Quality of Life Research

, Volume 18, Issue 6, pp 727–735 | Cite as

Reliability and validity of the SF-12v2 in the medical expenditure panel survey

  • Nancy C. Cheak-Zamora
  • Kathleen W. Wyrwich
  • Timothy D. McBride
Article

Abstract

Objective

Evaluate the reliability and validity of the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form version 2 (SF-12v2) in the 2003–2004 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS).

Research design

Data were collected in the self-administered mail-out questionnaire and face-to-face interviews of the MEPS (n = 20,661). Internal consistency and test–retest reliability and construct, discriminate, predictive and concurrent validity were tested. The EQ-5D, perceived health and mental health questions were used to test construct and discriminate validity. Self-reported work, physical and cognitive limits tested predictive validity and number of chronic conditions assessed concurrent validity.

Results

Both Mental Component Summary Scores (MCS) and Physical Component Summary Scores (PCS) were shown to have high internal consistency reliability (α > .80). PCS showed high test–retest reliability (ICC = .78) while MCS demonstrated moderate reliability (ICC = .60). PCS had high convergent validity for EQ-5D items (except self-care) and physical health status (r > .56). MCS demonstrated moderate convergent validity on EQ-5D and mental health items (r > .38). PCS distinguish between groups with different physical and work limitations. Similarly, MCS distinguished between groups with and without cognitive limitations. The MCS and PCS showed perfect dose response when variations in scores were examined by participant’s chronic condition status.

Conclusions

Both component scores showed adequate reliability and validity with the 2003–2004 MEPS and should be suitable for use in a variety of proposes within this database.

Keywords

SF-12 MEPS Medical expenditure panel survey Validity Reliability 

Abbreviations

AHRQ

Agency for healthcare research and quality

ANOVA

Analysis of variance

BPN-DPN

Brief pain inventory modified for patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy

DSM-IV

Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders 4th

EQ-5D

EuroQoL- 5 dimension

ICC

Intraclass correlation coefficient

MEPS

Medical expenditure panel survey

MEPS-HC

Medical expenditure panel survey household component

MCS

Mental component summary score

NCHS

National center of health statistics

PCS

Physical component summary score

PGI

Patient generated index

SAQ

Self-administered questionnaire

SF-12v1

Medical outcomes study 12-item short-form version 1

SF-12v2

Medical outcomes study 12-item short-form version 2

SF-36

Medical outcomes study 36-item short form

References

  1. 1.
    Ware, J., Kosinski, M., Turner-Bowker, D., & Gandek, B. (2002). SF12v2: How to score version 2 of the SF-12 health survey. Lincoln, RI: QualiyMetric Incorporated.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ware, J. E., Kosinski, M., & Keller, S. D. (1996). A 12-item short-form health survey: Construction of scale and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Medical Care, 34, 220–233. doi:10.1097/00005650-199603000-00003.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    (2004) Overview of the medical expenditure panel survey, April. Agency for healthcare research and quality, Rockville, MD. Available at: http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/WhatIsMEPS/Overview.HTM#HC. Accessed January 5, 2007.
  4. 4.
    Ware, J. E., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36).1. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30, 473–483. doi:10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boscarino, J. A., Adams, R. E., & Figley, C. R. (2004). Mental health service use 1-year after the World Trade Center disaster: Implications for mental health care. General Hospital Psychiatry, 26, 346–358. doi:10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2004.05.001.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grant, B., Hasin, D., Stinson, F., et al. (2004). Prevalence correlates and disability of personality disorders in the United States: Results from the national epidemiologic survey on alcohol and related conditions. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 65(7), 948–958.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Budke, C. M., Jiamin, Q., Zinsstag, J. M., et al. (2004). Use of disability adjusted life years in the estimation of disease burden of echinococcosis for a high endemic region of the Tibetan Plateau. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 71(1), 56–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Krupski, T. L., Fink, A., Kwan, L., et al. (2005). Health-related quality-of-life in low-income, uninsured men with prostate cancer. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 16, 375–390. doi:10.1353/hpu.2005.0037.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Llewellyn, C. D., McGurk, M., & Weinman, J. (2006). Health and neck cancer: To what extent can psychological factors explain differences between health-related quality of life and individual quality of life? The British Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, 44(5), 351–357. doi:10.1016/j.bjoms.2005.06.033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zelman, D. C., Gore, M., Dukes, E., et al. (2005). Validation of a modified version of the Brief Pain Inventory for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Journal of Vascular Nursing, 23(3), 97–104. doi:10.1016/j.jvn.2005.06.004.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Flieshman, J. A., & Zuvekas, S. H. (2007). Global self-rated mental health: Associations with other mental health measures and with role functioning. Medical Care, 45(7), 602–609. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e31803bb4b0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brooks, R. (1996). EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy (Amsterdam), 37, 53–72. doi:10.1016/0168-8510(96)00822-6.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Natarajan, S., & Nietert, P. (2004). Hypertension, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, and their combinations increased health care utilization and decreased health status. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 57, 954–961. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.01.011.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mosier, C. (1943). On the reliability of a weighted composite. Psychometrika, 8(3), 161–168. doi:10.1007/BF02288700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. doi:10.2307/2529310.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Furlong, W., Barr, R., Feeny, D., et al. (2005). Patient-focused measures of functional health status and health-related quality of life in pediatric orthopedics: A case study in measurement selection. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 3, 3. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-3-3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lawrence, W. F., & Fleishman, J. A. (2004). Predicting EuroQol EQ-5D preference scores from the SF-12 Health Survey in a nationally representative sample. Medical Decision Making, 24(2), 160–169. doi:10.1177/0272989X04264015.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Saban, K. L., Penckofer, S. M., Androwich, I., & Bryant, F. (2007). Health-related quality of life of patients following selected types of lumbar spinal surgery: A pilot study. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 5, 71. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-5-71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sprangers, M. A. G., & Schwartz, C. E. (1999). Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: A theoretical model. Social Science & Medicine, 48(11), 1507–1515. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00045-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nancy C. Cheak-Zamora
    • 1
  • Kathleen W. Wyrwich
    • 2
  • Timothy D. McBride
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Public HealthSaint Louis UniversitySt. LouisUSA
  2. 2.United BioSource CorporationBethesdaUSA
  3. 3.George Warren Brown School of Social WorkWashington UniversitySt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations