Andresen E M, Patrick D L, Carter W B, Malmgren J A
Department of Community and Preventive Medicine University of Rochester Medical Center, New York 14642, USA.
J Am Geriatr Soc. 1995 Sep;43(9):1030-4. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1995.tb05569.x.
The specific goals of the study were to compare three health status measures among older adults for their correlations with similar scales and to examine whether extreme (positive) health states might lead to measurement problems. We also report on practical administration and response problems among older adults.
Eligible and randomly selected health plan enrollees aged 65 and older were sent a baseline survey about their health. A random sample of persons who returned this survey was recruited to participate in the comparative study. Additional questionnaires were completed by mail and telephone interviews. Measures were repeated at a 1-year follow-up mailing.
This study was conducted at Group Health Co-operative (GHC) of Puget Sound, a large prepaid health maintenance organization.
Subjects were 200 of the 283 older adults selected (68.2% response). Mean age was 72.5 years.
The primary measures were the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP), the Quality of Well-being Scale (QWB), and three scales of the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36 (SF-36). Also included were a stress scale, the Positive Affect Scale, and the Chronic Disease Score (CDS) computed from the automated pharmacy data.
SIP scores showed a very strong skew toward low (good health) scores with a mean of 3.4% (+/- SD 4.4). The QWB scores ranged from .50 to .90 (mean .73 +/- .09). For the MOS SF-36 scales, scores of 100 (good health) were common for both of the physical health scales but not for general health. Analyses showed the SIP, QWB, and MOS SF-36 scales were moderately to strongly correlated with similar measurement scales and with the independent measure of chronic disease and psychosocial health. Scales repeated at 1 year were highly correlated: intraclass correlation coefficients between baseline and 1 year ranged from an r = .51 to .73.
Our results suggest that the SIP is not a useful tool for rating healthy, community-dwelling older adults. Two MOS SF-36 measures used in this study showed some tendency for "ceiling" measurement effects. The QWB demonstrated an acceptable distribution of scale scores; however, it is the most complex of the three measures to administer. Among the broad range of older adults, no one tool appears to apply to every situation.
本研究的具体目标是比较老年人的三种健康状况测量指标与类似量表的相关性,并检验极端(积极)健康状态是否会导致测量问题。我们还报告了老年人在实际管理和应答方面的问题。
符合条件且随机选取的65岁及以上健康计划参保者收到了一份关于其健康状况的基线调查问卷。对回复此调查问卷的人员进行随机抽样,招募其参与比较研究。通过邮寄和电话访谈完成了额外的问卷调查。在1年随访邮寄时重复进行测量。
本研究在普吉特海湾集团健康合作社(GHC)进行,该合作社是一家大型预付健康维护组织。
选取的283名老年人中有200名参与研究(应答率为68.2%)。平均年龄为72.5岁。
主要测量指标为疾病影响量表(SIP)、幸福感量表(QWB)以及医学结局研究简明健康调查问卷(SF-36)的三个分量表。还包括一个压力量表、积极情感量表以及根据自动药房数据计算得出的慢性病评分(CDS)。
SIP得分呈现出强烈的向低分(健康状况良好)倾斜的趋势,平均分为3.4%(标准差为4.4)。QWB得分范围为0.50至0.90(平均为0.73±0.09)。对于MOS SF-36分量表,两个身体健康分量表中得分为100(健康状况良好)的情况较为常见,但总体健康分量表并非如此。分析表明,SIP、QWB和MOS SF-36量表与类似测量量表以及慢性病和心理社会健康的独立测量指标中度至高度相关。1年时重复测量的量表高度相关:基线和1年之间的组内相关系数范围为r = 0.51至0.73。
我们的结果表明,SIP并非评估健康的社区居住老年人的有用工具。本研究中使用的两个MOS SF-36测量指标显示出一些“天花板”测量效应的趋势。QWB量表得分分布可接受;然而,它是三种测量指标中最难管理的。在广泛的老年人中,似乎没有一种工具适用于所有情况。