Margreet A Frieling1, Walter R Davis, Grace Chiang. 1. Social and Cultural Statistics Business Unit, Statistics New Zealand, Wellington 6140, New Zealand. margreet.frieling@stats.govt.nz
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To provide New Zealand population norms for version 2 of the SF-36 and SF-12 health surveys and report scoring coefficients that enable the construction of Physical and Mental Component Summary scores from New Zealand SF-36v2 and SF-12v2 data. APPROACH: Norms for the SF-36v2 and scoring coefficients for the Physical and Mental Component Summary scores are estimated using 2006/07 New Zealand Health Survey data, which included 12,488 adults (aged 15 years and over). Norms for the SF-12v2 are derived from 2008 New Zealand General Social Survey data, including 8,721 adults. Comparisons are made between New Zealand norms for versions 1 and 2 of the SF-36 instrument. In addition, New Zealand SF-36v2 and SF-12v2 norms and the scoring coefficients are compared with those for the United States and South Australia. CONCLUSION: Differences between: 1) New Zealand population norms for the SF-36 versions 1 and 2; and 2) SF-36v2 and SF-12v2 population norms for New Zealand and those for the United States and South Australia highlight the importance of using version-specific and country-specific population norms. IMPLICATIONS: The analysis reported here allows for the appropriate use of the SF-36v2 and SF-12v2 instruments in New Zealand.
OBJECTIVE: To provide New Zealand population norms for version 2 of the SF-36 and SF-12 health surveys and report scoring coefficients that enable the construction of Physical and Mental Component Summary scores from New Zealand SF-36v2 and SF-12v2 data. APPROACH: Norms for the SF-36v2 and scoring coefficients for the Physical and Mental Component Summary scores are estimated using 2006/07 New Zealand Health Survey data, which included 12,488 adults (aged 15 years and over). Norms for the SF-12v2 are derived from 2008 New Zealand General Social Survey data, including 8,721 adults. Comparisons are made between New Zealand norms for versions 1 and 2 of the SF-36 instrument. In addition, New Zealand SF-36v2 and SF-12v2 norms and the scoring coefficients are compared with those for the United States and South Australia. CONCLUSION: Differences between: 1) New Zealand population norms for the SF-36 versions 1 and 2; and 2) SF-36v2 and SF-12v2 population norms for New Zealand and those for the United States and South Australia highlight the importance of using version-specific and country-specific population norms. IMPLICATIONS: The analysis reported here allows for the appropriate use of the SF-36v2 and SF-12v2 instruments in New Zealand.
Authors: Nigel P Stocks; David A González-Chica; Robyn L Woods; Jessica E Lockery; Rory S J Wolfe; Anne M Murray; Brenda Kirpach; Raj C Shah; Mark R Nelson; Christopher M Reid; Michael E Ernst; John J McNeil Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-11-08 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Andy Towers; Ágnes Szabó; David A L Newcombe; Janie Sheridan; Allison A Moore; Martin Hyde; Annie Britton; Priscilla Martinez; Nadia Minicuci; Paul Kowal; Thomas Clausen; Christine L Savage Journal: J Aging Health Date: 2018-08-27
Authors: Katharina Roser; Luzius Mader; Julia Baenziger; Grit Sommer; Claudia E Kuehni; Gisela Michel Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2019-03-08 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: José G B Derraik; Benjamin B Albert; Martin de Bock; Éadaoin M Butler; Paul L Hofman; Wayne S Cutfield Journal: PeerJ Date: 2018-07-13 Impact factor: 2.984