Quality of Life Research

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 15–24

Do the SF-36 and WHOQOL-BREF Measure the Same Constructs? Evidence from the Taiwan Population*

  • I-Chan Huang
  • Albert W. Wu
  • Constantine Frangakis


Background: The SF-36 and WHOQOL-BREF are available for international use, but it is not clear if they measure the same constructs. We compared the psychometric properties and factor structures of these two instruments. Methods: Data were collected from a national representative sample (n=11,440) in the 2001 Taiwan National Health Interview Survey, which included Taiwan versions of the SF-36 and WHOQOL-BREF. We used Cronbach’s alpha coefficient to estimate scale reliability. We conducted exploratory factor analysis to determine factor structure of the scales, and applied multitrait analysis to evaluate convergent and discriminant validity. We used standardized effect size to compare known-groups validity for health-related variables (including chronic conditions and health care utilization) and self-reported overall quality of life. Structural equation modeling was used to analyze relationships among the two SF-36 component scales (PCS and MCS) and the four WHOQOL subscales (physical, psychological, social relations, and environmental). Results: Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were acceptable (⩾0.7) for all subscales of both instruments. The factor analysis yielded two unique factors: one for the 8 SF-36 subscales and a second for the 4 WHOQOL subscales. Pearson correlations were weak (<0.3) among subscales of both instruments. Correlations for subscales hypothesized to measure similar constructs differed little from those measuring heterogeneous subscales. Effect sizes suggested greater discrimination by the SF-36 for health status and services utilization known groups, but greater discrimination by the WHOQOL for QOL-defined groups. Structural equation modeling suggested that the SF-36 PCS and MCS were weakly associated with WHOQOL. Conclusions: In this Taiwan population sample, the SF-36 and WHOQOL-BREF appear to measure different constructs: the SF-36 measures health-related QOL, while the WHOQOL-BREF measures global QOL. Clinicians and researchers should carefully define their research questions related to patient-reported outcomes before selecting which instrument to use.


Health status Quality of life SF-36 WHOQOL-BREF 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Stewart, AL, Greenfield, S, Hays, RD,  et al. 1989Functional status and well-being of patients with chronic conditions. Results from the Medical Outcomes StudyJAMA262907913CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aaronson, NK, Meyerowitz, BE, Bard, M,  et al. 1991Quality of life research in oncology. Past achievements and future prioritiesCancer67839843PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Patrick, DL, Chiang, YP 2000Measurement of health outcomes in treatment effectiveness evaluations: Conceptual and methodological challengesMed Care38II14II25PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Naughton, MJ, Shumaker, SA 2003The case for domains of function in quality of life assessmentQual Life Res127380PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gill, TM, Feinstein, AR 1994A critical appraisal of the quality of quality-of-life measurementsJAMA272619626CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ware, JEJ 1997Sf-36 Physical & Mental Health Summary Scales: A User’s ManualQuality MetricBostonGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    QualityMetric Incoporated (http://www.qualitymetric.com/products/descriptions/sflicenses.shtml). Access: 1-2-2005
  8. 8.
    The WHOQOL Group1995The World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment (WHOQOL): Position paper from the World Health OrganizationSoc Sci Med4114031409Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    The WHOQOL Group1998Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. The WHOQOL GroupPsychol Med28551558Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    The WHO Field Centre for the Study of Quality of Life (http://www.bath.ac.uk/whoqol/questionnaires/ethics-statement.cfm). Access: 1-2-2005
  11. 11.
    Bonomi, AE, Patrick, DL, Bushnell, DM, Martin, M 2000Validation of the United States’ version of the World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL) instrumentJ Clin Epidemiol53112PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Norholm, V, Bech, P 2001The WHO Quality of Life (WHOQOL) Questionnaire: Danish validation studyNord J Psychiatry55229235PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Skevington, SM, Carse, MS, Williams, AC 2001Validation of the WHOQOL-100: Pain management improves quality of life for chronic pain patientsClin J Pain17264275CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Amir, M, Lewin-Epstein, N, Becker, G, Buskila, D 2002Psychometric properties of the SF-12 (Hebrew version) in a primary care population in IsraelMed Care40918928CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hsiung, PC, Fang, CT, Chang, YY, Chen, MY, Wang, JD 2005Comparison of WHOQOL-BREF and SF-36 in patients with HIV infectionQual Life Res14141150CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Spilker, B, Revicki, DA 1996

