Over the past decade there has been an increasing consensus regarding the centrality of the patients perception in monitoring individual medical outcomes. Researchers are discovering that for most patients, medical care is obtained to preserve a more effective quality of life and well-being. Patients want to function at the highest level possible. Although the patient is usually the best resource for weather goals have been met, a patients lived experiences seem to be lacking in some surveys. Development of valid data collecting assessment tools that are easy to use may give researchers and clinicians a better understanding of a patient’s perception of disease and treatment in a brief yet comprehensive manner. This paper will compare and contrast
…show more content…
The form was designed for use in clinical practice and research, health policy evaluations, and general population surveys. The SF-36 was developed for self-administration by persons 14 years of age and older. The survey may be administered by a trained interviewer either in person or by phone. The most recent version of SF-36 contains 11 questions, most of Likert- type responses. Answers from the survey range from “all of the time” to “none of the time”, earlier versions of the survey simply gave available choices such as “yes” or “no”(Ware, Jr. & Donald Sherbourne, 1992, p. 473). Although, it is not disease specific, this update makes for more individualized responses to survey questions. The rationale behind the use of the SF-36 survey is that general health measures used on a large scale is not always practical due to their length. The SF-36 provides a standardized health status survey that is comprehensive, psychometrically sound, and brief (Ware, Jr. & Donald Sherbourne, 1992). The use of such a survey abolishes the disconnect between lengthy surveys that have been successful in …show more content…
Such concepts include: 1) physical functioning; 2) role limitations due to physical health; 3) bodily pain; 4) social functioning; 5) general mental health; 6) role limitations due to emotional problems; 7) vitality; and 8) general health perceptions(Ware, Jr. & Donald Sherbourne, 1992). The items mentioned have been adapted from instruments that have been used for decades, making the experience with full length scales more viable to construct functional short-form health scales. There are some strengths and limitations with the SF-36. Although the author did not adequately describe, there have been tradeoffs to construct more efficient scales for measuring a core set of general health concepts. The updated version of the SF-36 balances between favorably and unfavorably worded items to control for response set effects (Ware, Jr. & Donald Sherbourne, 1992). In addition, scores are easy to compute, interpret, and makes comparisons of the scales possible. This article did not adequatley mention scoring, other than it was “norm based” to standardize the eight scales discussed. Unfortuantely, the lack of criteria for the construction and validation of health scales proposes a major limitation for use of this instrument. Also, short-form measures have the tendency to develope ceiling effects and floor effects. Furthermore, the psychometric properties
The form was designed for use in clinical practice and research, health policy evaluations, and general population surveys. The SF-36 was developed for self-administration by persons 14 years of age and older. The survey may be administered by a trained interviewer either in person or by phone. The most recent version of SF-36 contains 11 questions, most of Likert- type responses. Answers from the survey range from “all of the time” to “none of the time”, earlier versions of the survey simply gave available choices such as “yes” or “no”(Ware, Jr. & Donald Sherbourne, 1992, p. 473). Although, it is not disease specific, this update makes for more individualized responses to survey questions. The rationale behind the use of the SF-36 survey is that general health measures used on a large scale is not always practical due to their length. The SF-36 provides a standardized health status survey that is comprehensive, psychometrically sound, and brief (Ware, Jr. & Donald Sherbourne, 1992). The use of such a survey abolishes the disconnect between lengthy surveys that have been successful in …show more content…
Such concepts include: 1) physical functioning; 2) role limitations due to physical health; 3) bodily pain; 4) social functioning; 5) general mental health; 6) role limitations due to emotional problems; 7) vitality; and 8) general health perceptions(Ware, Jr. & Donald Sherbourne, 1992). The items mentioned have been adapted from instruments that have been used for decades, making the experience with full length scales more viable to construct functional short-form health scales. There are some strengths and limitations with the SF-36. Although the author did not adequately describe, there have been tradeoffs to construct more efficient scales for measuring a core set of general health concepts. The updated version of the SF-36 balances between favorably and unfavorably worded items to control for response set effects (Ware, Jr. & Donald Sherbourne, 1992). In addition, scores are easy to compute, interpret, and makes comparisons of the scales possible. This article did not adequatley mention scoring, other than it was “norm based” to standardize the eight scales discussed. Unfortuantely, the lack of criteria for the construction and validation of health scales proposes a major limitation for use of this instrument. Also, short-form measures have the tendency to develope ceiling effects and floor effects. Furthermore, the psychometric properties