CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 412Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifePsychometric Methodologies and TestingMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Correlated physical and mental health summary scores for the SF-36 and SF-12 Health Survey, V.1

Open access
Farivar, Sepideh S, Cunningham, William E, Hays, Ron D·2007·Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
DOI 10.1186/1477-7525-5-54PMC PMC2065865
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The SF-36 and SF-12 summary scores were derived using an uncorrelated (orthogonal) factor solution. We estimate SF-36 and SF-12 summary scores using a correlated (oblique) physical and mental health factor model. METHODS: We administered the SF-36 to 7,093 patients who received medical care from an independent association of 48 physician groups in the western United States. Correlated physical health (PCSc) and mental health (MCSc) scores were constructed by multiplying each SF-36 scale z-score by its respective scoring coefficient from the obliquely rotated two factor solution. PCSc-12 and MCSc-12 scores were estimated using an approach similar to the one used to derive the original SF-12 summary scores. RESULTS: The estimated correlation between SF-36 PCSc and MCSc scores was 0.62. There were far fewer negative factor scoring coefficients for the oblique factor solution compared to the factor scoring coefficients produced by the standard orthogonal factor solution. Similar results were found for PCSc-12, and MCSc-12 summary scores. CONCLUSION: Correlated physical and mental health summary scores for the SF-36 and SF-12 derived from an obliquely rotated factor solution should be used along with the uncorrelated summary scores. The new scoring algorithm can reduce inconsistent results between the SF-36 scale scores and physical and mental health summary scores reported in some prior studies.(Subscripts C = correlated and UC = uncorrelated).

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 · 10.1186/1477-7525-5-54

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Conceptual model for the SF-36 health survey. Orthogonal (uncorrelated) model assumes the correlation between physical and mental health constructs is fixed at 0 (Φ = 0). Oblique (correlated) model allows correlation between the physical and mental health constructs. δ denotes error terms (uniqueness terms) associated with each scale. Directional associations exist between the physical and mental health and the 8 scales (as indicated by the arrows); however, the associations vary from large (e.g. physical functioning on physical health) to close to zero (e.g., emotional well-being on physical health).
Figure 1 Conceptual model for the SF-36 health survey. Orthogonal (uncorrelated) model assumes the correlation between physical and mental health constructs is fixed at 0 (Φ = 0). Oblique (correlated) model allows correlation between the physical and mental health constructs. δ denotes error terms (uniqueness terms) associated with each scale. Directional associations exist between the physical and mental health and the 8 scales (as indicated by the arrows); however, the associations vary from large (e.g. physical functioning on physical health) to close to zero (e.g., emotional well-being on physical health).CC BY · PubMed Central

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

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?

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 15 references

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Gandek B: SF-36 ® Health Survey: Manual & Interpretation Guide. Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric Incorporated;1993; 2000.
  2. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Turner-Bowker DM, Gandek B: How to Score Version 2 of the SF-12 Health Survey (With a Supplement Documenting Version 1). Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric Incorporated; 2002.
  3. Taft C: Reply to Drs Ware and Kosinski. Qual Life Res 2001, 10: 415–420. 10.1023/A:1012552211996 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Hays RD, Morales LS: The RAND-36 measure of health-related quality of life. Ann Med 2001, 33: 350–357. · DOI · Paper page
  5. Hays RD, Prince-Embury S, Chen H: R-36 HIS: RAND-36 Health Status Inventory. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation; 1998.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 401–412 of 412

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Farivar, S. S., Cunningham, W. E., & Hays, R. D.
Affiliations
  • Amgen (United States) (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • RAND Corporation (US)
Corresponding author
Farivar, Sepideh S
ORCID
Venue
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2007-09-07
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
54-54
ISSN
1477-7525 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/1477-7525-5-54
PMC
PMC2065865
OpenAlex
W2097456882
Cited by
412
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 7
FWCI
22.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Health and Quality of Life Outcomes (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5p20md000148-05)
  • National Institute on Aging (AG20679-01, P01AG020679)
  • National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (P20-MD00148-01, P20-MD000148)
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
SF-36, SF-12, health-related quality of life, patient-reported outcomes
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Algorithms, Female, Health Services Accessibility, Health Status Indicators, Humans, Independent Practice Associations, Male, Mental Health, Middle Aged, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, United States, Utilization Review, Sickness Impact Profile

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