The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The rand 36‐item health survey 1.0
Abstract
Recently, Ware and Sherbourne 1 published a new short‐form health survey, the MOS 36‐Item Short‐Form Health Survey (SF‐36), consisting of 36 items included in long‐form measures developed for the Medical Outcomes Study. The SF‐36 taps eight health concepts: physical functioning, bodily pain, role limitations due to physical health problems, role limitations due to personal or emotional problems, general mental health, social functioning, energy/fatigue, and general health perceptions. It also includes a single item that provides an indication of perceived change in health. The SF‐36 items and scoring rules are distributed by MOS Trust, Inc. Strict adherence to item wording and scoring recommendations is required in order to use the SF‐36 trademark. The RAND 36‐Item Health Survey 1.0 (distributed by RAND) includes the same items as those in the SF‐36, but the recommended scoring algorithm is somewhat different from that of the SF‐36. Scoring differences are discussed here and new T‐scores are presented for the 8 multi‐item scales and two factor analytically‐derived physical and mental health composite scores.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The MOS 36-ltem Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual Framework and Item Selection
Ware, J. E., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002 · Cited by 30,033
Self-citationThe MOS Short-form General Health Survey: Reliability and Validity in a Patient Population
Stewart, A. L., Hays, R. D., & Ware, J. E. (1988) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-198807000-00007 · Cited by 3,339
Self-citationMeasuring Functioning and Well-Being: The Medical Outcomes Study Approach
Stewart, A., & Ware, J. (1992) · doi:10.7249/cb361 · Cited by 2,689
The Functioning and Well-being of Depressed Patients: Results From the Medical Outcomes Study
Wells, K. B. (1989) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1989.03430070062031 · Cited by 2,130
Cited by
Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions
Stacey, D., Légaré, F., Lewis, K., Barry, M. J., Bennett, C. L., Eden, K. B., Holmes-Rovner, M., Llewellyn-Thomas, H., Lyddiatt, A., Thomson, R., et al. (2017) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001431.pub5 · Cited by 6,685
Bariatric Surgery versus Intensive Medical Therapy for Diabetes — 5-Year Outcomes
Schauer, P. R., Bhatt, D. L., Kirwan, J. P., Wolski, K., Aminian, A., Brethauer, S. A., Navaneethan, S. D., Singh, R. P., Pothier, C. E., Nissen, S. E., et al. (2017) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1600869 · Cited by 2,934
Derivation and validation of a short‐form oral health impact profile
Slade, G. D. (1997) · Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0528.1997.tb00941.x · Cited by 2,746
Development of the 25-list-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire
Mangione, C. M. (2001) · Archives of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1001/archopht.119.7.1050 · Cited by 2,230
Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate?
McHorney, C. A., & Tarlov, A. R. (1995) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/bf01593882 · Cited by 2,206
Metadata
- Authors
- Hays, R. D., Sherbourne, C. D., & Mazel, R. M.
- Venue
- Health Economics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1993-10
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 217-227
- ISSN
- 1057-9230 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1050
- OpenAlex
- W2128759000
- Cited by
- 2,884
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 51.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The rand 36‐item health survey 1.0. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/hec.4730020305
- The paper
- Hays, R. D., Sherbourne, C. D., & Mazel, R. M. (1993). The rand 36‐item health survey 1.0. Health Economics. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.4730020305
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
