Dimensionality and Summary Measures of the SF-36 v1.6: Comparison of Scale- and Item-Based Approach Across ECRHS II Adults Population
Article first published online: 12 OCT 2010
© 2009, International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR)
Value in Health
Volume 13, Issue 4, pages 469–478, June/July 2010
How to Cite
Grassi, M. and Nucera, A. (2010), Dimensionality and Summary Measures of the SF-36 v1.6: Comparison of Scale- and Item-Based Approach Across ECRHS II Adults Population. Value in Health, 13: 469–478. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00703.x
- Issue published online: 22 OCT 2010
- Article first published online: 12 OCT 2010
- quality of life;
- construct validation;
- optimal scaling;
- summary scores
Objectives: The objective of this study was twofold: 1) to confirm the hypothetical eight scales and two-component summaries of the questionnaire Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36), and 2) to evaluate the performance of two alternative measures to the original physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS).
Methods: We performed principal component analysis (PCA) based on 35 items, after optimal scaling via multiple correspondence analysis (MCA), and subsequently on eight scales, after standard summative scoring. Item-based summary measures were planned. Data from the European Community Respiratory Health Survey II follow-up of 8854 subjects from 25 centers were analyzed to cross-validate the original and the novel PCS and MCS.
Results: Overall, the scale- and item-based comparison indicated that the SF-36 scales and summaries meet the supposed dimensionality. However, vitality, social functioning, and general health items did not fit data optimally. The novel measures, derived a posteriori by unit-rule from an oblique (correlated) MCA/PCA solution, are simple item sums or weighted scale sums where the weights are the raw scale ranges. These item-based scores yielded consistent scale-summary results for outliers profiles, with an expected known-group differences validity.
Conclusions: We were able to confirm the hypothesized dimensionality of eight scales and two summaries of the SF-36. The alternative scoring reaches at least the same required standards of the original scoring. In addition, it can reduce the item-scale inconsistencies without loss of predictive validity.