The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Performance of the Swedish SF-36 version 2.0
Abstract
Objectives To evaluate the performance of the first non-English (Swedish) SF-36 version 2.0 (V2) regarding scaling assumptions, reliability and validity, with special emphasis on the effects of extending the response scales of the two role functioning scales, role physical (RP) and role emotional (RE), from a dichotomous to a five-step format.Methods Questionnaires were mailed to a non-stratified, random national sample of 3000 18-75 year old Swedish residents in 1998-1999. Methods traditionally used in evaluating the original US SF-36 version 1.0 (V1) and other international versions were applied.Results A total of 73% of the questionnaires were returned. Scaling assumptions were satisfactorily met and generally enhanced compared with V1, particularly regarding the role functioning scales. Floor/ceiling effects were reduced and reliability estimates increased for the role scales. The factor structure was replicated and the relative validity of the role scales as measures of their components increased. Overall, the tests of the criterion-based validity using known groups comparisons produced results supporting hypotheses: scales from the physical domain distinguished best between groups expected to differ in physical health; and scales comprising the mental domain distinguished best between groups expected to differ in mental health. Furthermore, hypothesized differences in mean scale scores as a function of age and social risk factors were confirmed.Conclusions The changes to the response formats of the role functioning scales have improved their precision, reliability and validity without jeopardizing the underlying structure of the original SF-36. These changes will likely further enhance the responsiveness of the SF-36.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“The SF-36v2 has proven satisfactory psychometric characteristics in Sweden (31) and elsewhere (32).”
In the citing paper
“However, the quality of life of workers in our population, assessed by SF-36, was very low as compared to a national sample [39].”
From Which aspects of health differ between working and nonworking women with fibromyalgia? A cross-sectional study of work status and health (2012) · cites this paper as [39]
Citations
Cites
Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests
Cronbach, L. J. (1951) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02310555 · Cited by 43,931
Stockton, R. A., & Kerlinger, F. N. (1974) · American Educational Research Journal · doi:10.2307/1162206 · Cited by 7,359
McHorney, C. A., Ware, J. E., Rachel Lu, J. F., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1994) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-199401000-00004 · Cited by 4,458
Overview of the SF-36 Health Survey and the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) Project
Ware, J. E., & Gandek, B. (1998) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00081-x · Cited by 2,716
Measuring Functioning and Well-Being: The Medical Outcomes Study Approach
Stewart, A., & Ware, J. (1992) · doi:10.7249/cb361 · Cited by 2,689
Sullivan, M., Karlsson, J., & Ware, J. E. (1995) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/0277-9536(95)00125-q · Cited by 1,315
Self-citationMethods for Testing Data Quality, Scaling Assumptions, and Reliability
Ware, J. E., & Gandek, B. (1998) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00085-7 · Cited by 631
Assessment of the SF-36 version 2 in the United Kingdom.
Jenkinson, C., Stewart-Brown, S., Petersen, S., & Paice, C. (1999) · Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health · doi:10.1136/jech.53.1.46 · Cited by 565
The Swedish SF-36 Health Survey III. Evaluation of Criterion-Based Validity
Sullivan, M., & Karlsson, J. (1998) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00102-4 · Cited by 488
Self-citationTests of Data Quality, Scaling Assumptions, and Reliability of the SF-36 in Eleven Countries
Gandek, B., Ware, J. E., Aaronson, N. K., Alonso, J., Apolone, G., Bjørner, J. B., Brazier, J. E., Bullinger, M., Fukuhara, S., Kaasa, S., et al. (1998) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00106-1 · Cited by 416
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Shiely J-C, Bayliss MS, Keller SD, et al. SF-36 Health Survey Annotated Bibliography. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, 1996.
- Tsai C, Ware JE, Bayliss MS. SF-36 Health Survey Annotated Bibliography. 1996 Supplement. Boston, MA: The Health Assessment Lab, 1997.
- Ware JE, Kosinski M, Dewey JE. How to score Version Two of the SF-36® Health Survey. Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric Inc., 2000.
- Sullivan M, Karlsson J, Ware JE. SF-36 Hälsoenkät: Svensk Manual och Tolknings guide. (Swedish SF-36 Manual and Interpretation Guide.) Gothenburg: Sahlgrenska University Hospital, 1994.
- Kerlinger FN. Foundations of Behavioral Research. NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1973.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The short form health survey (SF-36): translation and validation study of the Iranian version
Montazeri, A., Goshtasebi, A., Vahdaninia, M., & Gandek, B. (2005) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-004-1014-5 · Cited by 1,125
Montazeri, A., Vahdaninia, M., Mousavi, S. J., & Omidvari, S. (2009) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/1471-2458-9-341 · Cited by 358
Olbers, T., Beamish, A. J., Gronowitz, E., Flodmark, C.-E., Dahlgren, J., Bruze, G., Ekbom, K., Friberg, P., Göthberg, G., Järvholm, K., et al. (2017) · The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology · doi:10.1016/s2213-8587(16)30424-7 · Cited by 318
Self-citationThe SF36 Version 2: critical analyses of population weights, scoring algorithms and population norms
Hawthorne, G., Osborne, R. H., Taylor, A. W., & Sansoni, J. (2007) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-006-9154-4 · Cited by 287
Validating and norming of the Greek SF-36 Health Survey
Pappa, E., Kontodimopoulos, N., & Niakas, D. A. (2005) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-004-6014-y · Cited by 269
Metadata
- Authors
- Taft, C., Karlsson, J., & Sullivan, M.
- Affiliations
- Sahlgrenska University Hospital (SE)
- Corresponding author
- Taft, Charles
- Venue
- Quality of Life Research
- Published
- 2004-02
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 251-256
- ISSN
- 0962-9343 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-2649
- OpenAlex
- W2038755503
- Cited by
- 142
- References
- 13
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 11.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Quality of Life Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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 › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
- Keywords
- Swedish translation, health-related quality of life, scaling assumptions, floor and ceiling effects, factor structure, known-groups comparison, reliability statistics, responsiveness, age differences, social risk factors
- MeSH terms
- Activities of Daily Living, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Emotions, Female, Health Status Indicators, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychometrics, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self-Assessment, Sweden, Principal Component Analysis
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
