PURPOSE: The validity of the SF-6D, a preference-based measure of health-related quality of life, is not well explored in the context of spinal cord injury (SCI). The aim of this analysis was to assess appropriate measurement properties of the SF-6D in a sample of individuals living with SCI. METHODS: Longitudinal data from the Rick Hansen Spinal Cord Injury Registry were used. Responses to the 36-item short-form health survey were transformed into SF-6D utility scores. We investigated practicality, floor and ceiling effects, and responsiveness to change. Responsiveness to change was explored using three different anchors that reflected changes in self-reported health, functional independence, and life satisfaction. Discriminative validity was assessed by ten a priori defined hypotheses, with a distinction made between 'strong' and 'weak' hypotheses. RESULTS: Three hundred and fifty-eight individuals with SCI were included in this analysis. Practicality was deemed acceptable based on a completion rate of 94%. The SF-6D showed low responsiveness to detect important health changes over time, and differences in responsiveness were found between individuals with paraplegia and tetraplegia. All five strong hypotheses and three weak hypotheses were confirmed. CONCLUSION: The SF-6D demonstrated good practicality and discriminative validity in this sample. The failure to detect self-reported and clinically important health changes requires further consideration. Comparative performance of the SF-6D (i.e., how the SF-6D performs against other preference-based measures) is unknown in the SCI context and requires further research.
PURPOSE: The validity of the SF-6D, a preference-based measure of health-related quality of life, is not well explored in the context of spinal cord injury (SCI). The aim of this analysis was to assess appropriate measurement properties of the SF-6D in a sample of individuals living with SCI. METHODS: Longitudinal data from the Rick Hansen Spinal Cord Injury Registry were used. Responses to the 36-item short-form health survey were transformed into SF-6D utility scores. We investigated practicality, floor and ceiling effects, and responsiveness to change. Responsiveness to change was explored using three different anchors that reflected changes in self-reported health, functional independence, and life satisfaction. Discriminative validity was assessed by ten a priori defined hypotheses, with a distinction made between 'strong' and 'weak' hypotheses. RESULTS: Three hundred and fifty-eight individuals with SCI were included in this analysis. Practicality was deemed acceptable based on a completion rate of 94%. The SF-6D showed low responsiveness to detect important health changes over time, and differences in responsiveness were found between individuals with paraplegia and tetraplegia. All five strong hypotheses and three weak hypotheses were confirmed. CONCLUSION: The SF-6D demonstrated good practicality and discriminative validity in this sample. The failure to detect self-reported and clinically important health changes requires further consideration. Comparative performance of the SF-6D (i.e., how the SF-6D performs against other preference-based measures) is unknown in the SCI context and requires further research.
Authors: Caroline B Terwee; Sandra D M Bot; Michael R de Boer; Daniëlle A W M van der Windt; Dirk L Knol; Joost Dekker; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2006-08-24 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Luciane N Cruz; Suzi A Camey; Juliana F Hoffmann; Donna Rowen; John E Brazier; Marcelo P Fleck; Carisi A Polanczyk Journal: Value Health Date: 2011 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Gloria L Krahn; Glenn Fujiura; Charles E Drum; Bradley J Cardinal; Margaret A Nosek Journal: Disabil Health J Date: 2009-03-20 Impact factor: 2.554
Authors: V K Noonan; B K Kwon; L Soril; M G Fehlings; R J Hurlbert; A Townson; M Johnson; M F Dvorak Journal: Spinal Cord Date: 2011-11-01 Impact factor: 2.772
Authors: Gale G Whiteneck; Cynthia L Harrison-Felix; David C Mellick; C A Brooks; Susan B Charlifue; Ken A Gerhart Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: David G T Whitehurst; Nicole Mittmann; Vanessa K Noonan; Marcel F Dvorak; Stirling Bryan Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2016-04-20 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Ben F M Wijnen; Bea Hemmen; Ans I E Bouman; Henk van de Meent; Ton Ambergen; Peter R G Brink; Henk A M Seelen; Silvia M A A Evers Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-03-22 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Admassu N Lamu; Lars Björkman; Harald J Hamre; Terje Alræk; Frauke Musial; Bjarne Robberstad Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2021-04-17 Impact factor: 3.186