Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of Modes of Administration and Response Options in the Assessment of Subjective Health Using the First Question of SF-36

  • Published:
Social Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To compare two modes of administration (self-administered; by interviewer) and two response options format (using words; images of “facial-expressions”) of the first question of SF-36 (Q1SF-36), and to test its validity. We included 825 participants (20–90 years). Q1SF-36, using words or images, was included in a global questionnaire interview and at the end participants filled the SF-36. The agreement was tested by weighted kappa coefficients (WKappa). Classification Trees were used in the calibration of Q1SF-36 responses, with the physical (PDSF36) and mental dimensions of SF-36. Polyserial correlation coefficients and areas under the ROC curves (AUC) were used for validation. After categorization, using PDSF36 classification trees, the WKappa were 0.770 (self-administered vs. interviewer), 0.569 (self-administered vs. facial-expressions) and 0.566 (interviewer vs. facial-expressions). The WKappa between the PDSF36 and the modes (self-administered, interviewer and facial-expressions) were 0.784, 0.713 and 0.579 and the corresponding polyserial correlation coefficients were 0.784, 0.713 and 0.579. A good discriminatory power was found comparing the modes with the PDSF36 (AUC = 0.907, 0.923 and 0.827), but not with mental dimension (AUC = 0.538, 0.501 and 0.629). The Q1SF-36, by self-administration or interviewer, may be a valid alternative for assessment of subjective physical health, but not mental health.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Beck, A., Ward, C., Mendelson, M., et al. (1961). An inventory for measuring depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 4, 561–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergamasco, N. H. P. (1997). Facial expression as an acces to newborns consciousness. Psicologia, USP, 8(2), 275–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bierman, A. S., Bubolz, T. A., Fisher, E. S., & Wasson, J. H. (1999). How well does a single question about health predict the financial health of Medicare managed care plans? Effective Clinical Practice, 2(2), 56–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boer, A. G., Lanschot, J. J., Stalmeier, P. F., Sandick, J. W., Hulscher, J. B., Haes, J. C., et al. (2004). Is a single-item visual analogue scale as valid, reliable and responsive as multi-item scales in measuring quality of life? Quality of Life Research, 13(2), 311–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowling, A. (2005a). Just one question: If one question works, why ask several? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 59(5), 342–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowling, A. (2005b). Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. Journal of Public Health, 27(3), 281–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowling, A., Bond, M., Jenkinson, C., & Lamping, D. L. (1999). Short form 36 (SF-36) health survey questionnaire: Which normative data should be used? Comparisons between the norms provided by the Omnibus Survey in Britain, the Health Survey for England and the Oxford healthy life survey. Journal of Public Health Medicine, 21(3), 255–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breiman, L., Friedman, J., Olshen, R., & Stone, C. J. (1984). Classification and regression trees. California: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carvalho, D. S., & Kowacs, P. A. (2006). Avaliação da intensidade de dor. Migrâneas cafaléias, 9(4), 164–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeSalvo, K. B., Fan, V. S., McDonell, M. B., & Fihn, S. D. (2005). Predicting mortality and healthcare utilization with a single question. Health Services Research, 40(4), 1234–1246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erhart, M., Wetzel, R., Krügel, A., & Ravens-Sieberer, U. (2005). Assessment of health-related quality of life with the German SF-8. A comparison of telephone and postal survey modes. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz, 48(12), 1322–1329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, P. (2000a). Criação da Versão Portuguesa do MOS SF-36. Parte I: Adaptação Cultural e Linguística. Acta Médica Portuguesa, 13, 55–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, P. (2000b). Criação da versão portuguesa do MOS SF-36. Parte II: Testes de validação. Acta Médica Portuguesa, 13, 119–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, L. N. (2003). Utilidades, QALYs e medição da qualidade de vida. Revista Portuguesa de Saúde Pública, 3, 51–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Losa, M., Unda, M., Badia, X., Rodriguez-Alcantara, E., Carballido, J., & Dal-Re, R. (2001). Effect of mode of administration on I-PSS scores in a large BHP patient population. European Urology, 40, 451–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Górna, K., Jaracz, K., Rybakowski, F., & Rybakowski, J. (2008). Determinants of objective and subjective quality of life in first-time-admission schizophrenic patients in Poland: A longitudinal study. Quality of Life Research, 17(2), 237–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grégoire, M. C., & Finley, A. G. (2008). “Doctor, I think my baby is in pain”: The assessment of infants’ pain by health professionals. Jornal de Pediatria, 84, 6–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guyatt, G. H., Feeny, D. H., & Patrick, D. L. (1993). Measuring health-related quality of life. Annals of Internal Medicine, 118, 622–629.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanmer, J., Hays, R. D., & Fryback, D. G. (2007). Mode of administration is important in US national estimates of health-related quality of life. Medical Care, 45(12), 1171–1179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartge, P., Brinton, L. A., Rosenthal, J. F., Cahill, J. I., Hoover, R. N., & Waksberg, J. (1984). Randon digit dialing in selecting a population-based control group. American Journal of Epidemiology, 120, 825–833.