Table 2.

A taxonomy of health status and quality of life measures[13]

Measure	Strengths	Weaknesses
Types of Scores Produced
Single indicator number	Global evaluation	May be difficult to interpret
	Useful for population
Single index number	Represents net impact	Sometimes not possible to disaggregate contribution of domains to the overall score
	Useful for cost effectiveness
Profile of interrelated scores	Single instrument	Length may be a problem
	Contribution of domains to overall score possible	May not have overall score
Battery of independent scores	Wide range of relevant outcomes possible	Cannot relate different outcomes to common measurement scale
		May need to adjust for multiple comparisons
		May need to identify the major outcome
Range of Populations and Concepts
Generic: applied across diseases, conditions, populations, and concepts	Broadly applicable	May not be responsive to change
	Summarizes range of concepts	May not have focus of patient interest
	Detection of unanticipated effects possible	Length may be a problem
		Effects may be difficult to interpret
Specific: applied to individuals, diseases, conditions, populations, or concepts/domains	More acceptable to respondents	Cannot compare across conditions or populations
	May be more responsive to change	Cannot detect unanticipated effects
Weighting System
Utility: preference weights from patients, providers, or community	Interval scale	May have difficulty obtaining weights
	Patient or consumer view incorporated	May not differ from statistical weights that are easier to obtain
Equal-weighting: items weighted equally or from frequency or responses	Self-weighting samples	May be influenced by prevalence
	More familiar techniques	Cannot incorporate tradeoffs
	Appears easier to use

*Adapted from Patrick and Erickson, 1993.