Dataset Information

The Swedish RAND-36: psychometric characteristics and reference data from the Mid-Swed Health Survey.

ABSTRACT:

Background

This study aims to evaluate data quality, scaling properties, and reliability of the Swedish RAND-36 in a general population sample and to present reference data for the Swedish population.

Methods

Testing of data quality, scaling assumptions and reliability followed methods recommended for the International Quality of Life Assessment Project, previously used for psychometric testing of SF-36 and RAND-36. Data were collected via regular mail for a random stratified sample of the general population in a Swedish county. Weighted means for RAND-36 scores were used and differences by sex, age, education, and occupational groups were tested.

Results

The response rate was 42%, and the sample comprised 3432 persons (45% men, 55% women) with a median age of 56.9 years. The internal consistency reliability was satisfactory, with Cronbach's alphas > 0.80 for all eight scales. The percentage of missing items was low, ranging between 1.3% and 3.2%. No floor effects (≥15%) were noted, while ceiling effects were observed for physical functioning, role-functioning/physical, pain, role-functioning/emotional, and social functioning. Item-scale correlations were satisfactory (r ≥ 0.40). Correlations among the physical health scales were strong (range 0.58-0.68) as were the correlations among the mental health scales (range 0.58-0.73). Men reported significantly better health-related quality of life (HRQoL) on all scales, although the gender differences were small. Comparisons among age groups showed approximately equal scores among those 20-29, 30-39, and 40-49 years, while significant decreases in physical health were observed in the older age groups. Substantially worse physical health scores were observed in the oldest age group (80+). Significant differences among age groups were noted also for the mental health scales; however, better energy/fatigue and emotional well-being scores were seen in the older age groups, except for the oldest (80+). Those with university education reported significantly better scores on all scales compared to those with mandatory education.

Conclusions

The study suggests that the Swedish version of RAND-36 is an acceptable and reliable instrument for measuring HRQoL in the general population. The study provides reference data that can be used for norm-based comparisons.

SUBMITTER: Ohlsson-Nevo E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8339183 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe translated and culturally adapted German version of the Veterans Rand 36 Items Health Survey (VR-36), and its short form, the VR-12 counterpart, were validated in a German sample of orthopedic (n = 399) and psychosomatic (n = 292) inpatient rehabilitation patients.MethodsThe instruments were analyzed regarding their acceptance, distributional properties, validity, responsiveness and ability to discriminate between groups by age, sex and clinically specific groups. Eligible study participants completed the VR-36 (n = 169) and the VR-12 (n = 177). They also completed validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) including the Euroqol-5 Dimensions 5 Level (EQ-5D-5L); Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS); Hannover Functional Abilities Questionnaire (HFAQ); and CDC Healthy Days. The VR-12 and the VR-36 were compared to the reference instruments MOS Short Form-12 Items Health Survey (SF-12) version 1.0 and MOS Short Form-36 Items Health Survey (SF-36) version 1.0, using percent of completed items, distributional properties, correlation patterns, distribution measures of known groups validity, and effect size measures.ResultsItem non-response varied between 1.8%/1.1% (SFVR-36/RESF-36) and 6.5%/8.6% (GHVR-36/GHSF-36). PCS was normally distributed (Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests: p > 0.05) with means, standard deviations and ranges very similar between SF-36 (37.5 ± 11.7 [13.8-66.1]) and VR-36 (38.5 ± 10.1 [11.7-67.8]), SF-12 (36.9 ± 10.9 [15.5-61.6]) and VR-12 (36.2 ± 11.5 [12.7-59.3]). MCS was not normally distributed with slightly differing means and ranges between the instruments (MCSVR-36: 36.2 ± 14.2 [12.9-66.6], MCSSF-36: 39.0 ± 15.6 [2.0-73.2], MCSVR-12: 37.2 ± 13.8 [8.4-70.2], MCSSF-12: 39.0 ± 12.3 [17.6-65.4]). Construct validity was established by comparing correlation patterns of the MCSVR and PCSVR with measures of physical and mental health. For both PCSVR and MCSVR there were moderate (≥ 0.3) to high (≥ 0.5) correlations with convergent (PCSVR: 0.55-0.76, MCSVR: 0.60-0.78) and small correlations (< 0.1) with divergent (PCSVR: < 0.12, MCSVR: < 0.16) self-report measures. Known-groups validity was demonstrated for both VR-12 and VR-36 (MCS and PCS) via comparisons of distribution parameters with significant higher mean PCS and MCS scores in both VR instruments found in younger patients with fewer sick days in the last year and a shorter duration of rehabilitation.ConclusionsThe psychometric analysis confirmed that the German VR is a valid and reliable instrument for use in orthopedic and psychosomatic rehabilitation. Yet further research is needed to evaluate its usefulness in other populations.

Project description:BackgroundA Swedish version of the USA Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality "Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture" (S-HSOPSC) was developed to be used in both hospitals and primary care. Two new dimensions with two and four questions each were added as well as one outcome measure. This paper describes this Swedish version and an assessment of its psychometric properties which were tested on a large sample of responses from personnel in both hospital and primary care.MethodsThe questionnaire was mainly administered in web form and 84215 forms were returned (response rate 60%) between 2009 and 2011. Eleven per cent of the responses came from primary care workers and 46% from hospital care workers. The psychometric properties were analyzed using both the total sample and the hospital and primary care subsamples by assessment of construct validity and internal consistency. Construct validity was assessed by confirmatory (CFA) and exploratory factor (EFA) analyses and internal consistency was established by Cronbachs's ?.ResultsCFA of the total, hospital and primary care samples generally showed a good fit while the EFA pointed towards a 9-factor model in all samples instead of the 14-dimension S-HSOPSC instrument. Internal consistency was acceptable with Cronbach's ? values above 0.7 in a major part of the dimensions.ConclusionsThe S-HSOPSC, consisting of 14 dimensions, 48 items and 3 single-item outcome measures, is used both in hospitals and in primary care settings in Sweden for different purposes. This version of the original American instrument has acceptable construct validity and internal consistency when tested on large datasets of first-time responders from both hospitals and primary care centres. One common instrument for measurements of patient safety culture in both hospitals and primary care settings is an advantage since it enables comparisons between sectors and assessments of national patient safety improvement programs. Future research into this version of the instrument includes comparing results from patient safety culture measurements with other outcomes in relation to safety improvement strategies.