Interpreting SF-36 summary health measures: A response
Interpreting SF-36 summary health measures: A response
复制标题
DOI：
10.1023/a:1012588218728
复制
发表时间：
2001-01-01
影响因子：
3.5
通讯作者：
Kosinski, M
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ware, JE;Kosinski, M
针对关于SF-36身体(PCS)和精神(MCS)部分总分，特别是极高分和极低分的“准确性”的问题，我们简要评论：它们是如何发展的，它们是如何评分的，SF-36八个分量表的因素内容，项目水平反应和极端总结分数之间的交叉表，以及对其经验效度的公布和新的测试。发表了SF-36条目与PCS和MCS分数之间的交叉表，公共数据集的重新分析(N=5919)，而联邦医疗保险健康结果调查(HOS)(N=172,314)的初步结果很少或没有证据支持塔夫脱的假设，即极端分数是一些负分数权重的无效人工产物。例如，在居屋计划中，那些“意想不到的”PCS得分低于20分的人(N=432)(根据Taft的说法，这表明精神健康状况较好，而不是身体健康状况较差)，与得分第二高的人(21-30分)相比，他们在两年内死亡的可能性高出约25%。在这项测试和其他实证测试中，预测结果支持极端PCS和MCS分数的有效性。我们建议不要在试图检测“错误”测量的研究中解释小于1分的平均差异，我们再次重申我们7年前的建议，即在得出结论之前，应将基于汇总测量的结果与SF-36概况进行彻底比较。为了便于进行这种比较，已在互联网222.sf-36.com/test上提供了SF-36概况和身体和精神总结分数(包括正交和倾斜评分算法)的评分实用工具和用户友好的图表。
In response to questions raised about the "accuracy" of SF-36 physical (PCS) and mental (MCS) component summary scores, particularly extremely high and low scores, we briefly comment on: how they were developed, how they are scored, the factor content of eight SF-36 subscales, cross-tabulations between item-level responses and extreme summary scores, and published and new tests of their empirical validity.Published cross-tabulations between SF-36 items and PCS and MCS scores, reanalyses of public datasets (N = 5919), and preliminary results from the Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (HOS) (N = 172,314) yielded little or no evidence in support of Taft's hypothesis that extreme scores are an invalid artifact of some negative scoring weights. For example, in the HOS, those (N = 432) with "unexpected" PCS scores worse than 20 (which, according to Taft, indicate better mental health rather than worse physical health) were about 25% more likely to die within two years, in comparison with those scoring in the next highest (21-30) category. In this test and in other empirical tests, results of predictions supported the validity of extreme PCS and MCS scores.We recommend against the interpretation of average differences smaller than one point in studies that seek to detect "false" measurement and we again repeat our 7-year-old recommendation that results based on summary measures should be thoroughly compared with the SF-36 profile before drawing conclusions. To facilitate such comparison, scoring utilities and user-friendly graphs for SF-36 profiles and physical and mental summary scores (both orthogonal and oblique scoring algorithms) have been made available on the Internet at 222.sf-36.com/test.