Do the SF-36 and WHOQOL-BREF measure the same constructs? Evidence from the Taiwan population

被引:115
作者
Huang, IC
Wu, AW
Frangakis, C
机构
[1] Johns Hopkins Univ, Dept Hlth Policy & Management, Bloomberg Sch Publ Hlth, Baltimore, MD 21205 USA
[2] Johns Hopkins Univ, Dept Epidemiol, Bloomberg Sch Publ Hlth, Baltimore, MD 21205 USA
[3] Johns Hopkins Univ, Dept Med, Sch Med, Baltimore, MD 21205 USA
[4] Johns Hopkins Univ, Dept Biostat, Bloomberg Sch Publ Hlth, Baltimore, MD 21205 USA
关键词
health status; quality of life; SF-36; WHOQOL-BREF;
D O I
10.1007/s11136-005-8486-9
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: The SF-36 and WHOQOL-BREF are available for international use, but it is not clear if they measure the same constructs. We compared the psychometric properties and factor structures of these two instruments. Methods: Data were collected from a national representative sample (n=11,440) in the 2001 Taiwan National Health Interview Survey, which included Taiwan versions of the SF-36 and WHOQOL-BREF. We used Cronbach's alpha coefficient to estimate scale reliability. We conducted exploratory factor analysis to determine factor structure of the scales, and applied multitrait analysis to evaluate convergent and discriminant validity. We used standardized effect size to compare known-groups validity for health-related variables (including chronic conditions and health care utilization) and self-reported overall quality of life. Structural equation modeling was used to analyze relationships among the two SF-36 component scales (PCS and MCS) and the four WHOQOL subscales (physical, psychological, social relations, and environmental). Results: Cronbach's alpha coefficients were acceptable (>= 0.7) for all subscales of both instruments. The factor analysis yielded two unique factors: one for the 8 SF-36 subscales and a second for the 4 WHOQOL subscales. Pearson correlations were weak (< 0.3) among subscales of both instruments. Correlations for subscales hypothesized to measure similar constructs differed little from those measuring heterogeneous subscales. Effect sizes suggested greater discrimination by the SF-36 for health status and services utilization known groups, but greater discrimination by the WHOQOL for QOL-defined groups. Structural equation modeling suggested that the SF-36 PCS and MCS were weakly associated with WHOQOL. Conclusions: In this Taiwan population sample, the SF-36 and WHOQOL-BREF appear to measure different constructs: the SF-36 measures health-related QOL, while the WHOQOL-BREF measures global QOL. Clinicians and researchers should carefully define their research questions related to patient-reported outcomes before selecting which instrument to use.
引用
收藏
页码:15 / 24
页数:10
相关论文
共 41 条
  • [1] AARONSON NK, 1991, CANCER, V67, P839, DOI 10.1002/1097-0142(19910201)67:3+<839::AID-CNCR2820671415>3.0.CO
  • [2] 2-0
  • [3] Quality of life: Who can make the judgment?
    Abramson, N
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1996, 100 (03) : 365 - 366
  • [4] The disability paradox: high quality of life against all odds
    Albrecht, GL
    Devlieger, PJ
    [J]. SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 1999, 48 (08) : 977 - 988
  • [5] Psychometric properties of the SF-12 (Hebrew version) in a primary care population in Israel
    Amir, M
    Lewin-Epstein, N
    Becker, G
    Buskila, D
    [J]. MEDICAL CARE, 2002, 40 (10) : 918 - 928
  • [6] [Anonymous], [No title captured]
  • [7] [Anonymous], 2000, Quality of life. Assessment
  • [8] The relative contribution of domains of quality of life to overall quality of life for different chronic diseases
    Arnold, R
    Ranchor, AV
    Sanderman, R
    Kempen, GIJM
    Ormel, J
    Suurmeijer, TPBM
    [J]. QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2004, 13 (05) : 883 - 896
  • [9] INTERNATIONAL USE, APPLICATION AND PERFORMANCE OF HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY-OF-LIFE INSTRUMENTS - PREFACE
    BERZON, R
    HAYS, RD
    SHUMAKER, SA
    [J]. QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 1993, 2 (06) : 367 - 368
  • [10] Validation of the United States' version of the World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL) instrument
    Bonomi, AE
    Patrick, DL
    Bushnell, DM
    Martin, M
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2000, 53 (01) : 1 - 12