Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorFukuhara, Shunichi
dc.contributor.authorWare, John E. Jr.
dc.contributor.authorKosinski, Mark
dc.contributor.authorWada, Sayuri
dc.contributor.authorGandek, Barbara
dc.date2022-08-11T08:10:41.000
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-23T17:16:28Z
dc.date.available2022-08-23T17:16:28Z
dc.date.issued1998-11-17
dc.date.submitted2010-06-18
dc.identifier.citationJ Clin Epidemiol. 1998 Nov;51(11):1045-53. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00096-1">Link to article on publisher's site</a>
dc.identifier.issn0895-4356 (Linking)
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00096-1
dc.identifier.pmid9817122
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/47406
dc.description.abstractCross-sectional data from a representative sample of the general population in Japan were analyzed to test the validity of Japanese SF-36 Health Survey scales as measures of physical and mental health. Results from psychometric and clinical tests of validity were compared. Principal components analyses were used to test for the hypothesized physical and mental dimensions of health and the pattern of scale correlations with those components. To test the clinical validity of SF-36 scale scores, self-reports of chronic medical conditions and the Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale were used to create mutually exclusive groups differing in the severity of physical and mental conditions. The pattern of correlations between the SF-36 scales and the two empirically derived components generally confirmed hypotheses for most scales. Results of psychometric and clinical tests of validity were in agreement for the Physical Functioning, Role-Physical, Vitality, Social Functioning, and Mental Health scales. Relatively less agreement between psychometric and clinical tests of validity was observed for the Bodily Pain, General Health, and Role-Emotional scales, and the physical and mental health factor content of those scales was not consistent with hypotheses. In clinical tests of validity, the General Health, Bodily Pain, and Physical Functioning scales were the most valid scales in discriminating between groups with and without a severe physical condition. Scales that correlated highest with mental health in the components analysis (Mental Health and Vitality) also were most valid in discriminating between groups with and without depression. The results of this study provide preliminary interpretation guidelines for all SF-36 scales, although caution is recommended in the interpretation of the Role-Emotional, Bodily Pain, and General Health scales pending further studies in Japan.
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.relation<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=9817122&dopt=Abstract">Link to Article in PubMed</a>
dc.relation.urlhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00096-1
dc.subjectAdult
dc.subjectCross-Cultural Comparison
dc.subjectDepression
dc.subjectEducational Status
dc.subjectFactor Analysis, Statistical
dc.subjectFemale
dc.subject*Health Status Indicators
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectJapan
dc.subjectMale
dc.subject*Psychometrics
dc.subject*Quality of Life
dc.subjectReproducibility of Results
dc.subjectBiostatistics
dc.subjectEpidemiology
dc.subjectHealth Services Research
dc.titlePsychometric and clinical tests of validity of the Japanese SF-36 Health Survey
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.source.journaltitleJournal of clinical epidemiology
dc.source.volume51
dc.source.issue11
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://escholarship.umassmed.edu/qhs_pp/547
dc.identifier.contextkey1363382
html.description.abstract<p>Cross-sectional data from a representative sample of the general population in Japan were analyzed to test the validity of Japanese SF-36 Health Survey scales as measures of physical and mental health. Results from psychometric and clinical tests of validity were compared. Principal components analyses were used to test for the hypothesized physical and mental dimensions of health and the pattern of scale correlations with those components. To test the clinical validity of SF-36 scale scores, self-reports of chronic medical conditions and the Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale were used to create mutually exclusive groups differing in the severity of physical and mental conditions. The pattern of correlations between the SF-36 scales and the two empirically derived components generally confirmed hypotheses for most scales. Results of psychometric and clinical tests of validity were in agreement for the Physical Functioning, Role-Physical, Vitality, Social Functioning, and Mental Health scales. Relatively less agreement between psychometric and clinical tests of validity was observed for the Bodily Pain, General Health, and Role-Emotional scales, and the physical and mental health factor content of those scales was not consistent with hypotheses. In clinical tests of validity, the General Health, Bodily Pain, and Physical Functioning scales were the most valid scales in discriminating between groups with and without a severe physical condition. Scales that correlated highest with mental health in the components analysis (Mental Health and Vitality) also were most valid in discriminating between groups with and without depression. The results of this study provide preliminary interpretation guidelines for all SF-36 scales, although caution is recommended in the interpretation of the Role-Emotional, Bodily Pain, and General Health scales pending further studies in Japan.</p>
dc.identifier.submissionpathqhs_pp/547
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences
dc.source.pages1045-53


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Publisher version

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record