Quality of Life Research

, Volume 23, Issue 5, pp 1515–1521 | Cite as

A comparison of SF-36 summary measures of physical and mental health for women across the life course

  • Gita D. Mishra
  • Richard Hockey
  • Annette J. Dobson



Physical and mental component summary scores (PCS and MCS, respectively) are often used to summarise SF-36 quality of life subscales. This paper investigates PCS and MCS across the life course and compares the trajectories obtained from two different methods of calculation.


The Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health is a population-based study with three cohorts of women and SF-36 surveys taken at multiple time points. Scoring coefficients for each component score were determined using factor analysis with uncorrelated (orthogonal) and correlated (oblique) rotation at the baseline survey, which were then used to compute correlated and uncorrelated PCS and MCS scores at each survey (scaled to have mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10 at baseline).


For both methods, PCS declined progressively across the lifespan, while MCS rose in young and mid-age women to a peak and subsequently declined in later life. Differences were apparent between correlated and uncorrelated scores, most notably for MCS in the older cohort, where correlated MCS reached 54.6 but still less than uncorrelated MCS, with a random effects model indicating 1.63 (95 % confidence intervals 1.58–1.67) units difference; it then declined to a score of 51.2 by the last survey and the difference widened to 3.44 (3.38–3.50) units compared with the uncorrelated MCS.


PCS and MCS have distinct trajectories through life, with differences in results from correlated and uncorrelated component summary scores. The divergence is most notable with MCS, especially for older women, suggesting that correlated MCS and PCS should be used when examining change in health over time in this age group.


Physical component summary scores Mental component summary scores Uncorrelated scores Oblique rotation Varimax rotation Australian women Life course SF-36 



The Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health is funded by the Australian Department of Health and Ageing, and GDM is supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (APP1000986).


  1. 1.
    Contopoulos-Ioannidis, D. G., Karvouni, A., Kouri, I., & Ioannidis, J. P. (2009). Reporting and interpretation of SF-36 outcomes in randomised trials: Systematic review. BMJ, 338, a3006.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ware, J. E., Kosinski, M., & Keller, S. D. (1994). SF-36 Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales: A user’s manual. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Taft, C., Karlsson, J., & Sullivan, M. (2001). Do SF-36 summary component scores accurately summarize subscale scores? Quality of Life Research, 10(5), 395–404.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anagnostopoulos, F., Niakas, D., & Tountas, Y. (2009). Comparison between exploratory factor-analytic and SEM-based approaches to constructing SF-36 summary scores. Quality of Life Research, 18(1), 53–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Simon, G. E., Revicki, D. A., Grothaus, L., & Vonkorff, M. (1998). SF-36 summary scores: Are physical and mental health truly distinct? Medical Care, 36(4), 567–572.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hann, M., & Reeves, D. (2008). The SF-36 scales are not accurately summarised by independent physical and mental component scores. Quality of Life Research, 17(3), 413–423.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wilson, D., Parsons, J., & Tucker, G. (2000). The SF-36 summary scales: Problems and solutions. Sozial- und Praventivmedizin, 45(6), 239–246.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Farivar, S. S., Cunningham, W. E., & Hays, R. D. (2007). Correlated physical and mental health summary scores for the SF-36 and SF-12 Health Survey, V.I. Health Quality of Life Outcomes, 5, 54.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ware, J. E., & Kosinski, M. (2001). Interpreting SF-36 summary health measures: A response. Quality of Life Research, 10(5), 405–413.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lee, C., Dobson, A. J., Brown, W. J., et al. (2005). Cohort profile: The Australian longitudinal study on women’s health. International Journal of Epidemiology, 34(5), 987–991.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mishra, G., & Schofield, M. J. (1998). Norms for the physical and mental health component summary scores of the SF-36 for young, middle-aged and older Australian women. Quality of Life Research, 7(3), 215–220.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Diggle, P. J., Heagerty, P., Liang, K.-Y., & Zeger, S. (2002). Analysis of longitudinal data. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    SAS Institute Inc. Base SAS® 9.3 Utilities: Reference. (2011). Cary, NC: SAS. Institute Inc.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ruo, B., Baker, D. W., Thompson, J. A., Murray, P. K., Huber, G. M., & Sudano, J. J., Jr. (2008). Patients with worse mental health report more physical limitations after adjustment for physical performance. Psychosomatic Medicine, 70(4), 417–421.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Churchill, R. (2010). No health without mental health: A role for the Cochrane collaboration. Cochrane Database Systematic Review, 8, ED000012.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jokela, M., Ferrie, J. E., Gimeno, D., et al. (2010). From midlife to early old age: Health trajectories associated with retirement. Epidemiology, 21(3), 284–290.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gita D. Mishra
    • 1
  • Richard Hockey
    • 1
  • Annette J. Dobson
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Population HealthThe University of QueenslandHerstonAustralia

Personalised recommendations