Do the SF-36 and WHOQOL-BREF measure the same constructs? Evidence from the taiwan population

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

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 (

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)15-24
Number of pages10
JournalQuality of Life Research
Volume15
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 2006

Fingerprint

Taiwan
Statistical Factor Analysis
Patient Acceptance of Health Care
Health Surveys
Psychometrics
Population
Quality of Life
Interviews
Psychology
Health

Keywords

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

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Rehabilitation
  • Nursing(all)

Cite this

Do the SF-36 and WHOQOL-BREF measure the same constructs? Evidence from the taiwan population. / Huang, I. Chan; Wu, Albert W; Frangakis, Constantine.

In: Quality of Life Research, Vol. 15, No. 1, 02.2006, p. 15-24.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{a3af7ff087fd46a398c4ea9c03dd7741,
title = "Do the SF-36 and WHOQOL-BREF measure the same constructs? Evidence from the taiwan population",
abstract = "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 (",
keywords = "Health status, Quality of life, SF-36, WHOQOL-BREF",
author = "Huang, {I. Chan} and Wu, {Albert W} and Constantine Frangakis",
year = "2006",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1007/s11136-005-8486-9",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "15",
pages = "15--24",
journal = "Quality of Life Research",
issn = "0962-9343",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Do the SF-36 and WHOQOL-BREF measure the same constructs? Evidence from the taiwan population

AU - Huang, I. Chan

AU - Wu, Albert W

AU - Frangakis, Constantine

PY - 2006/2

Y1 - 2006/2

N2 - 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 (

AB - 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 (

KW - Health status

KW - Quality of life

KW - SF-36

KW - WHOQOL-BREF

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=30744471410&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=30744471410&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11136-005-8486-9

DO - 10.1007/s11136-005-8486-9

M3 - Article

C2 - 16411027

AN - SCOPUS:30744471410

VL - 15

SP - 15

EP - 24

JO - Quality of Life Research

JF - Quality of Life Research

SN - 0962-9343

IS - 1

ER -