CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 276Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifePsychometric Methodologies and TestingHealth Education and Validation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The SF-36 summary scales were valid, reliable, and equivalent in a Chinese population

Open access
Lam, Cindy L.K., Tse, Eileen Y.Y., Gandek, Barbara, Fong, Daniel Y.T.·2005·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.12.008
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objectives To find out whether the SF-36 physical and mental health summary (PCS and MCS) scales are valid and equivalent in the Chinese population in Hong Kong (HK).Study design and setting The SF-36 data of a cross-sectional study on 2,410 Chinese adults randomly selected from the general population in HK were analyzed.Results The hypothesized two-factor structure of the physical and mental health summary scales (PCS and MCS) was replicated and the expected differences in scores between known morbidity groups were shown. The internal reliability coefficients of the PCS and MCS scales ranged from 0.85 to 0.87. The effect size differences between the U.S. standard and HK-specific PCS and MCS scores were mostly <0.5. The effect size differences in the standard PCS and MCS scores of specific groups between the U.S. and H.K. populations were all <0.5.Conclusion The PCS and MCS scales were applicable to the Chinese population in HK. The high level of measurement equivalence of the scales between the U.S. and H.K. populations suggests that data pooling between the two populations could be possible. To our knowledge, this is the first study to show that the SF-36 summary scales are valid and equivalent in an Asian population.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.12.008

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Wong, 1984, Somatic symptoms among Chinese psychiatric patients, Hong Kong J Ment Health, 13, 5

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 276

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Lam, C. L. K., Tse, E. Y. Y., Gandek, B., & Fong, D. Y. T.
Affiliations
University of Hong Kong (HK)
Corresponding author
Lam, Cindy L.K.
ORCID
Lam, Cindy L.K.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-08
Volume
58
Issue
8
Pages
815-822
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.12.008
OpenAlex
W2137450779
Cited by
276
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 12
FWCI
12.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • The HKU Scholars Hub (University of Hong Kong) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
SF-36, physical component summary, mental component summary, measurement invariance, cross-cultural validation, Chinese adults, Hong Kong, internal consistency, factor structure, data pooling, Asian populations
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Algorithms, Cross-Cultural Comparison, Epidemiologic Methods, Female, Health Status Indicators, Hong Kong, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Quality of Life, United States, Asian People

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