OBJECTIVE: US general population norms for mail administration of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Version 2 (SF-36v2) were established in 1998. This article reports SF-36v2 telephone-administered norms collected in 2005-2006 for adults aged 35-89 years. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The SF-36v2 was administered to 3,844 adults in the National Health Measurement Study (NHMS), a random-digit dial telephone survey. Scale scores and physical and mental component summary (PCS and MCS) scores were computed. RESULTS: When compared with 1998 norms (mean=50.00, standard deviation [SD]=10.00), SF-36v2 scores for the 2005-2006 general population tended to be higher: physical functioning (mean=50.68, SD=14.48); role limitations due to physical health problems (mean=49.47, SD=14.71); bodily pain (mean=50.66, SD=16.28); general health perceptions (mean=50.10, SD=16.87); vitality (mean=53.71, SD=15.35); social functioning (mean=51.37, SD=13.93); role limitations due to emotional problems (mean=51.44, SD=13.93); mental health (mean=54.27, SD=13.28); PCS (mean=49.22, SD=15.13); MCS (mean=53.78, SD=13.14). PCS and MCS factor scoring coefficients were similar to those previously reported for the 1998 norms. SF-36v2 norms for telephone administration were created. CONCLUSION: The higher scores for NHMS data are likely due to the effect of telephone administration. The 2005-2006 norms can be used as a reference to interpret scale and component summary scores for telephone-administered surveys with the SF-36v2. Copyright Â
OBJECTIVE: US general population norms for mail administration of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Version 2 (SF-36v2) were established in 1998. This article reports SF-36v2 telephone-administered norms collected in 2005-2006 for adults aged 35-89 years. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The SF-36v2 was administered to 3,844 adults in the National Health Measurement Study (NHMS), a random-digit dial telephone survey. Scale scores and physical and mental component summary (PCS and MCS) scores were computed. RESULTS: When compared with 1998 norms (mean=50.00, standard deviation [SD]=10.00), SF-36v2 scores for the 2005-2006 general population tended to be higher: physical functioning (mean=50.68, SD=14.48); role limitations due to physical health problems (mean=49.47, SD=14.71); bodily pain (mean=50.66, SD=16.28); general health perceptions (mean=50.10, SD=16.87); vitality (mean=53.71, SD=15.35); social functioning (mean=51.37, SD=13.93); role limitations due to emotional problems (mean=51.44, SD=13.93); mental health (mean=54.27, SD=13.28); PCS (mean=49.22, SD=15.13); MCS (mean=53.78, SD=13.14). PCS and MCS factor scoring coefficients were similar to those previously reported for the 1998 norms. SF-36v2 norms for telephone administration were created. CONCLUSION: The higher scores for NHMS data are likely due to the effect of telephone administration. The 2005-2006 norms can be used as a reference to interpret scale and component summary scores for telephone-administered surveys with the SF-36v2. Copyright Â
Authors: Honghu Liu; David Cella; Richard Gershon; Jie Shen; Leo S Morales; William Riley; Ron D Hays Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-08-05 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Cynthia L Ogden; Margaret D Carroll; Lester R Curtin; Margaret A McDowell; Carolyn J Tabak; Katherine M Flegal Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-04-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Dennis G Fryback; Nancy Cross Dunham; Mari Palta; Janel Hanmer; Jennifer Buechner; Dasha Cherepanov; Shani A Herrington; Ron D Hays; Robert M Kaplan; Theodore G Ganiats; David Feeny; Paul Kind Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Ron D Hays; Seongeun Kim; Karen L Spritzer; Robert M Kaplan; Steve Tally; David Feeny; Honghu Liu; Dennis G Fryback Journal: Value Health Date: 2009-05-15 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Lewis E Kazis; Austin Lee; Avron Spiro; William Rogers; Xinhua S Ren; Donald R Miller; Alfredo Selim; Alaa Hamed; Samuel C Haffer Journal: Health Care Financ Rev Date: 2004
Authors: Jun Xu; Yunlian Xue; Guihao Liu; Yefang Feng; Mengyao Xu; Juan Xie; Xiaohui Wang; Xiaomou Chen; Lijie Jiang Journal: Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao Date: 2019-03-30
Authors: C R Gross; E E Messersmith; B A Hong; S G Jowsey; C Jacobs; B W Gillespie; S J Taler; A J Matas; A Leichtman; R M Merion; H N Ibrahim Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2013-09-06 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Catherine M Alfano; Juan Peng; Rebecca R Andridge; Monica E Lindgren; Stephen P Povoski; Adele M Lipari; Doreen M Agnese; William B Farrar; Lisa D Yee; William E Carson; Janice K Kiecolt-Glaser Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-11-28 Impact factor: 44.544