Dataset Information

Does the single-item self-rated health measure the same thing across different wordings? Construct validity study.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

The self-rated health (SRH) item is frequently used in health surveys but variations of its form (wording, response options) may hinder comparisons between versions over time or across surveys. The objectives were to determine (a) whether three SRH forms are equivalent, (b) the form with the best construct validity and (c) the best coding scheme to maximize equivalence across forms.

Methods

We used data from 58,023 respondents of the Swiss Health Survey. Three SRH forms were used. Response options varied across forms and we explored four coding schemes (two considering SRH as continuous, two as dichotomous). Construct validity of the SRH was assessed using 34 health predictors to estimate the explained variance.

Results

Distributions of response options were similar across SRH forms, except for the "good" and "very good" options ("good" in form 1: 58.6%, form 2: 65.0% and form 3: 44.1%). Explained variances differed across SRH forms, with form 3 providing the best overall explained variance, regardless of coding schemes. The linear coding scheme maximised the equivalence across SRH forms.

Conclusion

The three SRH forms were not equivalent in terms of construct validity. Studies examining the evolution of SRH over time with surveys using different forms should use the linear coding scheme to maximise equivalence between SRH forms.

SUBMITTER: Cullati S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7434800 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA single-item measure of self-rated mental health (SRMH) is being used increasingly in health research and population health surveys. The item asks respondents to rate their mental health on a five-point scale from excellent to poor. This scoping study presents the first known review of the SRMH literature.MethodsElectronic databases of Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE and Cochrane Reviews were searched using keywords. The databases were also searched using the titles of surveys known to include the SRMH single item. The search was supplemented by manually searching the bibliographic sections of the included studies. Two independent reviewers coded articles for inclusion or exclusion based on whether articles included SRMH. Each study was coded by theme and data were extracted about study design, sample, variables, and results.ResultsFifty-seven studies included SRMH. SRMH correlated moderately with the following mental health scales: Kessler Psychological Distress Scale, Patient Health Questionnaire, mental health subscales of the Short-Form Health Status Survey, Behaviour and Symptom Identification Scale, and World Mental Health Clinical Diagnostic Interview Schedule. However, responses to this item may differ across racial and ethnic groups. Poor SRMH was associated with poor self-rated health, physical health problems, increased health service utilization and less likelihood of being satisfied with mental health services. Poor or fair SRMH was also associated with social determinants of health, such as low socioeconomic position, weak social connections and neighbourhood stressors. Synthesis of this literature provides important information about the relationships SRMH has with other variables.ConclusionsSRMH is associated with multi-item measures of mental health, self-rated health, health problems, service utilization, and service satisfaction. Given these relationships and its use in epidemiologic surveys, SRMH should continue to be assessed as a population health measure. More studies need to examine relationships between SRMH and clinical mental illnesses. Longitudinal analyses should look at whether SRMH is predictive of future mental health problems.

Project description:IntroductionThe measurement of health status of the elderly remains one important topic. Self-rated health status (SRH) is considered to be a simple indicator to measure the health status of the old population. But some researchers still take a skeptical view about its reliability. This study aims to investigate the association between SRH indicator and health status of the elderly and discuss its subsequent public health implications.MethodsIn a total 1096 people who were 60 years of age or older from 1784 households from a suburban area of Beijing were interviewed using multistage stratified cluster sampling. SRH was measured by a single question "please choose one point in this 0-100 scale, which can best represent your health today." The disease status and physical functional status were also obtained. A multiple linear regression was conducted to test the associate between SRH and individual's disease/functional status.ResultsThe average of SRH scores of the elderly was 72.49 ± 15.64 (on a 1-100 scale). The SRH scores declined not only with the severity of self-reported mental/disease status, but also with the decrease of physical functional status. Multiple linear regression showed that after adjustment for other variables, 2-week sickness, chronic diseases, hospitalization, and ability of self-care (washing and dressing) were able to explain 35% of the variation in SRH among the elderly. Among them, disease status and self-care ability were the most powerful predictor of SRH. After adjusting other variables, physical functional status could explain only 5% of the variation in SRH.ConclusionSelf-rated health reflects the disease/functional health status of the elderly. It is an easy-to-implement variable and it can reduce both recall bias and investigator bias, thus being widely used in health surveys. It is a cost-effective means of measuring the health status. However, the comparability of SRH in different populations should be studied in future.

