Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The SF-36 scales are not accurately summarised by independent physical and mental component scores

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The Short Form 36 Health Status Questionnaire (SF-36) has eight scales that can be condensed into two components: physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS). This paper investigates: (1) the assumption that PCS and MCS are orthogonal, (2) the applicability of a single model to different condition-specific subgroups, and (3) a reduced five-scale model.

Study design and setting

We performed a secondary analysis of two large-scale data sets that utilised the SF-36: the Health Survey for England 1996 and the Welsh Health Survey 1998. We used confirmatory factor analysis to compare hypothetical orthogonal and oblique factor models, and exploratory factor analysis to derive data-driven models for condition-specific subgroups.

Results

Oblique models gave the best fit to the data and indicated a considerable correlation between PCS and MCS. The loadings of the eight scales on the two component summaries varied significantly by disease condition. The choice of model made an important difference to norm-referenced scores for large minorities, particularly patients with a mental illness or mental–physical comorbidity.

Conclusions

We recommend that users of the SF-36 adopt the oblique model for calculating PCS and MCS. An oblique five-scale model provides a more universal factor structure without loss of predictive power or reliability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ware, J., & Gandek, B. for the IQOLA Project (1998). Overview of the SF-36 Health Survey and the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) Project. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 903–912.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Taft, C., Karlsson, J., & Sullivan, M. (2001). Do SF-36 summary component scores accurately summarize subscale scores? Quality of Life Research, 10(5), 395–404.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Ware, J., Kosinski, M., & Keller, S. (1994). SF-36 physical and mental health summary scales: A user manual. Boston, Massachusetts: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ware, J. (2004). SF-36 Health Survey Update. Retrieved February 17, 2004, from SF-36.org Web site: http://www.sf-36.org/tools/sf36.shtml.

  5. Kiecolt-Glaser, J., McGuire, L., Robles, T., & Glaser, R. (2002). Psychoneuroimmunology and psychosomatic medicine: Back to the future. Psychosomatic Medicine, 64(1), 15–28.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Schattner, A. (2003). The emotional dimension and the biological paradigm of illness: time for a change. Quarterly Journal of Medicine, 96(9), 617–621.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Kiecolt-Glaser, J., McGuire, L., Robles, T., & Glaser, R. (2002). Emotions, morbidity, and mortality: New perspectives from psychoneuroimmunology. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 83–107.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Polatin, P., Kinney, R., Gatchel, R., Lillo, E., & Mayer, T. (1993). Psychiatric illness and chronic low-back pain. The mind and the spine—which goes first? Spine, 18(1), 66–71.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Dersh, J., Polatin, P., & Gatchel, R. (2002). Chronic pain and psychopathology: Research findings and theoretical considerations. Psychosomatic Medicine, 64(5), 773–786.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ware, J., Kosinski, M., Gandek, B., Aaronson, N., Apolone, G., Bech, P., Brazier, J., Bullinger, M., Kaasa, S., Leplège, A., Prieto, L., & Sullivan, M. (1998). The factor structure of the SF-36 health survey in 10 countries: Results from the IQOLA project. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 1,159–1,165.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ware, J., & Kosinski, M. (2001). Interpreting SF-36 summary health measures: A response. Quality of Life Research, 10(5), 405–413.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ware, J., & Kosinski, M. Interpreting SF-36 summary health measures: A response —Supplemental documentation. Retrieved from SF-36.org Web site: http://www.sf-36.org/news/responsetotaft.pdf.

