Skip to main content
Log in

Interpreting SF&-36 summary health measures: A response

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In response to questions raised about the “accuracy” of SF-36 physical (PCS) and mental (MCS) component summary scores, particularly extremely high and low scores, we briefly comment on: how they were developed, how they are scored, the factor content of the eight SF-36 subscales, cross-tabulations between item-level responses and extreme summary scores, and published and new tests of their empirical validity.

Published cross-tabulations between SF-36 items and PCS and MCS scores, reanalyses of public datasets (N = 5919), and preliminary results from the Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (HOS) (N = 172,314) yielded little or no evidence in support of Taft's hypothesis that extreme scores are an invalid artifact of some negative scoring weights. For example, in the HOS, those (N = 432) with “unexpected” PCS scores worse than 20 (which, according to Taft, indicate better mental health rather than worse physical health) were about 25% more likely to die within two years, in comparison with those scoring in the next highest (21– 30)␣category. In this test and in all other empirical tests, results of predictions supported the validity of extreme PCS and MCS scores.

We recommend against the interpretation of average differences smaller than one point in studies that seek to detect “false” measurement and we again repeat our 7-year-old recommendation that results based on summary measures should be thoroughly compared with the SF-36 profile before drawing conclusions. To facilitate such comparisons, scoring utilities and user-friendly graphs for SF-36 profiles and physical and mental summary scores (both orthogonal and oblique scoring algorithms) have been made available on the Internet at www.sf-36.com/test.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Taft C, Karisson J, Sullivan M. Do SF-36 summary component scores accurately summarize subscale scores? Quality of Life Research 2001; 10(5): 395–404.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. McHorney CA, Ware JE, Raczek AE. The MOS 36–Itern Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36 ®): II psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care 1993; 31(3): 247–63.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Bayliss MS, McHorney CA, Rogers WH, Raczek A. Comparison of methods for the scoring and statistical analysis of SF-36 ® health profiles and summary measures: summary of results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Med Care 1995; 33(Suppl. 4): AS264–AS279.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ware JE, Kosinksi M. SF-36 ® Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales: A Manual for Users for Version 1. 2nd Edition. Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric, Inc., 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Dewey JE. How to Score Version 2 of the SF-36 ® Health Survey (Standard & Acute Forms), 2nd Edition. Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric, Inc., 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Sullivan M, Karlsson J, Ware JE. SF-36 Halsoenkat: Svensk manual och tolkingsguide (Swedish manual and interpretation guide), Goteborg: Health Care Research Unit, Gothenburg University, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Perfetto EM, Bjorner J. Comparison of treatment outcomes estimated using oblique & orthogonal physical & mental health summary scores: Results from 42 randomized trials using the SF-36 Health Survey. Quality of Life Research 1999; 8(7), p. 654.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ware, J.E., Kosinski, M. Interpreting SF&-36 summary health measures: A response. Qual Life Res 10, 405–413 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012588218728

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012588218728

Navigation