Project description:BackgroundClinicians and healthcare staff report high levels of burnout. Two common burnout assessments are the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) and a single-item, self-defined burnout measure. Relatively little is known about how the measures compare.ObjectiveTo identify the sensitivity, specificity, and concurrent validity of the self-defined burnout measure compared to the more established MBI measure.DesignCross-sectional survey (November 2016-January 2017).ParticipantsFour hundred forty-four primary care clinicians and 606 staff from three San Francisco Aarea healthcare systems.Main measuresThe MBI measure, calculated from a high score on either the emotional exhaustion or cynicism subscale, and a single-item measure of self-defined burnout. Concurrent validity was assessed using a validated, 7-item team culture scale as reported by Willard-Grace et al. (J Am Board Fam Med 27(2):229-38, 2014) and a standard question about workplace atmosphere as reported by Rassolian et al. (JAMA Intern Med 177(7):1036-8, 2017) and Linzer et al. (Ann Intern Med 151(1):28-36, 2009).Key resultsSimilar to other nationally representative burnout estimates, 52% of clinicians (95% CI: 47-57%) and 46% of staff (95% CI: 42-50%) reported high MBI emotional exhaustion or high MBI cynicism. In contrast, 29% of clinicians (95% CI: 25-33%) and 31% of staff (95% CI: 28-35%) reported "definitely burning out" or more severe symptoms on the self-defined burnout measure. The self-defined measure's sensitivity to correctly identify MBI-assessed burnout was 50.4% for clinicians and 58.6% for staff; specificity was 94.7% for clinicians and 92.3% for staff. Area under the receiver operator curve was 0.82 for clinicians and 0.81 for staff. Team culture and atmosphere were significantly associated with both self-defined burnout and the MBI, confirming concurrent validity.ConclusionsPoint estimates of burnout notably differ between the self-defined and MBI measures. Compared to the MBI, the self-defined burnout measure misses half of high-burnout clinicians and more than 40% of high-burnout staff. The self-defined burnout measure has a low response burden, is free to administer, and yields similar associations across two burnout predictors from prior studies. However, the self-defined burnout and MBI measures are not interchangeable.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The improving efficacy of cancer treatment has resulted in an increasing array of treatment-related symptoms and associated burdens imposed on individuals undergoing aggressive treatment of their disease. Often, clinical trials compare therapies that have different types, and severities, of adverse effects. Whether rated by clinicians or patients themselves, it can be difficult to know which side effect profile is more disruptive or bothersome to patients. A simple summary index of bother can help to adjudicate the variability in adverse effects across treatments being compared with each other. METHODS:Across 4 studies, a total of 5765 patients enrolled in cooperative group studies and industry-sponsored clinical trials were the subjects of the current study. Patients were diagnosed with a range of primary cancer sites, including bladder, brain, breast, colon/rectum, head/neck, hepatobiliary, kidney, lung, ovary, pancreas, and prostate as well as leukemia and lymphoma. All patients were administered the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General version (FACT-G). The single item "I am bothered by side effects of treatment" (GP5), rated on a 5-point Likert scale, is part of the FACT-G. To determine its validity as a useful summary measure from the patient perspective, it was correlated with individual and aggregated clinician-rated adverse events and patient reports of their general ability to enjoy life. RESULTS:Analyses of pharmaceutical trials demonstrated that mean GP5 scores ("I am bothered by side effects of treatment") significantly differed by maximum adverse event grade (P<.001) in all trials, with a clear trend toward increasing GP5 scores with level of increasing adverse event grade. Effect sizes ranged from 0.13 to 0.46. Analyses of cooperative group trials demonstrated a significant correlation between GP5 and item GF3 ("I am able to enjoy life") in the predicted direction. CONCLUSIONS:The single FACT-G item "I am bothered by side effects of treatment" is significantly associated with clinician-reported adverse events and with patients' ability to enjoy their lives. It has promise as an overall summary measure of the burden of a given set of treatment toxicities compared with another. Future research can identify the contribution of individual side effects compared with one another in terms of how each may contribute to overall bother. Cancer 2018;124:991-7. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Project description:Background Validity is the ability of an instrument to measure what it claims to measure. It means the degree to which the empirical evidence supports the trustworthiness of interpretations based on the calculated scores. The hematological malignancy (HM) specific patient reported outcome measure (HM-PRO), is a newly developed instrument for use in daily clinical practice as well as in research. This study, provides the evidence for construct validity of the HM-PRO, specifically focusing on the convergent and divergent validity compared to the other established instruments used in hematology. Methods This validation study adopted a prospective cross-sectional design where a heterogeneous group of patients diagnosed with different HMs and different disease state were recruited. A total of 905 patients were recruited from seven secondary care hospitals in the UK and online through five patient organizations. Patients were asked to complete the HM-PRO and other cancer specific PRO’s, FACT-G and EORTC QLQ C-30. Data analysis was performed using IBM SPSS 23 statistical software. Results A total of 486 males (53.7%) and 419 females (46.3%), with a mean age of 64.3 (± 12.4) years and mean time since diagnosis of 4.6 ( ± 5.2) were recruited. The total score of Part A of the HM-PRO highly correlated with the five functional scales of the EORTC QLQ-C30 (Physical = ?0.71, Role = ?0.72, Emotional = ?0.64, Cognitive = ?0.58, Social = ?0.74—p < 0.001). With respect to correlation with FACT-G, the total score of Part A of the HM-PRO highly correlated with Physical (?0.74), Emotional (?0.57), Functional (?0.66) domains and overall score of FACT-G (?0.74). Similarly, the total score of Part B of the HM-PRO highly correlated with three symptoms scales of EORTC QLQ-C30 (Fatigue scale = ?0.74, Nausea and Vomiting = ?0.52, Pain = ?0.59—p < 0.001) and individual symptom items (Dyspnea = 0.51, Insomnia= 0.43, Appetite loss = 0.54—p < 0.001). Conclusion The construct validity evidence presented in this research is a testimony to the HM-PRO’s ability to measure HRQoL issues which it intends to measure. This is of utmost importance when a PRO is used in routine clinical practice so that the interpretation of the scores or response to an individual item is understood by the clinicians/nurses as intended by the patients.