Evaluation & the Health Professions

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click Here for More Information

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Andresen, E. M.
Right arrow Articles by Mcdermott, M. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Andresen, E. M.
Right arrow Articles by Mcdermott, M. P.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Evaluation & the Health Professions, Vol. 21, No. 2, 244-264 (1998)
DOI: 10.1177/016327879802100206
© 1998 SAGE Publications

Selecting a Generic Measure of Health-Related Quality of Life for Use among Older Adults

A Comparison of Candidate Instruments

Elena M. Andresen

St. Louis University, University of Rochester

Barbara M. Rothenberg

University of Rochester

Robert Panzer

University of Rochester

Paul Katz

University of Rochester, Monroe Community Hospital

Michael P. Mcdermott

University of Rochester

Selecting an outcomes assessment instrument requires knowledge of their relative merits, especially head-to-head comparisons. The authors compare health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) instruments among older adults for theirpsychometric properties and subject burden, specifically the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP) and Medical Outcomes Study Short- Form 36 (SF-36). Subjects were 282 of 373 eligible older adults (75.6% response) ranging in age from 65 to 96. SIP scores demonstrated a strong skew toward low (good health) scores with a mean of 11.1% (SD 11.5) on the Total SIP index score. Similar components of the SIP and SF-36 were moderately to strongly correlated. The SIP suffered from a ceiling (good health) scaling effect, and the SF-36 scales also demonstrated some scaling extremes. These results demonstrate the relative scaling limits, especially the ceiling effect, of the SIP compared to the SF- 36, and in general, the SF-36 is preferredfor use among community-living older adults.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?