Literature DB >> 7723455

Comparison of methods for the scoring and statistical analysis of SF-36 health profile and summary measures: summary of results from the Medical Outcomes Study.

J E Ware1, M Kosinski, M S Bayliss, C A McHorney, W H Rogers, A Raczek.   

Abstract

Physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) measures make it possible to reduce the number of statistical comparisons and thereby the role of chance in testing hypotheses about health outcomes. To test their usefulness relative to a profile of eight scores, results were compared across 16 tests involving patients (N = 1,440) participating in the Medical Outcomes Study. Comparisons were made between groups known to differ at a point in time or to change over time in terms of age, diagnosis, severity of disease, comorbid conditions, acute symptoms, self-reported changes in health, and recovery from clinical depression. The relative validity (RV) of each measure was estimated by a comparison of statistical results with those for the best scales in the same tests. Differences in RV among scales from the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) were consistent with those in previous studies. One or both of the summary measures were significant for 14 of 15 differences detected in multivariate analyses of profiles and detected differences missed by the profile in one test. Relative validity coefficients ranged from .20 to .94 (median, .79) for PCS in tests involving physical criteria and from .93 to 1.45 (median, 1.02) for MCS in tests involving mental criteria. The MCS was superior to the best SF-36 scale in three of four tests involving mental health. Results suggest that the two summary measures may be useful in most studies and that their empiric validity, relative to the best SF-36 scale, will depend on the application. Surveys offering the option of analyzing both a profile and psychometrically based summary measures have an advantage over those that do not.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7723455

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  486 in total

1.  A new tool for monitoring asthma outcomes: the ITG Asthma Short Form.

Authors:  M S Bayliss; D M Espindle; D Buchner; M S Blaiss; J E Ware
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Needs-based planning for persons with serious mental illness residing in intermediate care facilities.

Authors:  R L Anderson; J S Lyons
Journal:  J Behav Health Serv Res       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 1.505

Review 3.  A comparative review of generic quality-of-life instruments.

Authors:  S J Coons; S Rao; D L Keininger; R D Hays
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 4.981

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

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

5.  Do SF-36 summary component scores accurately summarize subscale scores?

Authors:  C Taft; J Karlsson; M Sullivan
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  The prediction of mental health service use in residential care.

Authors:  R L Anderson; J S Lyons; C West
Journal:  Community Ment Health J       Date:  2001-08

Review 7.  Determining clinically important differences in health status measures: a general approach with illustration to the Health Utilities Index Mark II.

Authors:  G Samsa; D Edelman; M L Rothman; G R Williams; J Lipscomb; D Matchar
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 4.981

8.  Assessment of the SF-36 version 2 in the United Kingdom.

Authors:  C Jenkinson; S Stewart-Brown; S Petersen; C Paice
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 3.710

9.  Evaluating the benefits of increasing measles immunization rates.

Authors:  J Zwanziger; P G Szilagyi; P Kaul
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 3.402

10.  Comparison of German language versions of the QWB-SA and SF-36 evaluating outcomes for patients with prostate disease.

Authors:  D Frosch; F Porzsolt; R Heicappell; K Kleinschmidt; M Schatz; S Weinknecht; R M Kaplan
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.