SF-36 as a predictor of health states

Value in Health

Volumn 3, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 202-207

  Reed, Pamala J ^a   Moore, D DeWayne ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER   (United States)

^b CLEMSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Models; Outcomes research; SF 36; Structural equation modeling

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CORRELATION FUNCTION; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

EID: 0033899362     PISSN: 10983015     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1524-4733.2000.33005.x     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS, 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30:473-83.
2. Dexter PR, Stump TE, Tierney WM, et al. The psychometric properties of the SF-36 Health Survey among older adults in a clinical setting. J Clin Geropsychol 1996;2:225-31.
3. Wolinsky FD, Stump TE. A measurement model of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey in a clinical sample of disadvantaged, older, black, and white men and women. Med Care 1996;34:537-48.
4. Keller SD, Ware JE, Bentler PM, et al. Use of Structural Equation Modeling to test the construct validity of the SF-36 Health Survey in ten countries: results from the IQOLA Project. J Clin Epidemiol 1998;51(11):1179-88.
5. Reed PJ. Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36: testing and cross-validating a second-order factorial structure for health system employees. HSR 1998;33:1361-80.
6. Ware JE Jr. National Survey of Functional Health Status, 1990 [computer file]. Boston: John E. Ware, Jr, New England Medical Center [producer], 1991. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 1995.
7. McHorney CA, Ware JE, Lu JFR, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Status Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Med Care 1994;32:40-66.
8. Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M, et al. SF-36 Health Survey Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston: Health Institute, New England Medical Center Hospitals, 1993.
9. Bentler PM. EQS Structural Equations Program (Windows 5.7b). Encino, CA: Multivariate Software, January 1998.
10. Bollen KA. Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1989.
11. Hu L, Bentler PM. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychol Methods 1998;3: 424-53.
12. Tanaka JS. Multifaceted conception of fit in structural equation models. In: Bollen KA, Long JS (eds.). Testing Structural Equation Models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1993.
13. Bentler PM. Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychol Bull 1990;107:238-46.
14. Bentler PM, Bonett DG. Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol Bull 1980;88:588-606.
15. Bentler PM. EQS Structural Equations Program Manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software, 1995.
16. Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen KA, Long JS (eds.). Testing Structural Equation Models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1993.