Quality of Life Research

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 165–174 | Cite as

A comparison of two multidimensional measures of health status: The Nottingham Health Profile and the RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0

  • K. I. VanderZee
  • R. Sanderman
  • J. Heyink
Research Papers


In this study the applicability of two multidimensional instruments, the NHP and the RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0, for measuring health status in population surveys was examined. A population sample of 1,063 persons aged over 17 years participated in the study. It was shown that, as compared with the NHP, the RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0 is a more reliable measure of health status. Second, within a group of subjects who scored ‘zero’ on the NHP, considerable dispersion in RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0 scores was found. For the whole group, no significant differences were found in the amount of variance explained by the corresponding scales from both instruments in the prevalence of chronic diseases. However, among subjects with a zero score on the NHP, the RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0 scores were still predictive of the occurrence of chronic diseases. it was concluded that, compared with the NHP, the RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0 seems to be a more sensitive instrument for the use in population samples.

Key words

Health Status measurement NHP population surveys RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Hunt S, McKenna SP, McEwen J. The Nottingham Health Profile User's Manual. Manchester: Galen Research & Consultancy, 1989.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hays RD, Sherbourne CD, Mazel RM. the RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0. Health Economics 1993; 2: 217–227.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    RAND Health Sciences Program. RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1992.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    VanderZee KI, Sanderman R. Het meten van de algemene gezondheidstoestand met de RAND-36. Een handleiding. [Measuring general health status with the RAND-36. Users Manual]. Groningen: Northern Center of Health Care Research, 1994.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hunt S, McKenna SP, McEwen J, Williams J, Papp E. The Nottingham Health Profile: Subjective health status and medical consultations. Soc Sci Med 1981; 15a: 221–229.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jenkinson C, Fitzpatrick R, Argyle M. The Nottingham Health Profile: An analysis of its sensitivity in differentiating illness groups. Soc Sci Med 1988; 27(12): 1411–1414.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kind P, Carr-Hill R. The Nottingham Health Profile: A useful tool for epidemiologists? Soc Sci Med 1987; 25: 905–910.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stewart AL, Sherbourne CD, Hays RD, et al. Summary and discussion of MOS measures. In stewart AL, Ware JE Jr, eds. Measuring functioning and well-being: The medical outcomes study approach. Durham: Duke University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brook RJ, Ware JE, Davies-Avery A, Stewart AL, Donald CA, Rogers WH, Williams KN, Johnston SA. Overview of adult health status measures fielded in RAND's Health Insurance Study. Med Care 1979; 15; 724–735.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    WHO. Constitution of the World Health Organization. Basic Documents. Geneva: WHO, 1948.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones NMB, Cathain A, Thomas KJ, Usherwood T, Westlake L. Validating the SF-36 health questionnaire: Outcome measure for primary care. Brit Med J 1992; 305: 160–164.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jenkinson C, Coulter A, Wright L. Short form (SF-36) health survey questionnaire: normative data for adults in working age. Brit Med J 1993; 306: 1437–1440.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Garatt AM, Ruta DA, Abdalla Ml, Buckingham JK, Russell IT. The SF-36 health survey questionnaire: an outcome measure suitable for routine use within the NHS? Brit Med J 1993; 306: 1440–1443.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The SF-36 Short-form Health Status Survey: I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30(6): 473–483.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    McHorney CA, Ware JE, Rogers W, et al. The validity and relative precision of MOS short- and long-form health status scales and Darthmouth COOP charts; Results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Med Care 1992; 30(5):253–265.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    McHorney CA, Ware JE, Raczek AE. The MOS 36-Item Short Form Health Status Survey (SF-36). II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care 1993; 31: 247–263.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    McHorney CA, Ware JE, Lu JFR, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36). III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions and reliability across diverse patient groups. Med Care 1994; 32(1):40–66.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Aaronson NK, Acquadro C, Alonso J, Apolone G, Bucquet D, Bullinger M, et al. International Quality Of Life assessment (IQOLA) project: special communication. Qual Life Res 1992; 1:349–351.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    VandenBos GAM. Zorgen van en voor chronische zieken. (Cares of and caring for those who suffer from chronic illness). Dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Utrecht/Antwerpen: Bohn, Scheltema and Holkema, 1989.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Katz S, Ford AB, Moskowitz RW, Jackson BA Jaffe MW. Studies of illness in the aged: the index of ADL: A standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function. J Amer Med Assoc 1963; 185: 914–919.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kempen GIJM, Doeglas DM, Suurmeijer ThPBM. Het meten van problemen met zelfredzaamheid op verzorgend en huishoudelijk gebied met de Groningen Activiteiten Restrictieschaal (GARS). Een handleiding. [Assessment of problems with activities of daily living and instrumental activities of daily living with the Groninger Activity Restriction Scale. Manual]. Groningen: University of Groningen, 1993.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Radloff LS. The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. App Psycho Measure 1977; 1: 385–401.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ploeg HM, Defares PB, Spielberger CD. Handleiding bif de Zelf-Beoordelings Vragenlijst (ZBV): een Nederlandstalige bewerking van de Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-DY). [Manual for the Dutch version of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory]. Lisse: Swetz & Zeitlinger, 1981.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Goldberg D, Williams P. A User's Guide to the general Health Questionnaire. Windsor, Berkshire: NFER-NELSON, 1988.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sanderman r, Stewart R. The assessment of psychological distress: Psychometric properties ofthe General Health Questionnaire (GHQ). Int J Health Sci 1991, 1(3): 195–202.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Feldt LS, Woodruff DJ, Salih FA. Statistical inference for coefficient alpha. App Psycho Measure 1987; 11(1): 93–103.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    VanderZee KI, Sanderman R, Heyink J. The psychometrische kwaliteiten van de MOS 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) in een Nederlandse populatie [The psychometric qualities of the MOS 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) in a Dutch population sample]. Tijdschrift voor Sociale Gezondheidszorg 1993; 71: 183–191.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    VanderZee KI, Heyink J, Sanderman R. A comparison of two multidimensional measures of health status: The RAND-36 and the NHP. Poster presented at the First Meeting of the International Society of Quality of Life Research, Brussels, 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Rapid Science Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. I. VanderZee
    • 1
  • R. Sanderman
    • 2
  • J. Heyink
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Northern Centre for Health Care ResearchUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Health SciencesUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations