Stability of normative data for the SF-36

Canadian Journal of Public Health

Volumn 95, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 387-391

  Hopman, Wilma H ^a   Berger, Claudie ^b,g   Joseph, Lawrence ^b   Towheed, Tanveer ^a   vandenKerkhof, Elizabeth ^a   Anastassiades, Tassos ^a,a   Cranney, Ann ^a   Adachi, Jonathan D ^c,c   Ioannidis, George ^c   Poliquin, Suzette ^b,g   Brown, Jacques P ^d   Murray, Timothy M ^e   Hanley, David A ^f   Papidimitropoulos, Emmanuel A ^e   Tenenhouse, Alan ^c,g   Godmaire, Suzanne ^g   Joyce, Carol ^h   Sheppard, Emma ^h   Kirkland, Susan ⁱ   Kaiser, Stephanie ⁱ   Stanfield, Barbara ⁱ   Lejeune, Evelyne ^d   Matthews, Barbara ^a   Kreiger, Nancy ^e   Gardner Bay, Barbara ^e   Pickard, Laura ^c   Olszynsjki, Wojciech P ^j   Thingvold, Jola ^j   Allan, Jane ^f   Siminoski, Kerry ^k   Prior, Jerilynn C ^l   Lentle, Brian ^l   Vigna, Yvette ^l   more..

^a QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITÉ LAVAL   (Canada)

^e UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^f UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

^g MONTREAL GENERAL HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^h MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY OF NEWFOUNDLAND   (Canada)

ⁱ DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^j UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN   (Canada)

^k UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^l UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CALCULATION; CANADA; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL ASSESSMENT; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZATION; SCORING SYSTEM; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE;

EID: 4944241821     PISSN: 00084263     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/bf03405153     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Ware JE Jr, Snow KK, Kosinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 Health Survey Manual and Interpretation Guide. The Health Institute, New England Medical Center, Boston, 1993.
2. Ware JE Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. SF-36 Physical and Mental Summary Scales: A User's Manual. The Health Institute, New England Medical Center, Boston, 1994.
3. Ware JE Jr. SF-36 health survey update. Spine 2000;25:3130-39.
4. Kaegi L. Medical Outcomes Trust Conference presents dramatic advances in patient-based outcomes assessment and potential applications in accreditation. Joint Commission Journal of Quality Improvement 1999;25:207-18.
5. Garratt A, Schmidt L, Mackintosh A, Fitzpatrick R. Quality of life measurement: Bibliographic study of patient assessed health outcomes measures. Br Med J 2002;324:1417-21.
6. Hemingway H, Stafford M, Stansfield S, Shipley M, Marmot M. Is the SF-36 a valid measure of change in population health? Results from the Whitehall II study. Br Med J 1997;315:1273-79.
7. Hopman WM, Towheed T, Anastassiades T, Tenenhouse A, Poliquin S, Berger C, et al. and the CaMos Research Group. Canadian Normative Data for the SF-36 Health Survey. CMAJ 2000;163:265-71.
8. Chern JY, Wan TT, Pyles M. The stability of health status measurement (SF-36) in a working population. J Outcome Measures 2000;4:461-81.
9. Hays RD, Marshall GN, Wang EY, Sherbourne CD. Four-year cross-lagged associations between physical and mental health in the Medical Outcomes Study. J Consulting Clinical Psychology 1994;62:441-49.
10. Hopman WM, Towheed T, Anastassiades T, Tenenhouse A, Poliquin S, Berger C, et al. and the CaMos Research Group. Is there regional variation in the SF-36 scores of Canadian adults? Can J Public Health 2002;93:233-36.
11. Guyatt G, Walter S, Norman G. Measuring change over time: Assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chron Dis 1987;40:171-78.
12. Testa MA. Interpretation of quality-of-life outcomes: Issues that affect magnitude and meaning. Med Care 2000;38(Supplement II):166-74.
13. Liang MH. Longitudinal construct validity: Establishment of clinical meaning in patient evaluative instruments. Med Care 2000;38 (Supplement II):84-90.
14. Kreiger N, Tenenhouse A, Joseph L, MacKenzie T, Poliquin S, Brown J, et al. Research Notes: The Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos): Background, Rationale, Methods. Can J Aging 1999;18:376-87.
15. Rubin D. Multiple Imputation for Non-response in Surveys. New York: Wiley, 1987.
16. Kass RE, Raftery AE. Bayes factors. J Am Statistical Association 1995;90:773-95.