  13. Thumboo, J., Fong, K.Y., Machin, D., Chan, S.P., Leong, K.H., Feng, P.H., Thio, S.T., & Boey, M.L. (2001). A community-based study of scaling assumptions and construct validity of the English (UK) and Chinese (HK) SF-36 in Singapore. Quality of Life Research, 10(2), 175–188.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Gandek, B., Sinclair, S., Kosinski, M., & Ware, J. (2004). Psychometric Evaluation of the SF-36 Health Survey in Medicare Managed Care. Health Care Financing Review, 25(4), 5–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Jenkinson, C., Layte, R., & Lawrence, K. (1997). Development and testing of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item short form health survey summary scale scores in the United Kingdom: results from a large-scale survey and a clinical trial. Medical Care, 35(4), 410–416.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Keller, S., Ware, J., Bentler, P., Aaronson, N., Alonso, J., Apolone, G., Bjorner, J., Bullinger, M., Kaasa, S., Leplège, A., Sullivan, M., & Gandek, B. (1998). Use of structural equation modelling to test the construct validity of the SF-36 health survey in ten countries: Results from the IQOLA project. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 1179–1188.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Peek, M.K., Ray, L., Patel, K., Stoebner-May, D., & Ottenbacher, K. (2004). Reliability and validity of the SF-36 among older Mexican Americans. The Gerontologist, 44(3), 418–425.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hobart, J., Freeman, J., Lamping, D., Fitzpatrick, R., & Thompson, A. (2001). The SF-36 in multiple sclerosis: Why basic assumptions must be tested. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 71(3), 363–370.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Hobart, J., Williams, L., Moran, K., & Thompson, A. (2002). Quality of life measurement after stroke: Uses and abuses of the SF-36. Stroke, 33(5), 1348–1356.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Nortvedt, M., Riise, T., Myhr, K-M., & Nyland, H. (2000). Performance of the SF-36, SF-12, and RAND-36 summary scales in a multiple sclerosis population. Medical Care, 38(10), 1,022–1,028.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Farivar, S., Cunningham, W., & Hays, R. (2007). Correlated physical and mental health summary scores for the SF-36 and SF-12 Health Survey, V.1. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 5, 54.

  22. Simon, G., Revicki, D., Grothaus, L., & Vonkorff, M. (1998). SF-36 Summary scores—Are physical and mental health truly distinct? Medical Care, 36(4), 567–572.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Anagnostopoulos, F., Niakas, D., & Pappa, E. (2005). Construct validation of the Greek SF-36 health survey. Quality of Life Research, 14(8), 1959–1965.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Guthlin, C., & Walach, H. (2007). MOS SF-36: Structural equation modelling to test the construct validity of the second-order factor structure. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23(1), 15–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hurst, N., Ruta, D., & Kind, P. (1998). Comparison of the MOS short form-12 (SF-12) health status questionnaire with the SF-36 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. British Journal of Rheumatology, 37(8), 862–869.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Taft, C., Karlsson, J., & Sullivan, M. (2001). Interpreting SF-36 summary health measures: A response—Reply. Quality of Life Research, 10(5), 415–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Joint Health Surveys Unit of Social and Community Planning Research and University College London (2001). Health Survey for England 1996 [computer file]. (3rd ed.). Colchester, Essex: UK Data Archive [distributor], SN: 3886.

  28. National Assembly for Wales (2000). Welsh Health Survey 1998 [computer file]. Colchester, Essex: UK Data Archive [distributor], SN: 4176.

  29. Gribbons, B., & Hocevar, D. (1998). Levels of aggregation in higher level confirmatory factor analysis: Application for academic self-concept. Structural Equation Modeling, 5(4), 377–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Bentler, P. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66(4), 507–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Bentler, P., & Wu, E. (1995). EQS for Windows user’s guide. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Nunnally, J., & Durham, R. (1975). Validity, reliability, and special problems of measurement in evaluation research. In: E. Struening, &M. Guttentag (Eds.), Handbook of Evaluation Research—Volume 1. (pp. 289–354). Beverly Hills/London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Hu, L-T., & Bentler, P. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Norman, G., Sloan, J., & Wyrwich, K. (2004). The truly remarkable universality of half a standard deviation: Confirmation through another look. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 4(5), 581–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Farivar, S., Liu, H., & Hays, R. (2004). Half standard deviation estimate of the minimally important difference in HRQOL scores? Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 4(5), 515–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Samsa, G., Edelman, D., Rothman, M., Williams, G., Lipscomb J., & Matchar, D. (1999). Determining clinically important differences in health status measures: A general approach with illustration to the health utilities index mark II. Pharmacoeconomics, 15(2), 141–155.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Schmitz, N., & Kruse, J. (2007). The SF-36 summary scores and their relation to mental disorders: Physical functioning may affect performance of the summary scores. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(2), 163–170.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The National Primary Care Research and Development Centre (NPCRDC) receives funding from the UK Department of Health (DoH). The views expressed are those of the authors, not the DoH. The authors would like to thank the UK Data Archive at the University of Essex for providing the Health Survey for England 1996 and the Welsh Health Survey 1998, and Diane Whalley at NPCRDC for her advice in the early stages of this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. NPCRDC, The University of Manchester, 5th Floor, Williamson Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK

    Mark Hann & David Reeves

Authors
  1. Mark Hann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Reeves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark Hann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hann, M., Reeves, D. The SF-36 scales are not accurately summarised by independent physical and mental component scores. Qual Life Res 17, 413–423 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-008-9310-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-008-9310-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation