Equivalence of Chinese and US-English versions of the SF-36 Health Survey

Quality of Life Research

Volumn 12, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 449-457

  Yu, J ^a   Coons, Stephen Joel ^a   Draugalis, J R ^a   Ren, X S ^b   Hays, R D ^c,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

^b BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d RAND CORPORATION   (United States)

Author keywords

Chinese translation; Health status; Health related quality of life; Reliability; SF 36

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CHINA; FEMALE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LANGUAGE; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZATION; RELIABILITY; SAMPLE SIZE; SCALE UP; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; UNITED STATES;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CHINA; FACTOR ANALYSIS, STATISTICAL; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; MIDDLE AGED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0037612555     PISSN: 09629343     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1023446110727     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Bearon D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: Literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 1993; 46(12): 1417-1432.
2. Berzon R, Hays RD, Shoemaker SA. International use, application and performance of health-related quality of life instruments. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 367-368.
3. Ware JE, Gandek B. Overview of the SF-36 Health Survey and the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) Project. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51: 903-912.
4. Aaronson NK, Acquadro C, Alonso J, et al. International quality of life assessment (IQOLA) project. Qual Life Res 1992; 1: 349-351.
5. Lam CLK, Gandek B, Ren XS, et al. Tests of scaling assumptions and construct validity of the Chinese (HK) version of the SF-36 Health Survey. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51: 1139-1147.
6. Fuh J-L, Wang S-J, Lu S-R, Juang K-D, Lee S-J. Psychometric evaluation of a Chinese (Taiwanese) version of the SF-36 health survey amongst middle-aged women from a rural community. Qual Life Res 2000; 9: 675-683.
7. Azen SP, Palmer JM, Carlson M, et al. Psychometric properties of a Chinese translation of the SF-36 Health Survey questionnaire in the Well Elderly Study. J Aging Health 1999; 11: 240-251.
8. Chang DF, Chun C-A, Takeuchi DT, et al. SF-36 Health Survey: Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability in a community sample of Chinese Americans. Med Care 2000; 38: 542-548.
9. Ren XS, Amick B, Zhou L, et al. Translation and psychometric evaluation of a Chinese version of the SF-36 Health Survey in the United States. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51: 1129-1138.
10. Ren XS, Chang K. Evaluating health status of elderly Chinese in Boston. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51: 429-435.
11. Wang XS, Cleeland CS, Mendoza TR, et al. The effects of pain severity on health-related quality of life: A study of Chinese cancer patients. Cancer 1999; 86: 1848-1855.
12. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-Item Health Survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30(6): 473-483.
13. Goodman LA. Snowball sampling. Ann Math Statist 1961; 32: 148-170.
14. Biernacki P, Waldorf D. Snowball sampling: Problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociol Meth Res 1981; 10(2): 141-163.
15. Lautenschlager GJ, ALPHATST: Testing for differences in values of coefficient alpha. Appl Psychol Measurem 1989; 13: 284.
16. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951; 16: 297-334.
17. Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M, et al. SF-36 Health Survey Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center, Nimrod Press, 1993.
18. Nunnally JC, Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1978.
19. Coons SJ, Alabdulmohsin SA, Draugalis JR, Hays RD. Reliability of an Arabic version of the RAND-36 Health Survey and its equivalence to the US-English version. Med Care 1998; 36: 428-432.
20. Sanson-Fisher RW, Perkins JJ. Adaptation and validation of the SF-36 Health Survey for use in Australia. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51: 961-967.
21. Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones NMB, et al. Validating the SF-36 Health Survey questionnaire: New outcome measure for primary care. Br Med J 1992; 305: 160-164.
22. Fukuhara S, Bito S, Green J, Hsiao A, Kurokawa K. Translation, adaptation, and validation of the SF-36 Health Survey for use in Japan. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51: 1037-1044.
23. Cohen J, Cohen P. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1983.
24. Thumboo J, Fong K-Y, Machin D, et al. A community-based study of the scaling assumptions and construct validity of the English (UK) and Chinese (HK) SF-36 in Singapore. Qual Life Res 2001; 10: 175-188.
25. Aaronson NK, Muller M, Cohen PDA, et al. Translation, validation, and norming of the Dutch language version of the SF-36 Health Survey in community and chronic disease populations. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51: 1055-1068.
26. Thumboo J, Fong K-Y, Machin D, et al. Does being bilingual in English and Chinese influence responses to quality of life Scales? Med Care 2002; 40: 105-112.