The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care.
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVES: To test the acceptability, validity, and reliability of the short form 36 health survey questionnaire (SF-36) and to compare it with the Nottingham health profile. DESIGN: Postal survey using a questionnaire booklet together with a letter from the general practitioner. Non-respondents received two reminders at two week intervals. The SF-36 questionnaire was retested on a subsample of respondents two weeks after the first mailing. SETTING: Two general practices in Sheffield. PATIENTS: 1980 patients aged 16-74 years randomly selected from the two practice lists. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Scores for each health dimension on the SF-36 questionnaire and the Nottingham health profile. Response to questions on recent use of health services and sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: The response rate for the SF-36 questionnaire was high (83%) and the rate of completion for each dimension was over 95%. Considerable evidence was found for the reliability of the SF-36 (Cronbach's alpha greater than 0.85, reliability coefficient greater than 0.75 for all dimensions except social functioning) and for construct validity in terms of distinguishing between groups with expected health differences. The SF-36 was able to detect low levels of ill health in patients who had scored 0 (good health) on the Nottingham health profile. CONCLUSIONS: The SF-36 is a promising new instrument for measuring health perception in a general population. It is easy to use, acceptable to patients, and fulfils stringent criteria of reliability and validity. Its use in other contexts and with different disease groups requires further research.
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
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0046016 · Cited by 17,116
The 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
Cited by
WARE, J. E., KOSINSKI, M., & KELLER, S. D. (1996) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-199603000-00003 · Cited by 17,392
Guillemin, F., Bombardier, C., & Beaton, D. (1993) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(93)90142-n · Cited by 6,060
Hawker, G. A., Mian, S., Kendzerska, T., & French, M. (2011) · Arthritis Care & Research · doi:10.1002/acr.20543 · Cited by 4,924
Ware, J. E. (2000) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-200012150-00008 · Cited by 4,455
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Brazier, J. E., Harper, R., Jones, N. M., O'Cathain, A., Thomas, K. J., Usherwood, T., & Westlake, L.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1992-07-18
- Volume
- 305
- Issue
- 6846
- Pages
- 160-164
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2113750014
- Cited by
- 4,653
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 120.87
- 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: Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.305.6846.160
- The paper
- Brazier, J. E., Harper, R., Jones, N. M., O'Cathain, A., Thomas, K. J., Usherwood, T., & Westlake, L. (1992). Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.305.6846.160
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.