Quality of Life Research

, Volume 14, Issue 5, pp 1203–1218 | Cite as

Are factor analytical techniques used appropriately in the validation of health status questionnaires? A systematic review on the quality of factor analysis of the SF-36

  • Henrica C. W. de Vet
  • Herman J. Adèr
  • Caroline B. Terwee
  • François Pouwer
Article

Abstract

Factor analysis is widely used to evaluate whether questionnaire items can be grouped into clusters representing different dimensions of the construct under study. This review focuses on the appropriate use of factor analysis. The Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36) is used as an example. Articles were systematically searched and assessed according to a number of criteria for appropriate use and reporting. Twenty-eight studies were identified: exploratory factor analysis was performed in 22 studies, confirmatory factor analysis was performed in five studies and in one study both were performed. Substantial shortcomings were found in the reporting and justification of the methods applied. In 15 of the 23 studies in which exploratory factor analysis was performed, confirmatory factor analysis would have been more appropriate. Cross-validation was rarely performed. Presentation of the results and conclusions was often incomplete. Some of our results are specific for the SF-36, but the finding that both the application and the reporting of factor analysis leaves much room for improvement probably applies to other health status questionnaires as well. Optimal reporting and justification of methods is crucial for correct interpretation of the results and verification of the conclusions. Our list of criteria may be useful for journal editors, reviewers and researchers who have to assess publications in which factor analysis is applied.

