patient-reported outcome measure to the single-index preference-based SF-6D entails a loss in discriminative and evaluative properties, the magnitude of that loss and whether it matters. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of data from studies that used the SF-36 and the derived SF-6D. The discriminative and evaluative properties of the two measures were compared by calculating effect size (ES), standardized response mean (SRM), and relative validity (RV) statistics using the SF-6D as the reference. RESULTS: Data were available from seven studies and 8,522 subjects. At least one SF-36 scale was always more sensitive than the index. Cross-sectional pooled results showed that physical functioning (RV = 0.19 and ES = 0.13) and PCS (RV = 0.18 and ES = 0.13) were generally most sensitive compared to the index (RV = 0.16 and ES = 0.12). Longitudinal pooled results showed that PCS (RV = 0.20), MCS (RV = 0.17), general health (RV = 0.18), and social functioning (RV = 0.17) were generally more sensitive than the index (RV = 0.14) based on RVs. Longitudinal pooled SRMs were all very small in magnitude. CONCLUSION: No scale/dimension consistently had the largest RV, ES, or SRM across all conditions studied. Moving from the SF-36 to SF-6D entails losses of a small magnitude in discriminative and evaluative properties.
PURPOSE: To examine whether the move from the multidimensional SF-36 patient-reported outcome measure to the single-index preference-based SF-6D entails a loss in discriminative and evaluative properties, the magnitude of that loss and whether it matters. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of data from studies that used the SF-36 and the derived SF-6D. The discriminative and evaluative properties of the two measures were compared by calculating effect size (ES), standardized response mean (SRM), and relative validity (RV) statistics using the SF-6D as the reference. RESULTS: Data were available from seven studies and 8,522 subjects. At least one SF-36 scale was always more sensitive than the index. Cross-sectional pooled results showed that physical functioning (RV = 0.19 and ES = 0.13) and PCS (RV = 0.18 and ES = 0.13) were generally most sensitive compared to the index (RV = 0.16 and ES = 0.12). Longitudinal pooled results showed that PCS (RV = 0.20), MCS (RV = 0.17), general health (RV = 0.18), and social functioning (RV = 0.17) were generally more sensitive than the index (RV = 0.14) based on RVs. Longitudinal pooled SRMs were all very small in magnitude. CONCLUSION: No scale/dimension consistently had the largest RV, ES, or SRM across all conditions studied. Moving from the SF-36 to SF-6D entails losses of a small magnitude in discriminative and evaluative properties.
Authors: David Feeny; William Furlong; George W Torrance; Charles H Goldsmith; Zenglong Zhu; Sonja DePauw; Margaret Denton; Michael Boyle Journal: Med Care Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Wouter Van Bogaert; Koen Putman; Iris Coppieters; Lisa Goudman; Jo Nijs; Maarten Moens; Ronald Buyl; Kelly Ickmans; Eva Huysmans Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-08-03 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Nadja Chernyak; Heribert Sattel; Marsel Scheer; Christina Baechle; Johannes Kruse; Peter Henningsen; Andrea Icks Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-01-22 Impact factor: 3.240