doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000015223.98452.97
(Stroke. 2002;33:1176.)
© 2002 American Heart Association, Inc.
Editorials |
Measuring Quality of Life After Stroke Using the SF-36
From the Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Correspondence to Rob J. de Haan, PhD, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Amsterdam, Academic Medical Center, Room J2-203, Meibergdreef 9, PO Box 22660, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, the Netherlands. E-mail rob.dehaan@amc.uva.nl
The SF-36 is the most widely used generic instrument for measuring quality of life (QOL). The instrument is translated into numerous languages, and the validity of the 8 subscales is confirmed in general populations and in a wide variety of patient groups in more than 2000 articles. In an article published in this issue of Stroke, Hobart et al1 report the psychometric properties of the SF-36 in a sample of ischemic stroke patients. The authors conclude that (1) some subscales, especially the scales for General Health (GH) and Social Functioning (SF), have limited reliability and validity; (2) half of the subscales suffer from floor and/or ceiling effects; and (3) the 2 summary scores inadequately reflect the patient’s physical and mental health. In view of the overwhelming weight of evidence that the subscales of the SF-36 are psychometrically sound to measure QOL in a range of patient populations, the question arises how convincing the arguments of Hobart and his colleagues are.
The authors argue that the GH and SF scales generate low reliability scores and have limited convergent and discriminant validity. However, these conclusions can be challenged. The reliability of only 1 scale (GH) was marginally less (Cronbach’s alpha=0.68) than the authors’ predefined criteria. Although it is often recommended that coefficient values should be above 0.80, values above 0.70 are generally regarded as acceptable for scales when assessing outcome on a group level. Moreover, it should be noticed that the alpha coefficient not only depends on the correlations of the
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  L. van der Sluijs Veer, M. J. E. Kempers, B. F. Last, T. Vulsma, and M. A. Grootenhuis Quality of Life, Developmental Milestones, and Self-Esteem of Young Adults with Congenital Hypothyroidism Diagnosed by Neonatal Screening J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., July 1, 2008; 93(7): 2654 - 2661. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. J. Gray, N. Sprigg, P. M.W. Bath, G. Boysen, P. P. De Deyn, D. Leys, D. O'Neill, E. B. Ringelstein, and for the TAIST Investigators Sex Differences in Quality of Life in Stroke Survivors: Data From the Tinzaparin in Acute Ischaemic Stroke Trial (TAIST) Stroke, November 1, 2007; 38(11): 2960 - 2964. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. W. Gargano, M. J. Reeves, and for the Paul Coverdell National Acute Stroke Regis Sex Differences in Stroke Recovery and Stroke-Specific Quality of Life: Results From a Statewide Stroke Registry Stroke, September 1, 2007; 38(9): 2541 - 2548. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 I. Muus, L. S. Williams, and K. C. Ringsberg Validation of the Stroke Specific Quality of Life Scale (SS-QOL): test of reliability and validity of the Danish version (SS-QOL-DK) Clinical Rehabilitation, July 1, 2007; 21(7): 620 - 627. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. E. Bramlett, A. K. Bothe, and D. M. Franic Using preference-based measures to assess quality of life in stuttering. J Speech Lang Hear Res, April 1, 2006; 49(2): 381 - 394. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A.-C. Jonsson, I. Lindgren, B. Hallstrom, B. Norrving, and A. Lindgren Determinants of Quality of Life in Stroke Survivors and Their Informal Caregivers Stroke, April 1, 2005; 36(4): 803 - 808. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|