36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36): Difference between revisions
Lauren Lopez (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Lauren Lopez (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
The 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) is an oft-used, well-researched, self-reported measure of health. | The 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) is an oft-used, well-researched, self-reported measure of health. | ||
It comprises 36 questions which cover eight domains of health: | It comprises 36 questions which cover eight domains of health<ref name=":0">Ware Jr., J.E. and Sherbourne, C.D. (1992) The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual Framework and Item Selection. Medical Care, 30, 473-483. </ref>: | ||
1) | 1) Limitations in physical activities because of health problems | ||
2) | 2) Limitations in social activities because of physical or emotional problems | ||
3) | 3) Limitations in usual role activities because of physical health problems | ||
4) | 4) Bodily pain | ||
5) | 5) General mental health (psychological distress and well-being) | ||
6) | 6) Limitations in usual role activities because of emotional problems | ||
7) | 7) Vitality (energy and fatigue) | ||
8) | 8) General health perceptions | ||
The SF-36 is often used as a measure of a person or population's [[Quality of Life|quality of life]] (QOL). | The SF-36 is often used as a measure of a person or population's [[Quality of Life|quality of life]] (QOL). | ||
Revision as of 07:53, 15 January 2020
Original Editor - Evan Thomas
Top Contributors - Lauren Lopez, Uchechukwu Chukwuemeka, Claire Knott, Lucinda hampton, Tolulope Adeniji and Evan Thomas
Objective[edit | edit source]
The 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) is an oft-used, well-researched, self-reported measure of health.
It comprises 36 questions which cover eight domains of health[1]:
1) Limitations in physical activities because of health problems
2) Limitations in social activities because of physical or emotional problems
3) Limitations in usual role activities because of physical health problems
4) Bodily pain
5) General mental health (psychological distress and well-being)
6) Limitations in usual role activities because of emotional problems
7) Vitality (energy and fatigue)
8) General health perceptions
The SF-36 is often used as a measure of a person or population's quality of life (QOL).
Intended Population[edit | edit source]
The original authors designed the SF-36 to measure health at the individual level in clinical practice and research and at the population level for health policy evaluations, and general population surveys[1].
Method of Use[edit | edit source]
Patients or individuals are asked to fill out the questionnaire (tick boxes) by themselves and then it is scored by a clinician or researcher. The SF-36 is licensed though can also be found online.
Evidence[edit | edit source]
Reliability[edit | edit source]
The SF-36 has been shown to be reliable for people with schizophrenia[2].
Validity[edit | edit source]
The SF-36 has been shown to be valid for people with schizophrenia[2].
Responsiveness[edit | edit source]
Research has shown the SF-36 to be the most responsive to change in workers with musculoskeletal disorders compared with similar generic health measures[3].
Miscellaneous[edit | edit source]
The SF-36 is available in multiple languages.
Resources[edit | edit source]
References[edit | edit source]
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Ware Jr., J.E. and Sherbourne, C.D. (1992) The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual Framework and Item Selection. Medical Care, 30, 473-483.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Su, C.-T., Ng, H.-S., Yang, A.-L., & Lin, C.-Y. (2014). Psychometric evaluation of the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) and the World Health Organization Quality of Life Scale Brief Version (WHOQOL-BREF) for patients with schizophrenia. Psychological Assessment. 2014. 26(3), 980–989
- ↑ Beaton D, Hogg-Johnson S, Bombardier C. Evaluating changes in health status: Reliability and responsiveness of five generic health status measures in workers with musculoskeletal disorders. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997. 50; 1:79-93.
