THE MOS 36-ITEM SHORT-FORM HEALTH SURVEY (SF-36) .2. PSYCHOMETRIC AND CLINICAL-TESTS OF VALIDITY IN MEASURING PHYSICAL AND MENTAL-HEALTH CONSTRUCTS
THE MOS 36-ITEM SHORT-FORM HEALTH SURVEY (SF-36) .2. PSYCHOMETRIC AND CLINICAL-TESTS OF VALIDITY IN MEASURING PHYSICAL AND MENTAL-HEALTH CONSTRUCTS
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/00005650-199303000-00006
复制
发表时间：
1993-03-01
期刊：
影响因子：
3
通讯作者：
RACZEK, AE
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
MCHORNEY, CA;WARE, JE;RACZEK, AE
对来自医学结局研究（MOS）的横截面数据进行分析，以检验MOS 36项简明健康调查（SF-36）量表作为身心健康指标的有效性。从传统的心理测量和临床测试的有效性进行了比较。主成分分析被用来测试假设的身体和心理健康方面。为了进行有效性的临床试验，临床标准定义了医疗和精神疾病严重程度不同的相互排斥的成年患者组。成分分析中显示的量表主要用于测量身体健康（身体功能和角色限制-身体），最能区分慢性疾病严重程度不同的群体，并具有最纯粹的身体健康解释。量表显示，主要衡量心理健康（心理健康和角色限制-情绪）最好区分不同的精神疾病的存在和严重程度的群体，并有最纯粹的心理健康解释。社会功能，活力和一般健康感知量表测量身体和精神健康的组成部分，因此，有最复杂的解释。这些结果是有用的，在建立准则的解释每个规模和记录的大小差异的临床组之间，应被认为是非常大的。
Cross-sectional data from the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) were analyzed to test the validity of the MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) scales as measures of physical and mental health constructs. Results from traditional psychometric and clinical tests of validity were compared. Principal components analysis was used to test for hypothesized physical and mental health dimensions. For purposes of clinical tests of validity, clinical criteria defined mutually exclusive adult patient groups differing in severity of medical and psychiatric conditions. Scales shown in the components analysis to primarily measure physical health (physical functioning and role limitations-physical) best distinguished groups differing in severity of chronic medical condition and had the most pure physical health interpretation. Scales shown to primarily measure mental health (mental health and role limitations-emotional) best distinguished groups differing in the presence and severity of psychiatric disorders and had the most pure mental health interpretation. The social functioning, vitality, and general health perceptions scales measured both physical and mental health components and, thus, had the most complex interpretation. These results are useful in establishing guidelines for the interpretation of each scale and in documenting the size of differences between clinical groups that should be considered very large.