Literature DB >> 26415930

The case for using country-specific scoring coefficients for scoring the SF-12, with scoring implications for the SF-36.

Graeme Tucker1,2, Robert Adams3, David Wilson3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To examine the validity of using the same scoring coefficients across countries for the SF-12.
METHODS: We test the equality of scoring coefficients derived for a contraction of the SF-36, the Short Form 12 (SF-12), using a large international database drawn from nine countries, to test equality between Australia and twelve other country/language groups. First, we checked that the theoretical structure of the SF-12 as set out by Ware and colleagues, but including a correlation between physical and mental health, provided an adequate fit to the data for each country/language group in a confirmatory factor analysis. We then compared Australia to all of these country/language groups in multiple-group models to assess whether a model producing common factor score coefficients provided an adequate fit to the data. We also derived Chi-squared tests for the differences between the restricted and unrestricted models, to test the equality of the factor score coefficients across countries.
RESULTS: We found that the theoretical structure of the SF-12, with a correlation between physical and mental health, provides an adequate fit to the data for all country/language groups except Hungary. Further, all the unrestricted multiple-group models provide an adequate fit to the data. In contrast, none of the multiple-group models restricted to common parameters provide an adequate fit to the data. The significance tests confirm that the constraints on parameter values produce significantly different models to the unrestricted models.
CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that researchers should derive their own country-specific scoring coefficients for physical and mental health summary scores.

Keywords:  Health-related quality of Life; International comparisons; SF-12; SF-36; Self-rated health

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26415930     DOI: 10.1007/s11136-015-1083-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Life Res        ISSN: 0962-9343            Impact factor:   4.147


  19 in total

1.  Interpreting SF-36 summary health measures: a response.

Authors:  J E Ware; M Kosinski
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Rethinking and rescoring the SF-12.

Authors:  David Wilson; Graeme Tucker; Catherine Chittleborough
Journal:  Soz Praventivmed       Date:  2002

3.  New Australian population scoring coefficients for the old version of the SF-36 and SF-12 health status questionnaires.

Authors:  Graeme Tucker; Robert Adams; David Wilson
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-05-04       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  Ensuring Positiveness of the Scaled Difference Chi-square Test Statistic.

Authors:  Albert Satorra; Peter M Bentler
Journal:  Psychometrika       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 2.500

5.  The SF36 Version 2: critical analyses of population weights, scoring algorithms and population norms.

Authors:  Graeme Hawthorne; Richard H Osborne; Anne Taylor; Jan Sansoni
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2007-02-01       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Deriving SF-12v2 physical and mental health summary scores: a comparison of different scoring algorithms.

Authors:  John A Fleishman; Alfredo J Selim; Lewis E Kazis
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-01-22       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Adaptation and validation of the SF-36 Health Survey for use in Australia.

Authors:  R W Sanson-Fisher; J J Perkins
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 6.437

8.  SF-36 summary scores: are physical and mental health truly distinct?

Authors:  G E Simon; D A Revicki; L Grothaus; M Vonkorff
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 2.983

Review 9.  'Equivalence' and the translation and adaptation of health-related quality of life questionnaires.

Authors:  M Herdman; J Fox-Rushby; X Badia
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 10.  Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines.

Authors:  F Guillemin; C Bombardier; D Beaton
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 6.437

View more
  5 in total

1.  Patient Reported Outcome Measures in the Foot and Ankle: Normative Values Do Not Reflect 100% Full Function.

Authors:  Lauren M Matheny; Kevin Gittner; Justin Harding; Thomas O Clanton
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2020-05-28       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  Association between obstructive sleep apnea and health-related quality of life in untreated adults: a systematic review.

Authors:  Patrícia Pauletto; Jéssica Conti Réus; Michele Bolan; Carla Massignan; Carlos Flores-Mir; Israel Maia; David Gozal; Ana Luiza Curi Hallal; André Luís Porporatti; Graziela De Luca Canto
Journal:  Sleep Breath       Date:  2021-03-11       Impact factor: 2.816

3.  Health-Related Quality of Life and Work-Related Outcomes for Patients With Mild-to-Moderate Ulcerative Colitis and Remission Status Following Short-Term and Long-Term Treatment With Multimatrix Mesalamine: A Prospective, Open-Label Study.

Authors:  Aaron Yarlas; Geert D'Haens; Mary Kaye Willian; Megan Teynor
Journal:  Inflamm Bowel Dis       Date:  2018-01-18       Impact factor: 5.325

Review 4.  Technological developments enable measuring and using patient-reported outcomes data in orthopaedic clinical practice.

Authors:  David F Hamilton; Johannes M Giesinger; Karlmeinrad Giesinger
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2020-12-18

5.  Evidence for measurement bias of the short form health survey based on sex and metropolitan influence zone in a secondary care population.

Authors:  Jake Ursenbach; Megan E O'Connell; Andrew Kirk; Debra Morgan
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2020-04-03       Impact factor: 3.186

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.