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, C. L., Von Baeyer, C. L., Spafford, P. A., Van Korlaar, I., & Goodenough, B. (2001). The faces pain scale-revised: Toward a common metric in pediatric pain measurement. Pain, 93, 173–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansson, P., Broström, A., Dahlström, U., & Alehagen, U. (2008). Global perceived health and health-related quality of life in elderly primary care patients with symptoms of heart failure. European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 7(4), 269–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, R. A., Wareham, K., Lucas, M., Price, D., Williams, J., & Hutchings, H. A. (1999). SF-36 scores vary by method of administration: Implications for study design. Journal of Public Health Medicine, 21(1), 41–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maisto, S. A., Conigliaro, J. C., Gordon, A. J., McGinnis, K. A., & Justice, A. C. (2008). An experimental study of the agreement of self-administration and telephone administration of the timeline followback interview. Journal of Studies on Alcohol Drugs, 69(3), 468–471.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDowell, I., & Newell, C. (1996). Measuring health: A guide to rating scales and questionnaires. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McHorney, C. A., Kosinski, M., & Ware, J. E. (1994). Comparisons of the costs and quality of norms for the SF-36 health survey collected by mail versus telephone interview: Results from a national survey. Medical Care, 32, 551–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. R., Clark, J. A., Rogers, W. H., Skinner, K. M., Spiro, A., & Lee, A. (2005). The influence of place of administration on health-related quality-of-life assessments. Journal of Ambulatory Care Management, 28(2), 111–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, C. J. L., Salomon, J. A., Mathers, C. D., & Lopez, A. D. (2002). Summary measures of population health: Concepts, ethics, measurement and applications. Geneva: World Health Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen, H. Q., Donesky-Cuenco, D., & Carrieri-Kohlman, V. (2008). Associations between symptoms, functioning, and perceptions of mastery with global self-rated health in patients with COPD: A cross-sectional study. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45(9), 1355–1365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Toole, B. I., Battistutta, D., Long, A., & Crouch, K. (1986). A comparison of costs and data quality of three health survey methods: Mail, telephone and personal home interview. American Journal of Epidemiology, 124(3), 317–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okamoto, K., Ohsuka, K., Shiraishi, T., Hukazawa, E., Wakasugi, S., & Furuta, K. (2002). Comparability of epidemiological information between self- and interviewer-administered questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 55(5), 505–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Presser, S., & Stinson, L. (1998). Data collection mode and social desirability bias in self-reported religious attendence. American Sociological Review, 63, 137–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramos, E., Lopes, C., & Barros, H. (2004). Investigating the effect of nonparticipation using a population-based case-control study on miocardial infaction. Annals of Epidemiology, 14, 437–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (2002). Health: Perception versus observation. BMJ, 324, 860–861.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Severo, M., Santos, A. C., Lopes, C., & Barros, H. (2006). Fiabilidade e Validade dos Conceitos Teóricos das Dimensões de Saúde Física e Mental da Versão Portuguesa do MOS SF-36*. Acta Medica Portuguesa, 19, 281–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, D. R., & Yu, C. M. (2003). Quality of life in patients with coronary heart desease-I: Assessement tools. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 10(1), 42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsakos, G., Bernabé, E., O’Brien, K., Sheiham, A., & Oliveira, C. (2008). Comparison of the self-administered and interviewer-administered modes of the child-OIDP. Health Quality Life Outcomes, 6, 40–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varni, J. W., Limbers, C. A., & Newman, D. A. (2009). Using factor analysis to confirm the validity of children’s self-reported health-related quality of life across different modes of administration. Clinical Trials, 6(2), 185–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voepel-Lewis, T., Malviya, S., & Tait, A. R. (2005). Validity of parent ratings as proxy measures of pain in children with cognitive impairment. Pain Management Nursing, 6, 168–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, M., Oddone, E. Z., Samsa, G. P., & Landsman, P. B. (1996). Are health-related quality-of-life measures affected by the mode of administration? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 49, 135–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WHO (1994). The development of the World Health Organization quality of life assessment instrument (the WHOQOL) (pp. 41–60). Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology and Cardiovascular Research and Development Unit, University of Porto Medical School, 4200-319, Porto, Portugal

    Salomé Mendes, Milton Severo & Carla Lopes

  2. Public Health Institute of Porto University, Porto, Portugal

    Salomé Mendes, Milton Severo & Carla Lopes

Authors
  1. Salomé Mendes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Milton Severo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carla Lopes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carla Lopes.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mendes, S., Severo, M. & Lopes, C. Comparison of Modes of Administration and Response Options in the Assessment of Subjective Health Using the First Question of SF-36. Soc Indic Res 107, 305–315 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9849-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9849-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation