Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Approaches for Measuring Reversible Damage to the Health

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
All Around Suboptimal Health

Part of the book series: Advances in Predictive, Preventive and Personalised Medicine ((APPPM,volume 18))

  • 130 Accesses

Abstract

Health questionnaires and scales are widely used instruments for assessing various aspects of health. A well-established health questionnaire is important for the detection of reversible health damages that could not be measured directly. In this chapter, some key issues in the development and evaluation of health scales and questionnaires were presented and discussed, including the procedure of questionnaire development, assessment of reliability and validity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

M-M:

Multi-trait-multi-method

MMSE:

Mini-Mental State Examination

MPQ:

McGill pain questionnaire

SHS:

Suboptimal health status

SHSQ-25:

Suboptimal health status questionnaire-25

References

  1. Keszei AP, Novak M, Streiner DL (2010) Introduction to health measurement scales. J Psychosom Res 68(4):319–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2010.01.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. McDowell I (2010) Measures of self-perceived well-being. J Psychosom Res 69(1):69–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2009.07.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Yan YX, Liu YQ, Li M, Hu PF, Guo AM, Yang XH, Qiu JJ, Yang SS, Shen J, Zhang LP, Wang W (2009) Development and evaluation of a questionnaire for measuring suboptimal health status in urban Chinese. J Epidemiol 19(6):333–341. https://doi.org/10.2188/jea.je20080086

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Gagnon M, Letenneur L, Dartigues JF, Commenges D, Orgogozo JM, Barberger-Gateau P, Alpérovitch A, Décamps A, Salamon R (1990) Validity of the mini-mental state examination as a screening instrument for cognitive impairment and dementia in French elderly community residents. Neuroepidemiology 9(3):143–150. https://doi.org/10.1159/000110764

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Melzack R (1975) The McGill pain questionnaire: major properties and scoring methods. Pain 1(3):277–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(75)90044-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Panagiotakos D (2009) Health measurement scales: methodological issues. Open Cardiovasc Med J 3:160–165. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874192400903010160

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Likert R (1932) A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol 140:5–55

    Google Scholar 

  8. Andrich D (2011) Rating scales and Rasch measurement. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 11(5):571–585. https://doi.org/10.1586/erp.11.59

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Carmines E, Zeller R (1986) Reliability and validity assessment. Sage Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  10. Lohr KN, Aaronson NK, Alonso J, Burnam MA, Patrick DL, Perrin EB, Roberts JS (1996) Evaluating quality-of-life and health status instruments: development of scientific review criteria. Clin Ther 18(5):979–992. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0149-2918(96)80054-3

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gage M, Noh S, Polatajko HJ, Kaspar V (1994) Measuring perceived self-efficacy in occupational therapy. Am J Occup Ther 48(9):783–790. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.48.9.783

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Spearman C (1910) Correlation calculated from faulty data. Br J Psychol 3:271–295

    Google Scholar 

  13. Brown W (1910) Some experimental results in the correlation of mental abilities. Br J Psychol 3:296–322

    Google Scholar 

  14. Rosenthal R, Rosnow RL (1991) Essentials of behavioral research: methods and data analysis. McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ware JE Jr, Gandek B (1998) Methods for testing data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability: the IQOLA project approach. International quality of life assessment. J Clin Epidemiol 51(11):945–952. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00085-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen SV (2007) Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Res Nurs Health 30(4):459–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20199

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Cronbach LJ, Meehl PE (1955) Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol Bull 52(4):281–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Comrey AL, Lee HB (1992) A first course in factor analysis, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kline RB (1998) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  20. Caracciolo B, Giaquinto S (2002) Criterion validity of the center for epidemiological studies depression (CES-D) scale in a sample of rehabilitation inpatients. J Rehabil Med 34(5):221–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/165019702760279215

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Strauss ME, Smith GT (2009) Construct validity: advances in theory and methodology. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 5:1–25. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.032408.153639

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Ferketich SL, Figueredo AJ, Knapp TR (1991) The multitrait-multimethod approach to construct validity. Res Nurs Health 14(4):315–320. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.4770140410

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Public Health, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China

    Yu-Xiang Yan

  2. First Affiliated Hospital, Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, China

    Wei Wang

  3. Beijing Key Laboratory of Clinical Epidemiology, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China

    Wei Wang

  4. School of Public Health, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan, China

    Wei Wang

  5. Centre for Precision Health, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia

    Wei Wang

  6. Suboptimal Health Study Consortium, Kumasi, Ghana

    Wei Wang

  7. Suboptimal Health Study Consortium, Perth, Australia

    Wei Wang

  8. Suboptimal Health Study Consortium, Beijing, China

    Wei Wang

  9. Suboptimal Health Study Consortium, Bonn, Germany

    Wei Wang

  10. European Association for Predictive, Preventive and Personalised Medicine, EPMA, Brussels, Belgium

    Wei Wang

Authors
  1. Yu-Xiang Yan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wei Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yu-Xiang Yan .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Precision Health, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia

    Wei Wang

Ethics declarations

None.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Yan, YX., Wang, W. (2024). Approaches for Measuring Reversible Damage to the Health. In: Wang, W. (eds) All Around Suboptimal Health . Advances in Predictive, Preventive and Personalised Medicine, vol 18. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46891-9_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation