Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4,653

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 access
Brazier, J. E., Harper, R., Jones, N. M., O'Cathain, A., Thomas, K. J., Usherwood, T., Westlake, L.·1992·BMJ
DOI 10.1136/bmj.305.6846.160
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.305.6846.160

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

Items 101–148 of 148

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
DOI
10.1136/bmj.305.6846.160
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

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.