Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Single-item electronic administration of the SF-36v2 Health Survey

  • Brief Communication
  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the psychometric properties and factor structure of a computerized electronic version of the SF-36v2 Health Survey (SF-36v2) with items administered one-per-page versus the traditional grid format used in the paper-and-pencil version in a sample of physician-diagnosed headache patients.

Methods

Patients (N = 180) completed the SF-36v2 administered as part of a broader study of health outcomes. Scaling assumptions, reliability, factor structure, and the tool’s ability to discriminate between headache pain severity groups were examined.

Results

Frequency distributions showed notable ceiling effects for the role emotional, social functioning, physical functioning, and role physical scales, but negligible (<1.2%) floor effects for any of the scales. Internal consistency reliability coefficients ranged from 0.81 to 0.95 for the eight health domains. Items passed tests of internal consistency and discriminant validity. Principal components’ analyses confirmed the 2-factor structure; the pattern of correlations across scales was consistent with expectations for the physical and mental health components. As expected, patients with severe headache pain had lower mean SF-36v2 scores than those with mild or moderate pain. No significant score differences were observed between mild and moderate pain severity groups.

Conclusions

Single-item electronic administration of the SF-36v2 is reliable and valid for use with headache patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Ware, J. E., Jr, & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30(6), 473–483.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ware, J. E., Jr, Snow, K. K., Kosinski, M., & Gandek, B. (1993). SF-36 ® health survey: Manual and interpretation guide. Boston, MA: The Health Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Becker, W. J. (2002). Assessing health-related quality of life in patients with migraine. Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences, 29(Suppl 2), S16–S22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ware, J. E., Jr, Kosinski, M., Bjorner, J. B., Turner-Bowker, D. M., Gandek, B., & Maruish, M. E. (2007). User’s manual for the SF-36v2™ health survey (2nd ed.). Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric Incorporated.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ware, J. E., Jr, Kosinski, M., Bjorner, J. B., Turner-Bowker, D. M., Gandek, B., & Maruish, M. E. (2008). SF-36v2 ® health survey: Administration guide for clinical trial investigators. Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric Incorporated.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Turner-Bowker, D. M., DeRosa, M. A., & Ware, J. E., Jr. (2007). SF-36® health survey. In S. Boslaugh (Ed.), Encyclopedia of epidemiology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dillman, D. A., & Smyth, J. D. (2007). Design effects in the transition to web-based surveys. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32(5 Suppl), S90–S96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gwaltney, C. J., Shields, A. L., & Shiffman, S. (2008). Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: a meta-analytic review. Value in Health, 11(2), 322–333.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Coons, S. J., Gwaltney, C. J., Hays, R. D., Lundy, J. J., Sloan, J. A., Revicki, D. A., et al. (2009). Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value in Health, 12(4), 419–429.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by a National Institutes of Health (NIH) sponsored grant [National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) grant #5R44NS047763-03]. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NINDS or the NIH. Part of this research was conducted while Dr. Turner-Bowker, Dr. Saris-Baglama, and Mr. DeRosa were employed by QualityMetric Incorporated.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. invivodata, inc., 2100 Wharton Street, Suite 505, Pittsburgh, PA, 15203, USA

    Diane M. Turner-Bowker

  2. Datacorp, 7 Thurber Boulevard, Smithfield, RI, 02917, USA

    Renee N. Saris-Baglama & Michael A. DeRosa

Authors
  1. Diane M. Turner-Bowker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Renee N. Saris-Baglama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael A. DeRosa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diane M. Turner-Bowker.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Turner-Bowker, D.M., Saris-Baglama, R.N. & DeRosa, M.A. Single-item electronic administration of the SF-36v2 Health Survey. Qual Life Res 22, 485–490 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0169-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0169-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation