Quality of Life Research

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 539–547 | Cite as

Is the standard SF-12 Health Survey valid and equivalent for a Chinese population?

  • Cindy L.K. Lam
  • Eileen Y.Y. Tse
  • Barbara Gandek
Brief communication

Abstract

Introduction: Chinese is the world’s largest ethnic group but few health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measures have been tested on them. The aim of this study was to determine if the standard SF-12 was valid and equivalent for a Chinese population. Methods: The SF-36 data of 2410 Chinese adults randomly selected from the general population of Hong Kong (HK) were analysed. The Chinese (HK) specific SF-12 items and scoring algorithm were derived from the HK Chinese population data by multiple regressions. The SF-36 PCS and MCS scores were used as criteria to assess the content and criterion validity of the SF-12. The standard and Chinese (HK) specific SF-12 PCS and MCS scores were compared for equivalence. Results: The standard SF-12 explained 82% and 89% of the variance of the SF-36 PCS and MCS scores, respectively, and the effect size differences between the standard SF-36 and SF-12 scores were less than 0.3. Six of the Chinese (HK) specific SF-12 items were different from those of the standard SF-12, but the effect size differences between the Chinese (HK) specific and standard SF-12 scores were mostly less than 0.3. Conclusions: The standard SF-12 was valid and equivalent for the Chinese, which would enable more Chinese to be included in clinical trials that measure HRQoL.

Keywords

Health-related quality of life SF-12 Chinese Validity Equivalence 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Lam, CLK, Gandek, B, Ren, XS, Chan, MS 1998Tests of scaling assumptions and construct validity of the Chinese (HK) version of the SF-36 Health Survey.J Clin Epidemiol5111391147Google Scholar
  2. Lam, CLK 2003Reliability and construct validity of the Chinese (Hong Kong) SF-36 for patients in primary care.H K Pract25468475Google Scholar
  3. Lam CLK, Tse EYY, Gandek B. Construct validity, reliability and equivalence of the SF-36 Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales in a Chinese population (under review).Google Scholar
  4. Thumboo, J, Fong, KY, Chan, SP,  et al. 2002The equivalence of English and Chinese SF-36 versions in bilingual Singapore Chinese.Qual Life Res11495503Google Scholar
  5. Thumboo, J, Fong, KY, Machin, D,  et al. 2001A community-based study of scaling assumptions and construct validity of the English (UK) and Chinese (HK) SF-36 in Singapore.Qual Life Res10175188Google Scholar
  6. Ware, JEKosinski, MKeller, SD eds. 1995How to Score the SF-12 Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales.7The Health Institute, New England Medical CenterBostonGoogle Scholar
  7. Ware, JE, Kosinski, M, Keller, SD 1996A 12-item Short-Form Health Survey. Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity.Med Care34220233CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Gandek, B, Ware, JE, Aaronson, NK 1998Cross-validation of item selection and scoring for the SF-12 Health Survey in nine countries: Results from the IQOLA Project.J Clin Epidemiol5111711178CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Ware, JE, Kosinski, M 2001

    Norm-based scoring for physical and mental summary measures.

    Ware, JEKosinski, M eds. SF-36 Physical & Mental Health Summary Scales: A Manual for Users of Version 1. LincolnQualityMetric, Inc.Rhode Island2835
    Google Scholar
  10. Guillemin, F, Bombardier, C, Beaton, D 1993Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: Literature review and proposed guidelines.J Clin Epidemiol4614171432CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. McColl, E, Christiansen, T, Konig-Zahn, C 1997

    Making the right choice of outcome measure.

    Hutchinson, ABentzen, NKonig-Zahn, C eds. Cross Cultural Health Outcome Assessment: A User’s Guide.European Research Group on Health OutcomesRuinen, The Netherlands1226
    Google Scholar
  12. Lim, LLY, Fisher, JD 1999Use of the 12-item Short-Form (SF-12) Health Survey in an Australian heart and stroke population.Qual Life Res818Google Scholar
  13. Bjorner, JB, Kreiner, S, Ware, JE, Damsgaard, MT, Berch, P 1998Differential item functioning in the Danish translation of the SF-36.J Clin Epidemiol5111891202Google Scholar
  14. Herdman, M, Fox-Rushby, J, Badia, X 1998A model of equivalence in the cultural adaptation of HRQoL instruments: The universalist approach.Qual Life Res7323335Google Scholar
  15. Bullinger, M 1994

    Ensuring international equivalence of quality of life measures: Problems and approaches to solutions.

    Orley, JKuyken, W eds. Quality of Life Assessment: International Perspectives.Springler-VerlagBerlin3340
    Google Scholar
  16. Lam, CLK, Lauder, IJ, Lam, TP, Gandek, B 1999Population based norming of the Chinese (HK) version of the SF-36 Health Survey.H K Pract21460470Google Scholar
  17. Lam, CLK, Fong, DYT, Lauder, IJ, Lam, TP 2002The effect of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) on health service utilisation of a Chinese population.Soc Sci Med5516351646Google Scholar
  18. Census & Statistics Department Hong Kong, Main Tables of the 2001 Population Census. Hong Kong: Census & Statistics Department, HKSAR; 2002.Google Scholar
  19. Gandek, B, Ware, JE 1998Methods for validating and norming translations of health status questionnaires: The IQOLA Project approach.J Clin Epidemiol51953959Google Scholar
  20. Lam, CLK, Lauder, IJ, Lam, TPD 2003The impact of chronic diseases on health services and quality of life of a Chinese population.Asia Pacific Fam Med298106Google Scholar
  21. Kazis, LE, Anderson, JJ, Meenan, RF 1989Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status.Med Care27S178S189Google Scholar
  22. Wyrwich, KW, Nienaber, NA, Tierney, WM, Wolinsky, FD 1999Linking clinical relevance and statistical significance in evaluating intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life.Med Care37469478Google Scholar
  23. Cohen, J 1988

    The t-test for measures.

    Cohen, J eds. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences.Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesHillsdale, New Jersey1974
    Google Scholar
  24. Norman, GR, Sridhar, FG, Walter, SD, Guyatt, GH 2001The relation of distribution- and anchor-based approaches in interpretation of changes in health related quality of life.Med Care3910391047Google Scholar
  25. Holman, R, Lindeboom, R, Vermeulen, M, Glas, CAW, Haan, RJ 2002The Amsterdam Linear Disability Score (ALDS) Project, differential item functioning with regard to gender.QOL Newsleter291314Google Scholar
  26. Skevington, SM 2002Advancing cross-cultural research on quality of life: Observations drawn from the WHOQoL development.Qual Life Res11135144Google Scholar
  27. Skevington, SM, Bradshaw, J, Saxena, S 1999Selecting national items for the WHOQoL: Conceptual and psychometric considerations.Soc Sci Med48473487Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cindy L.K. Lam
    • 1
  • Eileen Y.Y. Tse
    • 1
  • Barbara Gandek
    • 2
  1. 1.Family Medicine Unit, Ap Lei Chau Clinicthe University of Hong KongHong Kong SAR
  2. 2.IQOLA ProjectHealth Assessment LabBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations