Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Quality in Health Care : QHC logoLink to Quality in Health Care : QHC
. 1994 Dec;3(4):180–185. doi: 10.1136/qshc.3.4.180

SF 36 health survey questionnaire: I. Reliability in two patient based studies.

D A Ruta 1, M I Abdalla 1, A M Garratt 1, A Coutts 1, I T Russell 1
PMCID: PMC1055238  PMID: 10140231

Abstract

OBJECTIVE--To assess the reliability of the SF 36 health survey questionnaire in two patient populations. DESIGN--Postal questionnaire followed up, if necessary, by two reminders at two week intervals. Retest questionnaires were administered postally at two weeks in the first study and at one week in the second study. SETTING--Outpatient clinics and four training general practices in Grampian region in the north east of Scotland (study 1); a gastroenterology outpatient clinic in Aberdeen Royal Hospitals Trust (study 2). PATIENTS--1787 patients presenting with one of four conditions: low back pain, menorrhagia, suspected peptic ulcer, and varicose veins and identified between March and June 1991 (study 1) and 573 patients attending a gastroenterology clinic in April 1993. MAIN MEASURES--Assessment of internal consistency reliability with Cronbach's alpha coefficient and of test-retest reliability with the Pearson correlation coefficient and confidence interval analysis. RESULTS--In study 1, 1317 of 1746 (75.4%) correctly identified patients entered the study and in study 2, 549 of 573 (95.8%). Both methods of assessing reliability produced similar results for most of the SF 36 scales. The most conservative estimates of reliability gave 95% confidence intervals for an individual patient's score difference ranging from -19 to 19 for the scales measuring physical functioning and general health perceptions, to -65.7 to 65.7 for the scale measuring role limitations attributable to emotional problems. In a controlled clinical trial with sample sizes of 65 patients in each group, statistically significant differences of 20 points can be detected on all eight SF 36 scales. CONCLUSIONS--All eight scales of the SF 36 questionnaire show high reliability when used to monitor health in groups of patients, and at least four scales possess adequate reliability for use in managing individual patients. Further studies are required to test the feasibility of implementing the SF 36 and other outcome measures in routine clinical practice within the health service.

Full text

PDF
180

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Brazier J. E., Harper R., Jones N. M., O'Cathain A., Thomas K. J., Usherwood T., Westlake L. Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. BMJ. 1992 Jul 18;305(6846):160–164. doi: 10.1136/bmj.305.6846.160. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Dixon J., Welch H. G. Priority setting: lessons from Oregon. Lancet. 1991 Apr 13;337(8746):891–894. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(91)90213-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Fitzpatrick R., Ziebland S., Jenkinson C., Mowat A., Mowat A. Importance of sensitivity to change as a criterion for selecting health status measures. Qual Health Care. 1992 Jun;1(2):89–93. doi: 10.1136/qshc.1.2.89. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Garratt A. M., Ruta D. A., Abdalla M. I., Buckingham J. K., Russell I. T. The SF36 health survey questionnaire: an outcome measure suitable for routine use within the NHS? BMJ. 1993 May 29;306(6890):1440–1444. doi: 10.1136/bmj.306.6890.1440. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Garratt A. M., Ruta D. A., Abdalla M. I., Russell I. T. SF 36 health survey questionnaire: II. Responsiveness to changes in health status in four common clinical conditions. Qual Health Care. 1994 Dec;3(4):186–192. doi: 10.1136/qshc.3.4.186. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Jenkinson C., Coulter A., Wright L. Short form 36 (SF36) health survey questionnaire: normative data for adults of working age. BMJ. 1993 May 29;306(6890):1437–1440. doi: 10.1136/bmj.306.6890.1437. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Kantz M. E., Harris W. J., Levitsky K., Ware J. E., Jr, Davies A. R. Methods for assessing condition-specific and generic functional status outcomes after total knee replacement. Med Care. 1992 May;30(5 Suppl):MS240–MS252. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199205001-00024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Kirshner B., Guyatt G. A methodological framework for assessing health indices. J Chronic Dis. 1985;38(1):27–36. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(85)90005-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Lancaster T. R., Singer D. E., Sheehan M. A., Oertel L. B., Maraventano S. W., Hughes R. A., Kistler J. P. The impact of long-term warfarin therapy on quality of life. Evidence from a randomized trial. Boston Area Anticoagulation Trial for Atrial Fibrillation Investigators. Arch Intern Med. 1991 Oct;151(10):1944–1949. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Lansky D., Butler J. B., Waller F. T. Using health status measures in the hospital setting: from acute care to 'outcomes management'. Med Care. 1992 May;30(5 Suppl):MS57–MS73. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199205001-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. McHorney C. A., Ware J. E., Jr, Raczek A. E. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care. 1993 Mar;31(3):247–263. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199303000-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. McHorney C. A., Ware J. E., Jr, Rogers W., Raczek A. E., Lu J. F. The validity and relative precision of MOS short- and long-form health status scales and Dartmouth COOP charts. Results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Med Care. 1992 May;30(5 Suppl):MS253–MS265. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199205001-00025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Tarlov A. R., Ware J. E., Jr, Greenfield S., Nelson E. C., Perrin E., Zubkoff M. The Medical Outcomes Study. An application of methods for monitoring the results of medical care. JAMA. 1989 Aug 18;262(7):925–930. doi: 10.1001/jama.262.7.925. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Quality in Health Care are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES