Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 162

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of Rasch and Summated Rating Scales Constructed from SF-36 Physical Functioning Items in Seven Countries

Open access
Raczek, Anastasia E., Ware, John E., Bjorner, Jakob B., Gandek, Barbara, Haley, Stephen M., Aaronson, Neil K., Apolone, Giovanni, Bech, Per, Brazier, John E., Bullinger, Monika, Sullivan, Marianne·1998·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

Rasch models for polytomous items were used to assess the scaling assumptions and compare item response patterns in the 10-item SF-36 physical functioning scale (PF-10) for general population respondents in Denmark, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The Rasch model of physical functioning developed in the United States was compared to models for other countries, and each country was compared to a multinational composite. Strong scale congruence across the seven countries was demonstrated; items that varied between countries and from the composite may reflect unique cultural response patterns or differences in translation. Scoring algorithms based on the Rasch model for each country were superior to the current Likert scoring in tests of relative validity (RV) in discriminating among age groups in all countries. In relation to the Likert PF-10 scoring (RV = 1.00), scores estimated using the Rasch rating scale model achieve a median RV of 1.31 (range: 1.01-1.59), while the Rasch partial credit model attained a median RV of 1.44 (range: 1.01-2.23). Rasch models hold good potential for improving health status measures, estimating individual scores when responses to scale items are missing, and equating scores across countries.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00112-7

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 162

Metadata

Authors
Raczek, A. E., Ware, J. E., Bjorner, J. B., Gandek, B., Haley, S. M., Aaronson, N. K., Apolone, G., Bech, P., Brazier, J. E., Bullinger, M., & Sullivan, M.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1998-11
Volume
51
Issue
11
Pages
1203-1214
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2000490851
Cited by
162
References
5
FWCI
8.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Comparison of Rasch and Summated Rating Scales Constructed from SF-36 Physical Functioning Items in Seven Countries. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00112-7
The paper
Raczek, A. E., Ware, J. E., Bjorner, J. B., Gandek, B., Haley, S. M., Aaronson, N. K., Apolone, G., Bech, P., Brazier, J. E., Bullinger, M., & Sullivan, M. (1998). Comparison of Rasch and Summated Rating Scales Constructed from SF-36 Physical Functioning Items in Seven Countries. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00112-7

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.