Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry logoLink to Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry
. 2000 Feb;68(2):150–156. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.68.2.150

Clinical appropriateness: a key factor in outcome measure selection: the 36 item short form health survey in multiple sclerosis

J Freeman 1, J Hobart 1, D Langdon 1, A Thompson 1
PMCID: PMC1736771  PMID: 10644779

Abstract

OBJECTIVES—Understanding the properties of an outcome measure is essential in choosing the appropriate instrument and interpreting the information it generates. The MOS 36 item short form health survey questionnaire (SF-36) is widely acknowledged as the gold standard generic measure of health status; few studies however have evaluated its use for clinical trials in multiple sclerosis. Its clinical appropriateness, internal consistency reliability, validity, and responsiveness was investigated across a broad range of patients with multiple sclerosis.
METHODS—A prospective study in which 150 adults with clinically definite multiple sclerosis completed a battery of questionnaires evaluating generic health status, disability, handicap, and emotional wellbeing. Of these, 44 patients undergoing inpatient rehabilitation completed the questionnaires before and after intervention to evaluate responsiveness.
RESULTS—Score distributions demonstrated significant floor and ceiling effects in four of the eight dimensions which were particularly marked when patient selection was restricted to a narrow band of disease severity (as is the case in most clinical trials). Internal consistency exceeded the standard for group comparisons for all dimensions. Convergent and discriminant construct validity was supported by the direction, magnitude, and pattern of correlations with other health measures. In comparison with instruments measuring associated constructs, the responsiveness of the SF-36 was poor in evaluating change in moderate to severely disabled patients participating in a programme of inpatient rehabilitation.
CONCLUSIONS—The SF-36 has some limitations as an outcome measure in multiple sclerosis. The results highlight the need for all instruments to be examined in the specific sample population under question and for the specific research question being investigated. In multiple sclerosis clinical trials, the SF-36 should be supplemented with other relevant measures.



Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (146.3 KB).

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. Brunet D. G., Hopman W. M., Singer M. A., Edgar C. M., MacKenzie T. A. Measurement of health-related quality of life in multiple sclerosis patients. Can J Neurol Sci. 1996 May;23(2):99–103. doi: 10.1017/s0317167100038798. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. CRONBACH L. J., MEEHL P. E. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol Bull. 1955 Jul;52(4):281–302. doi: 10.1037/h0040957. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Cella D. F., Dineen K., Arnason B., Reder A., Webster K. A., karabatsos G., Chang C., Lloyd S., Steward J., Stefoski D. Validation of the functional assessment of multiple sclerosis quality of life instrument. Neurology. 1996 Jul;47(1):129–139. doi: 10.1212/wnl.47.1.129. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Cella D. F., Dineen K., Arnason B., Reder A., Webster K. A., karabatsos G., Chang C., Lloyd S., Steward J., Stefoski D. Validation of the functional assessment of multiple sclerosis quality of life instrument. Neurology. 1996 Jul;47(1):129–139. doi: 10.1212/wnl.47.1.129. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Dalos N. P., Rabins P. V., Brooks B. R., O'Donnell P. Disease activity and emotional state in multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol. 1983 May;13(5):573–577. doi: 10.1002/ana.410130517. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Di Fabio R. P., Choi T., Soderberg J., Hansen C. R. Health-related quality of life for patients with progressive multiple sclerosis: influence of rehabilitation. Phys Ther. 1997 Dec;77(12):1704–1716. doi: 10.1093/ptj/77.12.1704. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Freeman J. A., Langdon D. W., Hobart J. C., Thompson A. J. Inpatient rehabilitation in multiple sclerosis: do the benefits carry over into the community? Neurology. 1999 Jan 1;52(1):50–56. doi: 10.1212/wnl.52.1.50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Freeman J. A., Langdon D. W., Hobart J. C., Thompson A. J. The impact of inpatient rehabilitation on progressive multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol. 1997 Aug;42(2):236–244. doi: 10.1002/ana.410420216. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Granger C. V., Cotter A. C., Hamilton B. B., Fiedler R. C., Hens M. M. Functional assessment scales: a study of persons with multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1990 Oct;71(11):870–875. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Hermann B. P., Vickrey B., Hays R. D., Cramer J., Devinsky O., Meador K., Perrine K., Myers L. W., Ellison G. W. A comparison of health-related quality of life in patients with epilepsy, diabetes and multiple sclerosis. Epilepsy Res. 1996 Oct;25(2):113–118. doi: 10.1016/0920-1211(96)00024-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Hobart J. C., Lamping D. L., Thompson A. J. Evaluating neurological outcome measures: the bare essentials. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1996 Feb;60(2):127–130. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.60.2.127. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Holmes W. C., Shea J. A. Performance of a new, HIV/AIDS-targeted quality of life (HAT-QoL) instrument in asymptomatic seropositive individuals. Qual Life Res. 1997 Aug;6(6):561–571. doi: 10.1023/a:1018464200708. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Jacobs L. D., Cookfair D. L., Rudick R. A., Herndon R. M., Richert J. R., Salazar A. M., Fischer J. S., Goodkin D. E., Granger C. V., Simon J. H. Intramuscular interferon beta-1a for disease progression in relapsing multiple sclerosis. The Multiple Sclerosis Collaborative Research Group (MSCRG) Ann Neurol. 1996 Mar;39(3):285–294. doi: 10.1002/ana.410390304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. 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]
  16. Kazis L. E., Anderson J. J., Meenan R. F. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care. 1989 Mar;27(3 Suppl):S178–S189. doi: 10.1097/00005650-198903001-00015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Kurtzke J. F. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology. 1983 Nov;33(11):1444–1452. doi: 10.1212/wnl.33.11.1444. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Lankhorst G. J., Jelles F., Smits R. C., Polman C. H., Kuik D. J., Pfennings L. E., Cohen L., van der Ploeg H. M., Ketelaer P., Vleugels L. Quality of life in multiple sclerosis: the disability and impact profile (DIP). J Neurol. 1996 Jun;243(6):469–474. doi: 10.1007/BF00900502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Paty D. W., McFarland H. Magnetic resonance techniques to monitor the long term evolution of multiple sclerosis pathology and to monitor definitive clinical trials. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1998 May;64 (Suppl 1):S47–S51. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Poser C. M., Paty D. W., Scheinberg L., McDonald W. I., Davis F. A., Ebers G. C., Johnson K. P., Sibley W. A., Silberberg D. H., Tourtellotte W. W. New diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: guidelines for research protocols. Ann Neurol. 1983 Mar;13(3):227–231. doi: 10.1002/ana.410130302. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Rothwell P. M. Quality of life in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1998 Oct;65(4):433–433. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.65.4.433. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Sharrack B., Hughes R. A., Soudain S., Dunn G. The psychometric properties of clinical rating scales used in multiple sclerosis. Brain. 1999 Jan;122(Pt 1):141–159. doi: 10.1093/brain/122.1.141. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Vickrey B. G., Hays R. D., Genovese B. J., Myers L. W., Ellison G. W. Comparison of a generic to disease-targeted health-related quality-of-life measures for multiple sclerosis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997 May;50(5):557–569. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(97)00001-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Vickrey B. G., Hays R. D., Harooni R., Myers L. W., Ellison G. W. A health-related quality of life measure for multiple sclerosis. Qual Life Res. 1995 Jun;4(3):187–206. doi: 10.1007/BF02260859. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Weinshenker B. G. Natural history of multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol. 1994;36 (Suppl):S6–11. doi: 10.1002/ana.410360704. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Whitaker J. N., McFarland H. F., Rudge P., Reingold S. C. Outcomes assessment in multiple sclerosis clinical trials: a critical analysis. Mult Scler. 1995 Apr;1(1):37–47. doi: 10.1177/135245859500100107. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. van der Putten J. J., Hobart J. C., Freeman J. A., Thompson A. J. Measuring change in disability after inpatient rehabilitation: comparison of the responsiveness of the Barthel index and the Functional Independence Measure. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1999 Apr;66(4):480–484. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.66.4.480. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES