...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Quality of Life Research >Do the SF-36 and WHOQOL-BREF Measure the Same Constructs? Evidence from the Taiwan Population*
【24h】

Do the SF-36 and WHOQOL-BREF Measure the Same Constructs? Evidence from the Taiwan Population*

机译：SF-36和WHOQOL-BREF是否测量相同的结构？台湾人口的证据*

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Background: The SF-36 and WHOQOL-BREF are available for international use, but it is not clear if they measure the same constructs. We compared the psychometric properties and factor structures of these two instruments. Methods: Data were collected from a national representative sample (n=11,440) in the 2001 Taiwan National Health Interview Survey, which included Taiwan versions of the SF-36 and WHOQOL-BREF. We used Cronbach’s alpha coefficient to estimate scale reliability. We conducted exploratory factor analysis to determine factor structure of the scales, and applied multitrait analysis to evaluate convergent and discriminant validity. We used standardized effect size to compare known-groups validity for health-related variables (including chronic conditions and health care utilization) and self-reported overall quality of life. Structural equation modeling was used to analyze relationships among the two SF-36 component scales (PCS and MCS) and the four WHOQOL subscales (physical, psychological, social relations, and environmental). Results: Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were acceptable (⩾0.7) for all subscales of both instruments. The factor analysis yielded two unique factors: one for the 8 SF-36 subscales and a second for the 4 WHOQOL subscales. Pearson correlations were weak (<0.3) among subscales of both instruments. Correlations for subscales hypothesized to measure similar constructs differed little from those measuring heterogeneous subscales. Effect sizes suggested greater discrimination by the SF-36 for health status and services utilization known groups, but greater discrimination by the WHOQOL for QOL-defined groups. Structural equation modeling suggested that the SF-36 PCS and MCS were weakly associated with WHOQOL. Conclusions: In this Taiwan population sample, the SF-36 and WHOQOL-BREF appear to measure different constructs: the SF-36 measures health-related QOL, while the WHOQOL-BREF measures global QOL. Clinicians and researchers should carefully define their research questions related to patient-reported outcomes before selecting which instrument to use.
机译：背景：SF-36和WHOQOL-BREF可供国际使用，但尚不清楚它们是否测量相同的结构。我们比较了这两种工具的心理测量特性和因素结构。方法：数据来自2001年台湾国民健康访问调查中的全国代表性样本（n = 11,440），其中包括台湾版的SF-36和WHOQOL-BREF。我们使用了Cronbach的alpha系数来估算秤的可靠性。我们进行了探索性因素分析，以确定量表的因素结构，并应用多特征分析来评估收敛性和判别有效性。我们使用标准化的效应量比较了与健康相关的变量（包括慢性病和卫生保健利用）和自我报告的总体生活质量的已知人群有效性。使用结构方程模型来分析两个SF-36分量表（PCS和MCS）与四个WHOQOL子量表（身体，心理，社会关系和环境）之间的关系。结果：两种仪器所有分量表的Cronbachα系数均可接受（⩾0.7）。因子分析产生两个独特的因子：一个针对8个SF-36分量表，另一个针对4个WHOQOL分量表。两种仪器的分量表之间的皮尔逊相关性均较弱（<0.3）。假设用来测量相似结构的子量表的相关性与测量异质子量表的相关性很小。效应量表明，SF-36对已知健康状况和服务利用群体的歧视更大，而WHOQOL对QOL定义的群体的歧视更大。结构方程模型表明，SF-36 PCS和MCS与WHOQOL的关联较弱。结论：在这个台湾人群样本中，SF-36和WHOQOL-BREF似乎可以测量不同的结构：SF-36可以测量与健康相关的QOL，而WHOQOL-BREF可以测量全球QOL。在选择使用哪种仪器之前，临床医生和研究人员应仔细定义与患者报告的结果相关的研究问题。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Quality of Life Research》 |2006年第1期|15-24|共10页
  • 作者

    I-Chan Huang; Albert W. Wu; Constantine Frangakis;

  • 作者单位

    Department of Health Policy and Management Bloomberg School of Public Health The Johns Hopkins University Baltimore MD USA;

    Department of Health Policy and Management Bloomberg School of Public Health The Johns Hopkins University Baltimore MD USA;

    Department of Biostatistics Bloomberg School of Public Health The Johns Hopkins University Baltimore MD USA;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

    Health status; Quality of life; SF-36; WHOQOL-BREF;

    机译：健康状况;生活质量;SF-36;WHOQOL-BREF;

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号