    Taxonomy of quality of life

    Spilker, B eds. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical TrialsLippincott-Raven PublishersPhiladelphia2531
    Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shih, YT, Hung, YT, Chang, HY,  et al. 2003The design, contents, operation and the characteristics of the respondents of the 2001 National Health Interview Survey in TaiwanTaiwan J Public Health22419430Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fuh, JL, Wang, SJ, Lu, SR, Juang, KD, Lee, SJ 2000Psychometric evaluation of a Chinese (Taiwanese) version of the SF-36 health survey amongst middle-aged women from a rural communityQual Life Res9675683CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lu, JF, Tseng, HM, Tsai, YJ 2003Assessment of health-related quality of life in Taiwan (I): Development and psychometric testing of SF-36 Taiwan versionTaiwan J Public Health22501511Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fang, CT, Hsiung, PC, Yu, CF, Chen, MY, Wang, JD 2002Validation of the World Health Organization quality of life instrument in patients with HIV infectionQual Life Res11753762CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yao, G, Chung, CW, Yu, CF, Wang, JD 2002Development and verification of validity and reliability of the WHOQOL-BREF Taiwan versionJ Formos Med Assoc101342351PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Popper, KR 2002

    Science: Conjectures and refutations

    Poper, KR eds. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific KnowledgeRoutledgeNew York3358
    Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fayers, PM, Machin, D 2000

    Scores and measurements: Validity, reliability, sensitivity

    Fayers, PMMachin, D eds. Quality of Life: Assessment, Analysis and InterpretationJohn Wiley & SonsWest Sussex, UK4571
    Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sharma, S 1996

    Confirmatory Factor Analysis

    Sharma, S eds. Applied Multivariate TechniquesJohn Wiley & SonsWest Sussex, UK90143
    Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Albrecht, GL, Devlieger, PJ 1999The disability paradox: High quality of life against all oddsSoc Sci Med48977988CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Meuleners, LB, Lee, AH, Binns, CW, Lower, A 2003Quality of life for adolescents: Assessing measurement properties using structural equation modellingQual Life Res12283290CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    The WHOQOL Group1998The World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQOL): Development and general psychometric propertiesSoc Sci Med4615691585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Diener, E, Suh, EM, Lucas, RE, Smith, HL 1999Subjective well-being: Three decades of progressPsychol Bull125276302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ware, JE,Jr 1987Standards for validating health measures: Definition and contentJ Chronic Dis40473480PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bullinger, M, Anderson, R, Cella, D, Aaronson, N 1993Developing and evaluating cross-cultural instruments from minimum requirements to optimal modelsQual Life Res2451459CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Veenhoven, R 2000The four quality of life. Ordering concepts and measures of the good lifeJ Happiness Stud1139Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Abramson, N 1996Quality of life: Who can make the judgment?Am J Med100365366CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Spiro, A,III, Bosse, R 2000Relations between health-related quality of life and well-being: The gerontologist’s new clothes?Int J Aging Hum Dev50297318PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Arnold, R, Ranchor, AV, Sanderman, R, Kempen, GI, Ormel, J, Suurmeijer, TP 2004The relative contribution of domains of quality of life to overall quality of life for different chronic diseasesQual Life Res13883896CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Skevington, SM, Lotfy, M, O’Connell, KA 2004The World Health Organization’s WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment: Psychometric properties and results of the international field trial. A report from the WHOQOL groupQual Life Res13299310PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Browne, JP, O’Boyle, CA, McGee, HM,  et al. 1994Individual quality of life in the healthy elderlyQual Life Res3235244CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Berzon, R, Hays, RD, Shumaker, SA 1993International use, application and performance of health-related quality of life instrumentsQual Life Res2367368CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Guyatt, GH, Feeny, DH, Patrick, DL 1993Measuring health-related quality of lifeAnn Intern Med118622629PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Montazeri, A, Gillis, CR, McEwen, J 1996Measuring quality of life in oncology: Is it worthwhile? I. Meaning, purposes and controversiesEur J Cancer Care (Engl.)5159167Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hunt, SM 1997The problem of quality of lifeQual Life Res6205212PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Leplege, A, Hunt, S 1997The problem of quality of life in medicineJAMA2784750CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    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 Care31247263PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • I-Chan Huang
    • 1
  • Albert W. Wu
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Constantine Frangakis
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Health Policy and Management, Bloomberg School of Public HealthThe Johns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Department of Epidemiology, Bloomberg School of Public HealthThe Johns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  3. 3.Department of Medicine, School of MedicineThe Johns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  4. 4.Department of Biostatistics, Bloomberg School of Public HealthThe Johns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  5. 5.Department of Health Policy and Management, Bloomberg School of Public HealthThe Johns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations