Essink-Bot M L, Krabbe P F, van Agt H M, Bonsel G J
Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Qual Life Res. 1996 Feb;5(1):91-100. doi: 10.1007/BF00435973.
In this study we compared the feasibility, internal structure and psychometric characteristics (internal consistency, test-retest reliability, construct validity) of two widely used generic health status measures, i.e. the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) and the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP) when employed among a sample of patients on renal dialysis (n = 63). The NHP was found to be more feasible, i.e. shorter and less difficult, than the SIP. The NHP scales showed somewhat higher levels of internal consistency (mean alpha = 0.67, range = 0.39-0.80) than the SIP scales (mean alpha = 0.65, range = 0.14-0.82). Test-retest reliability with a 24-hour interval was acceptable for most NHP scales (not available for the SIP in this study). Intercorrelations between the NHP scales were somewhat weaker than those for the SIP, and the expected patterns of scale intercorrelations were largely confirmed. The overall pattern of correlations between NHP scales and SIP scales was consistent with expectations, although the correlations were generally rather weak. Correlations between NHP scales and SIP scales and instruments measuring mainly physical functioning (ADL, Karnofsky) were largely as expected. Similarly, correlations between NHP scales and SIP scales and instruments measuring mainly psychological functioning [STAI (anxiety), SDS-Zung (depression)] were also as expected, although here the correlations were weaker for the SIP when compared with the NHP. The Index of Well-being exhibited intra-class correlations > 0.3 with one SIP scale and with five out of six NHP scales. Common factor analysis, yielding a two-factor solution with a physical and a mental factor of equal importance, showed the SIP scales to load more on the physical factor, while the NHP scales loaded more on the mental factor. The NHP generally performed better than the SIP in terms of feasibility and internal consistency. Physical functioning is emphasized in the SIP, whereas the emphasis of the NHP lies on mental functioning. The analysis confirmed to some extent the intentions of the constructors of NHP and SIP respectively, i.e. the NHP to be a measure of perceived health and the SIP to be a more functional measure.
在本研究中，我们比较了两种广泛使用的一般健康状况测量工具，即诺丁汉健康量表（NHP）和疾病影响量表（SIP），在一组接受肾透析的患者样本（n = 63）中使用时的可行性、内部结构和心理测量学特征（内部一致性、重测信度、结构效度）。结果发现，NHP比SIP更具可行性，即更简短且难度更低。NHP量表的内部一致性水平（平均α = 0.67，范围 = 0.39 - 0.80）略高于SIP量表（平均α = 0.65，范围 = 0.14 - 0.82）。对于大多数NHP量表，24小时间隔的重测信度是可以接受的（本研究中SIP无此数据）。NHP量表之间的相互关联比SIP量表之间的相互关联稍弱，并且量表相互关联的预期模式在很大程度上得到了证实。NHP量表和SIP量表之间的总体相关模式与预期一致，尽管相关性通常较弱。NHP量表和SIP量表与主要测量身体功能的工具（日常生活活动能力、卡氏评分）之间的相关性在很大程度上符合预期。同样，NHP量表和SIP量表与主要测量心理功能的工具[状态 - 特质焦虑量表（焦虑）、zung氏抑郁自评量表（抑郁）]之间的相关性也符合预期，尽管与NHP相比，SIP在此处的相关性较弱。幸福感指数与一个SIP量表以及六个NHP量表中的五个量表的组内相关性> 0.3。共同因素分析得出一个双因素解决方案，其中身体因素和心理因素同等重要，结果显示SIP量表在身体因素上的载荷更大，而NHP量表在心理因素上的载荷更大。在可行性和内部一致性方面，NHP总体上比SIP表现更好。SIP强调身体功能，而NHP强调心理功能。该分析在一定程度上证实了NHP和SIP构建者各自的意图，即NHP作为一种感知健康的测量工具，而SIP作为一种更具功能性的测量工具。
