The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessing reliability of a measure of self-rated health
Abstract
The test-retest reliability of self-rated health is analysed and compared with the reliability of health questions phrased more as well as less precisely. Differences in reliability between men and women and between age groups are also assessed. The study is based on 204 and 409 re-interviews from the 1991 Swedish Level of Living Survey and the 1989 Survey of Living Conditions respectively. The results show that the reliability of self-rated health is as good as or even better than that of most of the more specific questions. Only an indicator of high blood pressure showed significantly higher reliability. The reliability of self-rated health is good in all subgroups studied, and is even excellent among older men. It is concluded that the good overall reliability of self-rated health found in this study is in line with previous results concerning the validity of people's assessments of their general health as well as results concerning the basis upon which they make these judgements.
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 Rates and Proportions
Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., & Paik, M. C. (2003) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/0471445428 · Cited by 18,646
Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit
Cohen, J. (1968) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0026256 · Cited by 8,736
Self-rated health and mortality in the NHANES I Epidemiologic Follow-up Study
Idler, E. L., & Angel, R. J. (1990) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.80.4.446 · Cited by 864
Cited by
Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials.
Fitzpatrick, Davey, Buxton, & Jones (1998) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta2140 · Cited by 1,715
Lantz, P. M., House, J. S., Mero, R. P., & Williams, D. R. (2005) · Journal of Health and Social Behavior · doi:10.1177/002214650504600305 · Cited by 644
Present but sick: a three‐wave study on job demands, presenteeism and burnout
Demerouti, E., Le Blanc, P. M., Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., & Hox, J. (2009) · Career Development International · doi:10.1108/13620430910933574 · Cited by 567
Trends in socioeconomic inequalities in self-assessed health in 10 European countries
Kunst, A. E., Bos, V., Lahelma, E., Bartley, M., Lissau, I., Regidor, E., Mielck, A., Cardano, M., Dalstra, J. A., Geurts, J. J., et al. (2005) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/dyh342 · Cited by 549
Dichotomous or categorical response? Analysing self-rated health and lifetime social class
Manor, O., Matthews, S., & Power, C. (2000) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/29.1.149 · Cited by 420
Metadata
- Authors
- Lundberg, O., & Manderbacka, K.
- Venue
- Scandinavian Journal of Social Medicine
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1996-09
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 218-224
- ISSN
- 0300-8037 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2087502876
- Cited by
- 615
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 16.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Assessing reliability of a measure of self-rated health. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/140349489602400314
- The paper
- Lundberg, O., & Manderbacka, K. (1996). Assessing reliability of a measure of self-rated health. Scandinavian Journal of Social Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1177/140349489602400314
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.
