Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The BMJ logoLink to The BMJ
. 1993 May 29;306(6890):1437–1440. doi: 10.1136/bmj.306.6890.1437

Short form 36 (SF36) health survey questionnaire: normative data for adults of working age.

C Jenkinson 1, A Coulter 1, L Wright 1
PMCID: PMC1677870  PMID: 8518639

Abstract

OBJECTIVES--To gain population norms for the short form 36 health survey questionnaire (SF36) in a large community sample and to explore the questionnaire's internal consistency and validity. DESIGN--Postal survey by using a booklet containing the SF36 and several other items concerned with lifestyles and illness. SETTING--The sample was drawn from computerised registers of the family health services authorities for Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Northamptonshire, and Oxfordshire. SAMPLE--13,042 randomly selected subjects aged 18-64 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Scores for the eight health dimensions of the SF36. RESULTS--The survey achieved a response rate of 72% (n = 9332). Internal consistency of the different dimensions of the questionnaire was high. Normative data broken down by age, sex, and social class were consistent with those from previous studies. CONCLUSIONS--The SF36 is a potentially valuable tool in medical research. The normative data provided here may further facilitate its validation and use.

Full text

PDF
1437

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. 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]
  3. Carr-Hill R. A., Morris J. Current practice in obtaining the "Q" in QALYs: a cautionary note. BMJ. 1991 Sep 21;303(6804):699–701. doi: 10.1136/bmj.303.6804.699. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. 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]
  5. Geigle R., Jones S. B. Outcomes measurement: a report from the front. Inquiry. 1990 Spring;27(1):7–13. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hunt S. M., McEwen J., McKenna S. P. Measuring health status: a new tool for clinicians and epidemiologists. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1985 Apr;35(273):185–188. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Kind P., Carr-Hill R. The Nottingham health profile: a useful tool for epidemiologists? Soc Sci Med. 1987;25(8):905–910. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(87)90260-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. 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]

Articles from BMJ : British Medical Journal are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES