Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry logoLink to Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry
. 2001 Sep;71(3):363–370. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.71.3.363

The SF-36 in multiple sclerosis: why basic assumptions must be tested

J Hobart 1, J Freeman 1, D Lamping 1, R Fitzpatrick 1, A Thompson 1
PMCID: PMC1737568  PMID: 11511712

Abstract

OBJECTIVES—To evaluate, in people with multiple sclerosis, two psychometric assumptions that must be satisfied for valid use of the medical outcomes study 36-item short form health survey (SF-36): the data are of high quality and, it is legitimate to generate scores for eight scales and two summary measures using the standard algorithms.
METHODS—SF-36 data from 438 people representing the full range of multiple sclerosis were examined (mean age 48; 70% women). Data quality (per cent missing data and computable scale and summary scores) were determined, six scaling criteria were tested to determine the legitimacy of generating the eight SF-36 scale scores using Likert's method of summed ratings, and two scaling criteria were tested to determine the appropriateness of the standard SF-36 algorithms for weighting scale scores to generate two summary measures.
RESULTS—Data quality was excellent except in the most disabled subgroup where missing responses reached a maximum of 16.5% and summary scores could only be computed for 72%. There was clear support for the generation of SF-36 scale scores. Item response distributions were symmetric, item mean scores and variances were equivalent, corrected item-total correlations were high (range 0.46-0.85) and similar, and definite scaling success rates exceeded 96%. Nevertheless, there were notable floor or ceiling effects in four of the eight scales. Assumptions for generating two SF-36 summary measures were only partially satisfied. Although principal components analysis suggested a two component model, these components explained less than 60% of the total variance in SF-36 scales, and less than 75% of the variance in five of the eight scales. Moreover, scale to component correlations did not support the use of scale weights derived from United States population data.
CONCLUSIONS—When using the SF-36 as a health measure in multiple sclerosis summary scores should be reported with caution.



Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (227.5 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. 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]
  3. Dorman P., Slattery J., Farrell B., Dennis M., Sandercock P. Qualitative comparison of the reliability of health status assessments with the EuroQol and SF-36 questionnaires after stroke. United Kingdom Collaborators in the International Stroke Trial. Stroke. 1998 Jan;29(1):63–68. doi: 10.1161/01.str.29.1.63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Freeman J. A., Hobart J. C., Langdon D. W., Thompson A. J. Clinical appropriateness: a key factor in outcome measure selection: the 36 item short form health survey in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2000 Feb;68(2):150–156. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.68.2.150. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Hobart J., Freeman J., Thompson A. Kurtzke scales revisited: the application of psychometric methods to clinical intuition. Brain. 2000 May;123(Pt 5):1027–1040. doi: 10.1093/brain/123.5.1027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hobart J., Lamping D., Fitzpatrick R., Riazi A., Thompson A. The Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29): a new patient-based outcome measure. Brain. 2001 May;124(Pt 5):962–973. doi: 10.1093/brain/124.5.962. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Jacoby A., Baker G. A., Steen N., Buck D. The SF-36 as a health status measure for epilepsy: a psychometric assessment. Qual Life Res. 1999 Jun;8(4):351–364. doi: 10.1023/a:1008902728574. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Jenkinson C. Comparison of UK and US methods for weighting and scoring the SF-36 summary measures. J Public Health Med. 1999 Dec;21(4):372–376. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/21.4.372. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Jenkinson C., Peto V., Fitzpatrick R., Greenhall R., Hyman N. Self-reported functioning and well-being in patients with Parkinson's disease: comparison of the short-form health survey (SF-36) and the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39) Age Ageing. 1995 Nov;24(6):505–509. doi: 10.1093/ageing/24.6.505. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Kosinski M., Keller S. D., Hatoum H. T., Kong S. X., Ware J. E., Jr The SF-36 Health Survey as a generic outcome measure in clinical trials of patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: tests of data quality, scaling assumptions and score reliability. Med Care. 1999 May;37(5 Suppl):MS10–MS22. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199905001-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. 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]
  12. Lohr K. N., Aaronson N. K., Alonso J., Burnam M. A., Patrick D. L., Perrin E. B., Roberts J. S. Evaluating quality-of-life and health status instruments: development of scientific review criteria. Clin Ther. 1996 Sep-Oct;18(5):979–992. doi: 10.1016/s0149-2918(96)80054-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Martin B. C., Pathak D. S., Sharfman M. I., Adelman J. U., Taylor F., Kwong W. J., Jhingran P. Validity and reliability of the migraine-specific quality of life questionnaire (MSQ Version 2.1). Headache. 2000 Mar;40(3):204–215. doi: 10.1046/j.1526-4610.2000.00030.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. McHorney C. A., Tarlov A. R. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res. 1995 Aug;4(4):293–307. doi: 10.1007/BF01593882. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. McHorney C. A., Ware J. E., Jr, Lu J. F., Sherbourne C. D. The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Med Care. 1994 Jan;32(1):40–66. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199401000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Monzón M. J., Láinez M. J. Quality of life in migraine and chronic daily headache patients. Cephalalgia. 1998 Nov;18(9):638–643. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2982.1998.1809638.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Nortvedt M. W., Riise T., Myhr K. M., Nyland H. I. Performance of the SF-36, SF-12, and RAND-36 summary scales in a multiple sclerosis population. Med Care. 2000 Oct;38(10):1022–1028. doi: 10.1097/00005650-200010000-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Peto V., Jenkinson C., Fitzpatrick R., Greenhall R. The development and validation of a short measure of functioning and well being for individuals with Parkinson's disease. Qual Life Res. 1995 Jun;4(3):241–248. doi: 10.1007/BF02260863. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. 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]
  20. Rothwell P. M., McDowell Z., Wong C. K., Dorman P. J. Doctors and patients don't agree: cross sectional study of patients' and doctors' perceptions and assessments of disability in multiple sclerosis. BMJ. 1997 May 31;314(7094):1580–1583. doi: 10.1136/bmj.314.7094.1580. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Scheltens P. Early diagnosis of dementia: neuroimaging. J Neurol. 1999 Jan;246(1):16–20. doi: 10.1007/s004150050300. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Schrag A., Selai C., Jahanshahi M., Quinn N. P. The EQ-5D--a generic quality of life measure-is a useful instrument to measure quality of life in patients with Parkinson's disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2000 Jul;69(1):67–73. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.69.1.67. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Simon G. E., Revicki D. A., Grothaus L., Vonkorff M. SF-36 summary scores: are physical and mental health truly distinct? Med Care. 1998 Apr;36(4):567–572. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199804000-00012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Stewart A. L., Hays R. D., Ware J. E., Jr The MOS short-form general health survey. Reliability and validity in a patient population. Med Care. 1988 Jul;26(7):724–735. doi: 10.1097/00005650-198807000-00007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. 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]
  26. 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]
  27. 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]
  28. Ware J. E., Jr, Kosinski M., Bayliss M. S., McHorney C. A., Rogers W. H., Raczek A. Comparison of methods for the scoring and statistical analysis of SF-36 health profile and summary measures: summary of results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Med Care. 1995 Apr;33(4 Suppl):AS264–AS279. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES