Psychometrics and population norm of the Chinese (HK) SF-36 Health Survey⋮rsion 2

Hong Kong Practitioner

Volumn 30, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 185-198

  Lam, Elegance T P ^a   Lam, Cindy L K ^a   Lo, Yvonne Y C ^a   Gandek, Barbara ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

^b Health Assessment Lab   (United States)

Author keywords

Chinese; Norm; Psychometrics; Quality of life; Reliability; SF 36; Validity

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CHINESE; CHRONIC DISEASE; FEMALE; HEALTH SURVEY; HONG KONG; HUMAN; INTERNAL CONSISTENCY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MENTAL HEALTH; PSYCHOMETRY; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; SCORING SYSTEM; SHORT FORM 36; TELEPHONE; TEST RETEST RELIABILITY;

EID: 59849091055     PISSN: 10273948     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Ware JE Jr., Snow KK, Kosinski M, et al. SF-36 Health Survey - Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston: The Health Institute, 1993.
2. 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.
3. Lam CLK, Lauder IJ, Lam TP, et al. Population based norming of the Chinese (HK) version of the SF-36 health survey. HK Pract 1999;21:460-470.
4. Ware JE Jr. SF-36 Health Survey Update. SPINE 2000;25:3130-3139.
5. Bullinger M, Alonso J, Apolone G, et al. Translating health status questionnaires and evaluating their quality: the IQOLA Project approach. International Quality of Life Assessment. J Clin Epidemiol 1998;51:913-923.
6. Keller SD Ware JE, Gandek B, et al. Testing the equivalence of translations of widely used response choice labels: Results from the IQOLA Project. J Clin Epidemiol 1998;51:933-948.
7. Wagner AK, Gandek B, Aaronson NK, et al. Cross-cultural comparisons of the content of SF-36 translations across 10 countries: Results from the IQOLA Project. J Clin Epidemiol 1998:51:925-932.
8. Jenkinson C, Stewart-Brown S, Petersen S, et al. Assessment of the SF-36 version 2 in the United Kingdom. J Epidemiol Community Health 1999;53: 46-50.
9. Taft C, Karlsson J, Sullivan M. Performance of the Swedish SF-36 version 2.0. Qual Life Res 2004;13:251-256.
10. Ware JE Jr., Kosinski MA, Dewey JE. How to score version 2 of the SF-36 health survey. Lincoln: Quality Metric Inc., 2000.
11. Hawthorne G, Osborne RH, Taylor A, et al. The SF36 Version 2: critical analyses of population weights, scoring algorithms and population norms. Qual Life Res 2007;16:661-673.
12. Lam CLK, Fong DY, Lauder IJ, et al. The effect of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) on health service utilisation of a Chinese population. Soc Sci Med 2002;55:1635-1646.
13. Ware JE Jr., Kosinski M, Gandek B, et al. The factor structure of the SF-36 Health Survey in 10 countries: results from the IQOLA Project. J Clin Epidemiol 1998;51:1159-1165.
14. Lam CLK, Tse EYY, Gandek B, et al. The SF-36 summary scales were valid, reliable, and equivalent in a Chinese population. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58: 815-822.
15. Ware JE Jr., Kosinski M. SF-36 Physical & Mental Health Summary Scales: A Manual for Users of Version 1. Lincoln, Rohode Island: QualityMetric, 2001.
16. Steiger JH. Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychol Bull 1980; 87: 245-251.