Department of Sociology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2H4, Canada.
School of Health Policy and Management, Faculty of Health, York University, Toronto, ON, M3J 1P3, Canada.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2024 Nov 11;24(1):274. doi: 10.1186/s12874-024-02387-z.
The SF-8™ Short Form Health Survey creates physical and mental health scale scores from responses to eight survey questions. These widely used scales demonstrate reasonable reliablity, and some forms of validity but have not been assessed for fusion validity. We assess the fusion validity of the SF-8 physical and mental health scales, and provide comments assisting fusion validity assessment of other scales.
Checking the fusion validity of a scale requires including the scale and its constituent indicators in a structural equation model that has at least one variable causally downstream from the scale. We assessed fusion validity of the SF-8 physical and mental health scales in the context of work-related variables for care aides working in Canadian long-term care homes. Variables causally downstream from physical and mental health, such as work burnout, permit checking whether the SF-8 indicator items fuse to form cogent physical and mental scales, irrespective of whether those indicators share common-factor foundations.
We found that the SF-8 physical and mental health scales did not function appropriately. The scales inappropriately claimed effects for several items that had no effects and provided biased estimates of other effects. These deficiencies seem grounded in the scales' developmental history, which implicitly bolstered selection of some causally ambiguous items and paid insufficient attention to component factor model testing.
Our observations of causal incongruities question whether the SF-8 can provide valid assessments of physical and mental health. However, it would be imprudent to discontinue SF-8 use on the basis of a single study suggesting invalidity. This uncomfortable conclusion can be rechecked by re-analyzing data from any project that employed the SF-8 and recorded even one causal consequence of physical or mental health. The power of fusion validity assessment comes from connecting the recorded consequences simultaneously to both the scale and the items from which that scale is calculated.
SF-8™ 简短健康调查从对八个调查问题的回答中创建身体和心理健康量表分数。这些广泛使用的量表具有合理的可靠性,并且具有某些形式的有效性,但尚未评估融合有效性。我们评估了 SF-8 身体和心理健康量表的融合有效性,并提供了有助于评估其他量表融合有效性的评论。
检查量表的融合有效性需要将量表及其组成指标包含在结构方程模型中,该模型至少有一个变量从量表向下游因果关系。我们在加拿大长期护理院的护理助理的工作相关变量背景下评估了 SF-8 身体和心理健康量表的融合有效性。身体和心理健康的下游变量,例如工作倦怠,可以检查 SF-8 指标项目是否融合形成有说服力的身体和心理健康量表,而不论这些指标是否具有共同的因素基础。
我们发现 SF-8 身体和心理健康量表的功能不正常。这些量表不适当地声称对几个没有影响的项目有影响,并对其他影响的估计产生偏差。这些缺陷似乎源于量表的发展历史,该历史隐含地支持了一些因果关系模糊的项目的选择,而对组件因素模型测试的关注不足。
我们观察到因果关系不一致,这使人们对 SF-8 是否可以提供身体和心理健康的有效评估产生了疑问。但是,仅基于一项表明无效性的研究就停止使用 SF-8 是不明智的。通过重新分析使用 SF-8 并记录身体或心理健康的任何因果后果的任何项目的数据,可以重新检查这种不舒服的结论。融合有效性评估的力量来自于将记录的后果同时与量表及其计算出的项目联系起来。