• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

两种健康指标缩放模型的比较。

A comparison of two models for scaling health indicators.

作者信息

Kind P

出版信息

Int J Epidemiol. 1982 Sep;11(3):271-5. doi: 10.1093/ije/11.3.271.

DOI:10.1093/ije/11.3.271
PMID:7129741
Abstract

The measurement properties of a health status indicator are closely related to the scaling model on which it is based. The Thurstone and Bradley-Terry models are applied to paired comparisons data which had been used to scale the sleep category of the Nottingham Health Profile. The data in their original form are shown to be inadequately represented by either model. Weaknesses in the data are identified and the two scaling models are applied to the amended data. The results of applying two sets of scale values are compared.

摘要

健康状况指标的测量属性与其所基于的量表模型密切相关。瑟斯顿模型和布拉德利 - 特里模型被应用于成对比较数据,这些数据曾用于对诺丁汉健康概况的睡眠类别进行量表编制。结果表明,这两种模型均无法充分呈现原始形式的数据。研究识别出数据中的弱点,并将这两种量表模型应用于修正后的数据。同时,对应用两组量表值的结果进行了比较。

相似文献

1
A comparison of two models for scaling health indicators.两种健康指标缩放模型的比较。
Int J Epidemiol. 1982 Sep;11(3):271-5. doi: 10.1093/ije/11.3.271.
2
Validation of an interval scaling: the sickness impact profile.区间量表的验证:疾病影响量表
Health Serv Res. 1976 Winter;11(4):516-28.
3
"Counterintuitive" preferences in health-related quality-of-life measurement.健康相关生活质量测量中的“反直觉”偏好。
Med Care. 1982 May;20(5):516-25. doi: 10.1097/00005650-198205000-00008.
4
Content comparison of 115 health status measures in sleep medicine using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) as a reference.115 种睡眠医学健康状况测量指标的内容比较,以《国际功能、残疾和健康分类》(ICF)为参考。
Sleep Med Rev. 2011 Feb;15(1):33-40. doi: 10.1016/j.smrv.2010.07.001.
5
Why are we weighting? A critical examination of the use of item weights in a health status measure.我们为何要加权?对健康状况测量中项目权重使用的批判性审视。
Soc Sci Med. 1991;32(12):1413-6. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(91)90202-n.
6
Developing multiattribute health indexes.开发多属性健康指数。
Med Care. 1984 Nov;22(11):1045-57. doi: 10.1097/00005650-198411000-00007.
7
A new approach to selection and weighting of items in evaluative composite measurement scales.评估性复合测量量表中项目选择与加权的新方法。
Stat Med. 1995 Dec 15;14(23):2565-80. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780142306.
8
Weighting the seriousness of perceived health problems using Thurstone's method of paired comparisons.使用瑟斯顿配对比较法权衡感知到的健康问题的严重性。
Int J Epidemiol. 1981 Mar;10(1):93-7. doi: 10.1093/ije/10.1.93.
9
Light on population health status.关于人群健康状况的信息。
Bull World Health Organ. 1999;77(2):176-80.
10
Influence of age and gender on reference values for common pediatric sleep questionnaires: Results from a community-based study.年龄和性别对常见儿科睡眠问卷参考值的影响:一项基于社区研究的结果。
Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2018 Jun;109:127-132. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2018.04.004. Epub 2018 Apr 9.

引用本文的文献

1
Head-to-head comparison of health-state values derived by a probabilistic choice model and scores on a visual analogue scale.概率选择模型得出的健康状态值与视觉模拟评分的头对头比较。
Eur J Health Econ. 2017 Nov;18(8):967-977. doi: 10.1007/s10198-016-0841-y. Epub 2016 Nov 2.
2
Multinational evidence of the applicability and robustness of discrete choice modeling for deriving EQ-5D-5L health-state values.离散选择模型在推导EQ-5D-5L健康状态值方面适用性和稳健性的多国证据。
Med Care. 2014 Nov;52(11):935-43. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000178.
3
Using surveys to calculate disability-adjusted life-years.
使用调查来计算伤残调整生命年。
Alcohol Res. 2013;35(2):128-33.
4
A generalized measurement model to quantify health: the multi-attribute preference response model.一种用于量化健康状况的广义测量模型:多属性偏好响应模型。
PLoS One. 2013 Nov 21;8(11):e79494. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0079494. eCollection 2013.
5
Comparison of health state utility values derived using time trade-off, rank and discrete choice data anchored on the full health-dead scale.基于完整健康-死亡量表的时间权衡、排序和离散选择数据得出的健康状态效用值的比较。
Eur J Health Econ. 2012 Oct;13(5):575-87. doi: 10.1007/s10198-011-0352-9. Epub 2011 Sep 30.
6
Keep it simple: ranking health states yields values similar to cardinal measurement approaches.保持简单:对健康状态进行排序所产生的值类似于基数测量方法。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Mar;62(3):296-305. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.07.002. Epub 2008 Oct 21.
7
Exploring health preferences in sociodemographic and health related groups through the paired comparison of the items of the Nottingham health profile.通过诺丁汉健康量表项目的配对比较,探索社会人口统计学和健康相关群体中的健康偏好。
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2000 Jul;54(7):537-43. doi: 10.1136/jech.54.7.537.
8
The Spanish version of the Nottingham Health Profile: a review of adaptation and instrument characteristics.《诺丁汉健康量表》西班牙语版本:改编及工具特性综述
Qual Life Res. 1994 Dec;3(6):385-93. doi: 10.1007/BF00435390.