2005
DOI: 10.1007/s11136-005-1743-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Quality of life in older people: A structured review of generic self-assessed health instruments

Abstract: There is good evidence for reliability, validity and responsiveness for the SF-36, EQ-5D and NHP. There is more limited evidence for the COOP, SF-12 and SIP. The SF-36 is recommended where a detailed and broad ranging assessment of health is required, particularly in community dwelling older people with limited morbidity. The EQ-5D is recommended where a more succinct assessment is required, particularly where a substantial change in health is expected. Instrument content should be assessed for relevance befor… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

4
235
1
10

Year Published

2008
2008
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 323 publications
(251 citation statements)
references
References 105 publications
4
235
1
10
Order By: Relevance
“…The use of the SF-36 questionnaire for evaluating the physical and mental dimensions of quality of life is generally accepted, and its validity and reliability have been demonstrated in many populationbased studies [e.g. 31,[36][37][38]. Not only was the SF-36 administered in the present study because of its wide acceptance as an appropriate instrument for the assessment of quality of life, it also facilitated the comparison of our findings with the results reported by Crowe et al [10] and Silvers and Scott [11], as these authors also used the SF-36 for assessing physical and mental well-being.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The use of the SF-36 questionnaire for evaluating the physical and mental dimensions of quality of life is generally accepted, and its validity and reliability have been demonstrated in many populationbased studies [e.g. 31,[36][37][38]. Not only was the SF-36 administered in the present study because of its wide acceptance as an appropriate instrument for the assessment of quality of life, it also facilitated the comparison of our findings with the results reported by Crowe et al [10] and Silvers and Scott [11], as these authors also used the SF-36 for assessing physical and mental well-being.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Disability instruments such as the ODI and RMD and QOL scales such as SF-12/36 are standard questionnaires designed to minimize subjective variability and allow for reproducible and comparable measures [44,45]. BKP was shown to be superior to NSM in terms of reduced disability and non-significantly better than VP, whereas VP was not significantly different from NSM.…”
Section: Disability/qolmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…), yielding 21 articles selected for full-text review. An additional article on the PROMIS Global Health Scale was added to provide coverage for all candidate instruments, bringing the total number of articles to 22 (Anderson et al 1993(Anderson et al , 1996Bouchet et al 2000;Brazier et al 1999;Butterworth and Crosier 2004;Coons et al 2000;Doward et al 2004;Ford et al 2000;Furlong et al 2001;Gandek et al 2004;Hawthorne and Richardson 2001;Hays et al 2009;Haywood et al 2005;Horsman et al 2003;Kopec and Willison 2003;McHorney and Tarlov 1995a;Revicki and Kaplan 1993;Sintonen 2001;Skevington et al 2004;Ware 2000;Wiklund 1990). …”
Section: Psychometric Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The SF-36 had a very large evidence base and performed as well as, or better than, the other instruments in most of the psychometric domains we considered. It was noted to be reliable (Gandek et al 2004;Haywood et al 2005), to be comprehensive in its coverage of various aspects of health (Haywood et al 2005;Ware 2000) and for having strong content validity, which indicates that it taps into the domains it proposes to examine (Butterworth and Crosier 2004;Gandek et al 2004;Hays et al 2009;Skevington et al 2004;Ware 2000). Its strong score in the responsiveness category, indicating the ability to detect change when it was known to have occurred or differences between groups known to vary in health status, suggested that it would be better suited for evaluation studies than some of the other instruments (Anderson et al 1996;Bouchet et al 2000;Hays et al 2009;Kopec and Willison 2003;McHorney and Tarlov 1995;Ware 2000).…”
Section: Psychometric Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation