The DOI matches its Crossref record.
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
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Population norms for the attributes included in measurement scales are required to provide a standard with which scores from other study populations can be compared. This study aimed to obtain population norms for the Short Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey Questionnaire, derived from a random sample of the population in Britain who were interviewed at home, and to make comparisons with other commonly used norms. METHODS: The method was a face-to-face interview survey of a random sample of 2056 adults living at home in Britain (response rate 78 per cent). Comparisons of the SF-36 scores derived from this sample were made with the Health Survey for England and the Oxford Healthy Life Survey. RESULTS: Controlling for age and sex, many of mean scores on the SF-36 dimensions differed between the three datasets. The British interview sample had better total means for Physical Functioning, Social Functioning, Mental Health, Energy/Vitality, and General Health Perceptions. The Health (interview) Survey for England had the lowest (worst) total mean scores for Physical Functioning, Social Functioning, Role Limitations (physical), Bodily Pain, and Health Perceptions. The postal sample in central England had the lowest (worst) total mean scores for Role Limitations (emotional), Mental Health and Energy/Vitality. CONCLUSION: Responses obtained from interview methods may suffer more from social desirability bias (resulting in inflated SF-36 scores) than postal surveys. Differences in SF-36 means between surveys are also likely to reflect question order and contextual effects of the questionnaires. This indicates the importance of providing mode-specific population norms for the various methods of questionnaire administration.
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
Cited by
White, P., Goldsmith, K., Johnson, A., Potts, L., Walwyn, R., DeCesare, J., Baber, H., Burgess, M., Clark, L., Cox, D., et al. (2011) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(11)60096-2 · Cited by 897
Beswick, A. D., Rees, K., Dieppe, P., Ayis, S., Gooberman-Hill, R., Horwood, J., & Ebrahim, S. (2008) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(08)60342-6 · Cited by 780
Diagnosis and relation to general health of shoulder disorders presenting to primary care
Östör, A. J. K., Richards, C. A., Prevost, A. T., Speed, C. A., & Hazleman, B. L. (2005) · Rheumatology · doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keh598 · Cited by 409
Determinants of health-related quality of life in elderly in Tehran, Iran
Tajvar, M., Arab, M., & Montazeri, A. (2008) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/1471-2458-8-323 · Cited by 356
Lamping, D. L., Constantinovici, N., Roderick, P., Normand, C., Henderson, L., Harris, S., Brown, E., Gruen, R., & Victor, C. (2000) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(00)03123-8 · Cited by 349
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Bowling, A., Bond, M., Jenkinson, C., & Lamping, D.
- Venue
- Journal of Public Health
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1999-09-01
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 255-270
- ISSN
- 0943-1853 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-3842
- 1741-3850
- OpenAlex
- W2139008521
- Cited by
- 289
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: 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. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/pubmed/21.3.255
- The paper
- Bowling, A., Bond, M., Jenkinson, C., & Lamping, D. (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. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/21.3.255
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.