Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Health Services Research logoLink to Health Services Research
. 2001 Dec;36(6 Pt 1):1109–1124.

A global measure of physical functioning: psychometric properties.

T Sørlie 1, H C Sexton 1, R Busund 1, D Sørlie 1
PMCID: PMC1089281  PMID: 11775670

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine the psychometric properties of a global physical functioning scale (GPFS) developed as a self-report measure and constructed to scale physical functioning from very poor (1) to excellent (100). DATA SOURCES: Data collection took place between January 1997 and September 1999. It consisted of self-ratings of surgical patients and the ratings of clinicians. The setting was the surgical department at a university hospital. STUDY DESIGN: Test-retest reliability and the convergence of the scores of patients and clinicians were examined in 106 patients before elective coronary or gastrointestinal surgery. Inter-rater reliability was tested in 36 hospitalized patients with cardiologic or vascular surgical diseases who were rated by random selection from a pool of 91 clinicians. The patients also rated their physical functioning. Discriminative validity, sensitivity to change, ceiling and floor effects, and influence of emotional state upon the scores were tested in 127 patients in six diagnostic groups who scored the GPFS before and subsequent to surgery. The concurrent validity was examined in 101 patients who scored the GPFS and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) before elective coronary surgery. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The test-retest correlation (.90), correlation of the scores of the clinicians and patients (.87), and rater intraclass correlation coefficient (.82) were high. The GPFS discriminated among patients with different levels of physical functioning, and it was sensitive to change following coronary surgery. There were moderate ceiling and no floor effects. The correlation with the physical functioning scale of the SF-36 (PF-10) was .67. The GPFS differentiated patients with middle levels of physical functioning better than did the PF-10. CONCLUSIONS: The psychometric properties of the GPFS appeared adequate as a measure of general physical functioning. The scale is easy to use and also appears suitable for outcome studies following substantial changes in physical functioning as after coronary surgery.

Full text

PDF
1109

Selected References

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

  1. Bergner M., Bobbitt R. A., Carter W. B., Gilson B. S. The Sickness Impact Profile: development and final revision of a health status measure. Med Care. 1981 Aug;19(8):787–805. doi: 10.1097/00005650-198108000-00001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bergner M., Rothman M. L. Health status measures: an overview and guide for selection. Annu Rev Public Health. 1987;8:191–210. doi: 10.1146/annurev.pu.08.050187.001203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Chambers L. W., Macdonald L. A., Tugwell P., Buchanan W. W., Kraag G. The McMaster Health Index Questionnaire as a measure of quality of life for patients with rheumatoid disease. J Rheumatol. 1982 Sep-Oct;9(5):780–784. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Derogatis L. R., Melisaratos N. The Brief Symptom Inventory: an introductory report. Psychol Med. 1983 Aug;13(3):595–605. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Endicott J., Spitzer R. L., Fleiss J. L., Cohen J. The global assessment scale. A procedure for measuring overall severity of psychiatric disturbance. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1976 Jun;33(6):766–771. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1976.01770060086012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hunt S. M., McKenna S. P., McEwen J., Williams J., Papp E. The Nottingham Health Profile: subjective health status and medical consultations. Soc Sci Med A. 1981 May;15(3 Pt 1):221–229. doi: 10.1016/0271-7123(81)90005-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Jette A. M., Davies A. R., Cleary P. D., Calkins D. R., Rubenstein L. V., Fink A., Kosecoff J., Young R. T., Brook R. H., Delbanco T. L. The Functional Status Questionnaire: reliability and validity when used in primary care. J Gen Intern Med. 1986 May-Jun;1(3):143–149. doi: 10.1007/BF02602324. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. KATZ S., FORD A. B., MOSKOWITZ R. W., JACKSON B. A., JAFFE M. W. STUDIES OF ILLNESS IN THE AGED. THE INDEX OF ADL: A STANDARDIZED MEASURE OF BIOLOGICAL AND PSYCHOSOCIAL FUNCTION. JAMA. 1963 Sep 21;185:914–919. doi: 10.1001/jama.1963.03060120024016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Liang M. H., Fossel A. H., Larson M. G. Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med Care. 1990 Jul;28(7):632–642. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199007000-00008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. MAHONEY F. I., BARTHEL D. W. FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION: THE BARTHEL INDEX. Md State Med J. 1965 Feb;14:61–65. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. McHorney C. A., Haley S. M., Ware J. E., Jr Evaluation of the MOS SF-36 Physical Functioning Scale (PF-10): II. Comparison of relative precision using Likert and Rasch scoring methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997 Apr;50(4):451–461. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(96)00424-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. 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]
  13. Rey J. M., Singh M., Hung S. F., Dossetor D. R., Newman L., Plapp J. M., Bird K. D. A global scale to measure the quality of the family environment. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1997 Sep;54(9):817–822. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1997.01830210061006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Sawynok J., Reid A. Desipramine potentiates spinal antinociception by 5-hydroxytryptamine, morphine and adenosine. Pain. 1992 Jul;50(1):113–118. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(92)90118-U. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Shaffer D., Gould M. S., Brasic J., Ambrosini P., Fisher P., Bird H., Aluwahlia S. A children's global assessment scale (CGAS). Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1983 Nov;40(11):1228–1231. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1983.01790100074010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Vaillant G. E., Schnurr P. What is a case? A 45-year study of psychiatric impairment within a college sample selected for mental health. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1988 Apr;45(4):313–319. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1988.01800280023003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Ware J. E., Jr, Sherbourne C. D. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992 Jun;30(6):473–483. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Watson D., Pennebaker J. W. Health complaints, stress, and distress: exploring the central role of negative affectivity. Psychol Rev. 1989 Apr;96(2):234–254. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.96.2.234. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Health Services Research are provided here courtesy of Health Research & Educational Trust

RESOURCES