4.6 Article

US general population norms for telephone administration of the SF-36v2

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 65, 期 5, 页码 497-502

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.09.008

关键词

SF-36; Health-related quality of life; General population norms; Population survey; Factor analysis; Factor scoring coefficients

资金

  1. National Institute on Aging [P01-AG020679, P30AG021684, P30-AG028748]
  2. NCMHD [P20MD000182]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: US general population norms for mail administration of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form Version 2 (SF-36v2) were established in 1998. This article reports SF-36v2 telephone-administered norms collected in 2005-2006 for adults aged 35-89 years. Study Design and Setting: The SF-36v2 was administered to 3,844 adults in the National Health Measurement Study (NHMS), a random-digit dial telephone survey. Scale scores and physical and mental component summary (PCS and MCS) scores were computed. Results: When compared with 1998 norms (mean = 50.00, standard deviation [SD] = 10.00), SF-36v2 scores for the 2005-2006 general population tended to be higher: physical functioning (mean = 50.68, SD = 14.48); role limitations due to physical health problems (mean = 49.47, SD = 14.71); bodily pain (mean = 50.66, SD = 16.28); general health perceptions (mean = 50.10, SD = 16.87); vitality (mean = 53.71, SD = 15.35); social functioning (mean = 51.37, SD = 13.93); role limitations due to emotional problems (mean = 51.44, SD = 13.93); mental health (mean = 54.27, SD = 13.28); PCS (mean = 49.22, SD = 15.13); MCS (mean = 53.78, SD = 13.14). PCS and MCS factor scoring coefficients were similar to those previously reported for the 1998 norms. SF-36v2 norms for telephone administration were created. Conclusion: The higher scores for NHMS data are likely due to the effect of telephone administration. The 2005-2006 norms can be used as a reference to interpret scale and component summary scores for telephone-administered surveys with the SF-36v2. (c) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据