Keywords

Confirmatory factor analysis Exploratory factor analysis Health status Methodological quality Principal component analysis SF-36 Systematic review Validation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Floyd, FJ, Widaman, KF 1995Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instrumentsPsychol Assess7286299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Johnson DE. Applied Multivariate Methods for Data Analysts. 1998.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Streiner, DL 1994Figuring out factors: The use and misuse of factor analysisCan J Psychiatry39135140PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gorsuch, RL 1983Factor AnalysisLawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc,Hillsdale NJGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ware, JE,Jr, Sherbourne, CD 1992The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selectionMed Care30473483CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ware, JE,Jr 2000SF-36 health survey updateSpine2531303139CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McHorney, CA, Ware, JE,Jr, Raczek, AE 1993The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructsMed Care31247263CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SK, Psychological and mental health summary scales: A user’s manual. 1994. Boston MA, The Health Institute (report).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ware, JE,Jr, Kosinski, M, Gandek, B,  et al. 1998The factor structure of the SF-36 Health Survey in 10 countries: Results from the IQOLA Project.International Quality of Life AssessmentJ Clin Epidemiol5111591165CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ware, JE,Jr, Gandek, B 1998Overview of the SF-36 Health Survey and the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) ProjectJ Clin Epidemiol51903912CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ware, J,Jr, Kosinski, M, Keller, SD 1996A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validityMed Care34220233CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zwick, WR, Velicer, WF 1986A comparison of five rules for determining the number of components to retainPsychol Bull99432442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Allison, DB, Gorman, BS, Primavera, LH 1993Some of the most common questions asked of statistical consultants: Our favorite responses and recommended readingsGene Soc Gen Psychol Monogr119153185Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bollen, KA 1989Structural Equations with Latent VariablesWileyNew YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pouwer, F, Snoek, FJ, Vander Ploeg, HM, Ader, HJ, Heine, RJ 2000The well-being questionnaire: Evidence for a three-factor structure with 12 items (W-BQ12)Psychol Med30455462CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kline, P 1993The Handbook of Psychological TestingRoutledgeLondonGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guadagnoli, E, Velicer, WF 1988Relation of sample size to the stability of component patternsPsychol Bull103265275CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gandek, B, Ware, JE,Jr 1998Methods for validating and norming translations of health status questionnaires: The IQOLA Project approach.International Quality of Life AssessmentJ Clin Epidemiol51953959CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hays, RD, Sherbourne, CD, Mazel, RM 1993The RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0Health Econ2217227CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kosinski, M, Keller, SD, Hatoum, HT, Kong, SX, Ware, JE,Jr 1999The SF-36 Health Survey as a generic outcome measure in clinical trials of patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions and score reliabilityMed Care37MS10MS22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reed, PJ 1998Methods of evaluation in outcomes researchAm J Manag Care416161625PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ware, JE, Kosinski, M 2001Interpreting SF-36 summary health measures: A responseQual Life Res10405413CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pfennings, LE, Vander Ploeg, HM, Cohen, L,  et al. 1999A health-related quality of life questionnaire for multiple sclerosis patientsActa Neurol Scand100148155CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Thumboo, J, Feng, PH, Soh, CH, Boey, ML, Thio, S, Fong, KY 2000Validation of a Chinese version of the Medical Outcomes Study Family and Marital Functioning Measures in patients with SLELupus9702707CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dexter, PR, Stump, TE, Tierney, WM, Wolinsky, FD 1996The psychometric properties of the SF-36 Health Survey among older adults in a clinical settingJ Clin Geropsychol2225237Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Scott, KM, Haslett, SJ 1999SF-36 health survey reliability, validity and norms for New ZealandAust New Zeal J Public Health23401406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Failde, I, Ramos, I 2000Validity and reliability of the SF-36 Health Survey Questionnaire in patients with coronary artery diseaseJ Clin Epidemiol53359365CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Keller, SD, Ware, JE,Jr, Bentler, PM,  et al. 1998Use of structural equation modeling to test the construct validity of the SF-36 Health Survey in 10 countries: Results from the IQOLA Project.International Quality of Life AssessmentJ Clin Epidemiol5111791188CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lewin-Epstein, N, Sagiv-Schifter, T, Shabtai, EL, Shmueli, A 1998Validation of the 36-item short-form Health Survey (Hebrew version) in the adult population of IsraelMed Care3613611370CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Reed, PJ 1998Medical outcomes study short form 36: Testing and cross-validating a second-order factorial structure for health system employeesHealth Serv Res3313611380PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    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 SingaporeQual Life Res10175188CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wolinsky, FD, Stump, TE 1996A measurement model of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey in a clinical sample of disadvantaged, older, black, and white men and womenMed Care34537548CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wilson, D, Parsons, J, Tucker, G 2000The SF-36 summary scales: Problems and solutionsSoz Praventiv Med45239246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hardt, J, Buchwald, D, Wilks, D, Sharpe, M, Nix, WA, Egle, UT 2001Health-related quality of life in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome: An international studyJ Psychosom Res51431434CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mishra, G, Schofield, MJ 1998Norms for the physical and mental health component summary scores of the SF-36 for young, middle-aged and older Australian womenQual Life Res7215220CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ware, JE,Jr, Gandek, B, Kosinski, M,  et al. 1998The equivalence of SF-36 summary health scores estimated using standard and country-specific algorithms in 10 countries: Results from the IQOLA Project.International Quality of Life AssessmentJ Clin Epidemiol5111671170CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jenkinson, C, Layte, R 1997Development and testing of the UK SF-12 (short form health survey)J Health Serv Res Policy21418PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jenkinson, C, Stewart-Brown, S, Petersen, S, Paice, C 1999Assessment of the SF-36 version 2 in the United KingdomJ Epidemiol Commun Health534650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Apolone, G, Mosconi, P 1998The Italian SF-36 Health Survey: Translation, validation and normingJ Clin Epidemiol5110251036CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Fukuhara, S, Ware, JE,Jr, Kosinski, M, Wada, S, Gandek, B 1998bPsychometric and clinical tests of validity of the Japanese SF-36 Health SurveyJ Clin Epidemiol5110451053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Fukuhara, S, Bito, S, Green, J, Hsiao, A, Kurokawa, K 1998aTranslation, adaptation, and validation of the SF-36 Health Survey for use in JapanJ Clin Epidemiol5110371044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hobart, J, Freeman, J, Lamping, D, Fitzpatrick, R, Thompson, A 2001The SF-36 in multiple sclerosis: Why basic assumptions must be testedJ Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry71363370CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Perneger, TV, Leplege, A, Etter, JF, Rougemont, A 1995Validation of a French-language version of the MOS 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) in young healthy adultsJ Clin Epidemiol4810511060CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sanson-Fisher, RW, Perkins, JJ 1998Adaptation and validation of the SF-36 Health Survey for use in AustraliaJ Clin Epidemiol51961967CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Scott, KM, Sarfati, D, Tobias, MI, Haslett, SJ 2000A challenge to the cross-cultural validity of the SF-36 health survey: Factor structure in Maori, Pacific and New Zealand European ethnic groupsSoc Sci Med5116551664CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Stadnyk, K, Calder, J, Rockwood, K 1998Testing the measurement properties of the Short Form-36 Health Survey in a frail elderly populationJ Clin Epidemiol51827835CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Essink-Bot, ML, Krabbe, PF, Bonsel, GJ, Aaronson, NK 1997An empirical comparison of four generic health status measures. The Nottingham Health Profile, the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form Health Survey, the COOP/WONCA charts, and the EuroQol instrumentMed Care35522537CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gold beck, L, Sch mitz, TG 2001Com par i son of three generic ques tion naires mea sur ing qual ity of life in ado les cents and adults with cys tic fibro sis: The 36-item short form health sur vey, the qual ity of life pro file for chronic dis eases, and the ques tions on life sat is fac tionQual Life Res102336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Chern, JY, Wan, TT, Pyles, M 2000The stability of health status measurement (SF-36) in a working populationJ Outcome Meas4461481PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Thumboo, J, Fong, KY, Chan, SP,  et al. 2002The equivalence of English and Chinese SF-36 versions in bilingual Singapore ChineseQual Life Res11495503CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Gorsuch, RL 1995Exploratory factor analysis: Its role in item analysisJ Pers Assess68532560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Aaronson, NK, Muller, M, Cohen, PD,  et al. 1998Translation, validation, and norming of the Dutch language version of the SF-36 Health Survey in community and chronic disease populationsJ Clin Epidemiol511202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Bjorner, JB, Damsgaard, MT, Watt, T, Groenvold, M 1998Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability of the Danish SF-36J Clin Epidemiol5110011011CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Raczek, AE, Ware, JE, Bjorner, JB,  et al. 1998Comparison of Rasch and summated rating scales constructed from SF-36 physical functioning items in seven countries: Results from the IQOLA Project.International Quality of Life AssessmentJ Clin Epidemiol5112031214CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Bjorner, JB, Kreiner, S, Ware, JE, Damsgaard, MT, Bech, P 1998Differential item functioning in the Danish translation of the SF-36J Clin Epidemiol5111891202CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Moher, D, Schulz, KF, Altman, DG 2001The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trialsLancet35711911194CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Bossuyt, PM, Reitsma, JB, Bruns, DE,  et al. 2003The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: Explanation and elaborationAnn Intern Med138W112CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Bossuyt, PM, Reitsma, JB, Bruns, DE,  et al. 2003Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD InitiativeAnn Intern Med1384044CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henrica C. W. de Vet
    • 1
  • Herman J. Adèr
    • 1
    • 2
  • Caroline B. Terwee
    • 1
  • François Pouwer
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute for Research in Extramural MedicineU University Medical CenterAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Clinical Epidemiology and BiostatisticsVU University Medical CenterThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Medical PsychologyVU University Medical CenterAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations