The SF-36 walk-wheel: A simple modification of the SF-36 physical domain improves its responsiveness for measuring health status change in spinal cord injury

Spinal Cord

Volumn 47, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 50-55

  Lee, B B ^a,b,c   Simpson, J M ^b   King, M T ^d   Haran, M J ^e   Marial, O ^a  

^a PRINCE OF WALES HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY SYDNEY   (Australia)

^e ROYAL NORTH SHORE HOSPITAL   (Australia)

Author keywords

Responsiveness; SF 36; SF 36ww; Spinal cord injury; UTI; Validity

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; CONTROL GROUP; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY; DISEASE COURSE; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEASUREMENT; PARAPLEGIA; POPULATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUADRIPLEGIA; QUESTIONNAIRE; SHORT FORM 36; SPINAL CORD INJURY; URINARY TRACT INFECTION; WALKING AID;

ADULT; AUSTRALIA; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PARAPLEGIA; QUADRIPLEGIA; QUESTIONNAIRES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RECOVERY OF FUNCTION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SPINAL CORD INJURIES; URINARY BLADDER, NEUROGENIC; URINARY TRACT INFECTIONS; WALKING; WHEELCHAIRS;

EID: 58149383072     PISSN: 13624393     EISSN: 14765624     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/sc.2008.65     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 Health Survey - Manual and Interpretation Guide. The Health Institute, New England Medical Centre Boston: Boston, MA, 1993.
2. Haran MJ, Lee BB, King MT, Marial O, Stockler MR. Health status rated with the medical outcomes study 36-item short-form health survey after spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005; 86: 2290-2295.
3. Haran MJ, King MT, Stockler MR, Marial O, Lee BB. Validity of the SF-36 Health Survey as an outcome measure for trials in people with spinal injury. CHERE Working Paper 2007/4, CHERE, Sydney 2007. Available at http://www.chere.uts.edu.au/pdf/wp2007_4.pdf.
4. Andresen EM, Fouts BS, Romeis JC, Brownson CA. Performance of health-related quality-of-life instruments in a spinal cord injured population. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1999; 80: 877-884.
5. Dijkers M. Quality of life of individuals with spinal cord injury: a review of conceptualisation, measurement, and research findings. J Rehabil Res Dev 2005; 42: 87-110.
6. Lee BB, King MT, Simpson JM, Haran MJ, Stockler MR, Marial O et al. Validity, Responsiveness and Minimal Important Difference for the SF-6D Health Rating Scale in a Spinal Cord Injured Population. Value in Health (accepted 1 August 2007, published online 11 January 2008, doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007. 00311.x.).
7. Tate DG, Kalpakjian CZ, Forchheimer MB. Quality of life issues in individuals with spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002; 83: S18-S25.
8. Meyers AR, Andresen EM. Enabling our instruments: accommodation, universal design, and access to participation in research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000; 81: S5-S9.
9. Lee BB, Haran MJ, Hunt LM, Simpson JM, Marial O, Rutkowski SB et al. Spinal-injured neuropathic bladder antisepsis (SINBA) trial. Spinal Cord 2007; 45: 542-550.
10. Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 1989; 27: S178-S189.
11. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistics notes: Cronbach's alpha. BMJ 1997; 314: 572.
12. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951; 16: 297-334.
13. Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD. Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53: 459-468.
14. Wittes J. Sample size calculations for randomised controlled trials. Epidemiol Rev 2002; 24: 39-53.
15. Walters SJ. Sample size and power estimation for studies with health related quality of life outcomes: a comparison of four methods using the SF-36. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2004; 2##http://www.hqlo.com/content/2/ 1/26.
16. Wood-Dauphinee S, Exner G, Bostanci B, Exner G, Glass C, Jochheim KA et al. Quality of life in patients with spinal cord injury - basic issues, assessment, and recommendations. Restor Neurol Neurosci 2002; 20: 135-149.
17. Andresen EM, Meyers AR. Health-related quality of life outcomes measures. Arch Phy Med Rehabil 2000; 81: S30-S45.
18. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the sf-36. J Health Econ 2002; 21: 271-292.
19. Maynard Jr FM, Bracken MB, Creasey G, Ditunno Jr JF, Donovan WH, Ducker TB et al. International standards for neurological and functional classification of spinal cord injury. American spinal injury association. Spinal Cord 1997; 35: 266-274.