Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Deriving SF-12v2 physical and mental health summary scores: a comparison of different scoring algorithms

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Summary scores for the SF-12, version 2 (SF-12v2) health status measure are based on scoring coefficients derived for version 1 of the SF-36, despite changes in item wording and response scales and despite the fact that SF-12 scales only contain a subset of SF-36 items. This study derives new summary scores based directly on SF-12v2 data from a recent U.S. sample and compares the new summary scores to the standard ones. Due to controversy regarding methods for developing scoring coefficients for the summary score, we compare summary scores produced by different methods.

Methods

We analyzed nationally representative U.S. data, which provided 53,399 observations for the SF-12v2 in 2003–2005. In addition to the standard SF-12V2 scoring algorithm, summary scores were generated using exploratory factor analysis (EFA), principal components analysis (PCA), and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), with orthogonal and oblique rotation. We examined correlations among different summary scores, their associations with demographic and clinical variables, and the consistency between changes in scale scores and in summary scores over time.

Results

The 8 scale means in the current data were similar to the 1998 SF-12v2 means, with the exception of the vitality scale. Correlations among the scales based on SF-12v2 data differed slightly from correlations derived from scales based on the SF-36 data. Correlations among summary scores derived using different methods were high (≥0.84). However, changes in summary scores derived using orthogonal rotation of components or factors were not consistent with changes in sub-scales, whereas changes in summary scores derived using oblique rotation were more consistent with patterns of change in sub-scales.

Conclusions

Although the basic structure of the SF-12 is stable, summary scores derived from oblique rotation are preferable and more consistent with changes in individual scales. On empirical and conceptual grounds, we suggest using summary scores based on oblique CFA.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ware, J. E., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form Health Survey (SF-36): I conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30, 473–483.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ware, J. E., Kosinski, M., & Keller, S. D. (1996). A 12-item short-form Health Survey: Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Medical Care, 34, 220–233.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ware, J. E., Jr., Kosinski, M., & Keller, S. D. (1994). SF-36 Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales: A user’s manual. Boston, MA: The Health Assessment Lab, New England Medical Center.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ware, J. E., Jr., Kosinski, M., Turner-Bowker, D. M., & Gandek, B. (2002). How to score version 2 of the SF-12 Health Survey. Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric Incorporated.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ware, J. E., Jr., Kosinski, M., Bjorner, J. B., Turner-Bowker, D. M., et al. (2007). Users manual for the SF-36v2 tm Health Survey (2nd ed.). Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Jayasinghe, U. W., Proudofoot, J., Barton, C. A., Amoroso, C., et al. (2009). Quality of life of Australian chronically-ill adults: Patient and practice characteristics matter. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 7, 50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Amir, M., Lewin-Epstein, N., Becler, G., & Buskila, D. (2002). Psychometric properties of the SF-12 (Hebrew version) in a primary care population in Israel. Medical Care, 40, 918–928.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kontodimopoulos, N., Pappa, E., Niakis, D., & Tountas, Y. (2007). Validity of SF-12 summary scores in a Greek general population. Health and Quality of Life, 5, 55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gandhi, S. K., Salmon, J. W., Zhao, S. Z., Lambert, B. L., et al. (2001). Psychometric evaluation of the 12-item short form Health Survey (SF-12) in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials. Clinical Therapeutics, 23, 1080–1098.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Montazeri, A., Vahdaninia, M., Mousavi, S. J., & Omidvari, O. (2009). The Iranian version of 12-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12): Factor structure, internal consistency and construct validity. BMC Public Health, 9, 341.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Maurischat, C., Herschbach, P., Peters, A., & Bullinger, M. (2008). Factorial validity of the short-form 12 (SF-12) in patients with diabetes mellitus. Psychology Science Quarterly, 50, 7–20.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Preacher, K. J., & MacCallum, R. C. (2003). Repairing Tom Swift’s electric factor analysis machine. Understanding Statistics, 2(1), 13–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Velicer, W. F., & Jackson, D. N. (1990). Component analysis versus common factor analysis: Some issues in selecting an appropriate procedure. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(1), 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Widaman, K. F. (1993). Common factor analysis versus principal component analysis: Differential bias in representing model parameters? Multivariate Behavioral Research, 28(3), 263–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Farivar, S., Cunningham, W., & Hays, R. (2007). Correlated physical and mental health summary scores for the SF-36 and SF-12 Health Survey. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 5, 54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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, 53–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wilson, D., Parsons, J., & Tucker, G. (2000). The SF-36 summary scales: Problems and solutions. Sozial- und Praeventivmedizin, 45, 239–246.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Hann, M., & Reeves, D. (2008). The SF-36 scales are not accurately summarized by independent physical and mental component scores. Quality of Life Research, 17, 413–423.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. AHRQ PUF Data Files. MEPS HC-087: 2004 Medical Conditions. Rockville MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, November, 2006. Available at http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_stats/download_data/pufs/h87/h87doc.pdf. Accessed on May 1, 2009.

  22. Elixhauser, A., Steiner, C. A., Whittington, C. A., & McCarthy, E. (2000). Clinical classifications for health policy research: Hospital inpatient statistics, 1995. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, HCUP-3 Research Note. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. AHRQ PUB 98-0049.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Cunningham, W. E., Nakazono, T. T., Tsai, K. L., & Hays, R. D. (2003). Do differences in methods for constructing the SF-36 physical and mental health summary measures change their associations with chronic medical conditions and utilization? Quality of Life Research, 12, 1029–1035.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hays, R. D., & Morales, L. S. (2001). The RAND-36 measure of health-related quality of life. Annals of Medicine, 33, 350–357.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ware, J. E., & Kosinski, M. (2001). Interpreting SF-36 summary health measures: A response. Quality of Life Research, 10(5), 405–413.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Schmitz, N., & Kuse, J. (2007). The SF-36 summary scores and their relation to mental disorders: Physical functioning may affect performance of the summary scores. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60, 163–170.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Bentler, P. M., & Kano, Y. (1990). On the equivalence of factors and components. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(91), 67–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Mols, F., Pelle, A. J., & Kupper, N. (2009). Normative data of the SF-12 Health Survey with validation using postmyocardial infarction patients in the Dutch population. Quality of Life Research, 18, 403–414.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., Maccallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Cheak-Zamora, N. C., Wyrwich, K. W., & McBride, T. D. (2009). Reliability and validity of the SF-12v2 in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Quality of Life Research, 18(6), 727–735.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Selim, A. J., Rogers, W., Fleishman, J. A., Qian, S. X., Fincke, B. G., Rothendler, J. A., et al. (2009). Updated U.S. population standard for the veterans RAND 12-item Health Survey (VR-12). Quality of Life Research, 18(1), 43–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Ware, J. E., Jr, Snow, K. K., Kosinski, M., & Gandek, B. (1993). SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and interpretation guide. Boston, MA: The Health Institute.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors, and no official endorsement by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Veteran Affairs, or Boston University is intended or should be inferred. SF-36® and SF-12® are registered trademarks of the Medical Outcomes Trust.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Cost and Financing Studies, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD, 20852, USA

    John A. Fleishman

  2. Center for Health Quality, Outcomes, and Economic Research (CHQOER), A Health Services Research and Development Center of Excellence, VA Medical Center, Bedford, MA, USA

    Alfredo J. Selim & Lewis E. Kazis

  3. Center for the Assessment of Pharmaceutical Practices (CAPP), Department of Health Policy and Management, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

    Alfredo J. Selim & Lewis E. Kazis

  4. Section of Emergency Services, Boston VA Health Care System, West Roxbury, MA, USA

    Alfredo J. Selim

  5. Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA

    Alfredo J. Selim

Authors
  1. John A. Fleishman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alfredo J. Selim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lewis E. Kazis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John A. Fleishman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fleishman, J.A., Selim, A.J. & Kazis, L.E. Deriving SF-12v2 physical and mental health summary scores: a comparison of different scoring algorithms. Qual Life Res 19, 231–241 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9582-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9582-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation