RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The scoring algorithm of the 12-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12) was revised in the second version (SF-12v2), but information on its psychometric properties is lacking. This study determined whether the SF-12v2 was a valid and equivalent substitute for the SF-36v2 Health Survey (version 2) for the Chinese. METHODS: A total of 2410 Chinese adults in Hong Kong completed the SF-36 Health Survey by telephone. The SF-12v2 data were extracted from the SF-36 data. Internal consistency was assessed by Cronbach's alpha, and test-retest reliabilities were evaluated by intraclass correlation. Criterion validity and equivalence were assessed using the SF-36v2 scores as a gold standard. Construct validity and sensitivity were assessed by known-group comparison. RESULTS: Internal consistency and test-retest reliabilities were good (range 0.67-0.82) for all except three scales. The SF-12v2 summary scores explained >80% of the total variances of the SF-36v2 summary scores. Construct validity and sensitivity were confirmed by significantly lower SF-12v2 scores in people with chronic diseases than those without. Effect size differences were less than 0.3 and relative validities were greater than 0.7 between SF-12v2 and SF-36v2 scores for different groups. CONCLUSION: The SF-12v2 was valid, reliable and sensitive for the Chinese. It is an equivalent substitute for the SF-36v2 for the summary scales.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The scoring algorithm of the 12-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12) was revised in the second version (SF-12v2), but information on its psychometric properties is lacking. This study determined whether the SF-12v2 was a valid and equivalent substitute for the SF-36v2 Health Survey (version 2) for the Chinese. METHODS: A total of 2410 Chinese adults in Hong Kong completed the SF-36 Health Survey by telephone. The SF-12v2 data were extracted from the SF-36 data. Internal consistency was assessed by Cronbach's alpha, and test-retest reliabilities were evaluated by intraclass correlation. Criterion validity and equivalence were assessed using the SF-36v2 scores as a gold standard. Construct validity and sensitivity were assessed by known-group comparison. RESULTS: Internal consistency and test-retest reliabilities were good (range 0.67-0.82) for all except three scales. The SF-12v2 summary scores explained >80% of the total variances of the SF-36v2 summary scores. Construct validity and sensitivity were confirmed by significantly lower SF-12v2 scores in people with chronic diseases than those without. Effect size differences were less than 0.3 and relative validities were greater than 0.7 between SF-12v2 and SF-36v2 scores for different groups. CONCLUSION: The SF-12v2 was valid, reliable and sensitive for the Chinese. It is an equivalent substitute for the SF-36v2 for the summary scales.
Authors: Edmond P H Choi; Carlos K H Wong; Eric Y F Wan; James H L Tsu; W Y Chin; Kenny Kung; M K Yiu Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Roger Yat-Nork Chung; Gary Ka-Ki Chung; David Gordon; Samuel Yeung-Shan Wong; Dicken Chan; Maggie Ka-Wai Lau; Vera Mun-Yu Tang; Hung Wong Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-05-14 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Xiaoxin I Yao; Michael Y Ni; Felix Cheung; Joseph T Wu; C Mary Schooling; Gabriel M Leung; Herbert Pang Journal: CMAJ Date: 2019-07-08 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Vivian Yawei Guo; Esther Yee Tak Yu; Rosa Sze Man Wong; Patrick Ip; Agnes Fung Yee Tiwari; Carlos King Ho Wong; Colman Siu Cheung Fung; Wilfred Hing Sang Wong; Cindy Lo Kuen Lam Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2017-07-24 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Cale A Jacobs; Michael R Peabody; Christian Lattermann; Jose F Vega; Laura J Huston; Kurt P Spindler; Annunziato Amendola; Jack T Andrish; Robert H Brophy; Warren R Dunn; David C Flanigan; Morgan H Jones; Christopher C Kaeding; Robert G Marx; Matthew J Matava; Eric C McCarty; Richard D Parker; Emily K Reinke; Michelle L Wolcott; Brian R Wolf; Rick W Wright; Armando F Vidal Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2018-08-03 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Edmond P H Choi; Carlos K H Wong; James H L Tsu; W Y Chin; Kenny Kung; Charles K W Wong; M K Yiu Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-10-09 Impact factor: 3.603