Keller S D, Ware J E, Gandek B, Aaronson N K, Alonso J, Apolone G, Bjorner J B, Brazier J, Bullinger M, Fukuhara S, Kaasa S, Leplège A, Sanson-Fisher R W, Sullivan M, Wood-Dauphinee S
Health Assessment Lab at the Health Institute, New England Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02111, USA.
J Clin Epidemiol. 1998 Nov;51(11):933-44. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00084-5.
The similarity in meaning assigned to response choice labels from the SF-36 Health Survey (SF-36) was evaluated across countries. Convenience samples of judges (range, 10 to 117; median = 48) from 13 countries rated translations of response choice labels, using a variation of the Thurstone method of equal appearing intervals. Judges marked a point on a 10-cm line-representing the magnitude of a response choice label (e.g., "good" relative to the anchors of "poor" and "excellent"). Ratings were evaluated to determine the ordinal consistency of response choice labels within a response scale; the degree to which differences between adjacent response choice labels were equal interval; and the amount of variance due to response choice label, country, judge, and interaction between response choice label and country. Results confirmed the hypothesized ordering of response choice labels; the percentage of ordinal pairs ranged from 88.7% to 100% (median = 98.2%) across countries and response scales. Examination of the average magnitudes of response choice labels supported the "quasi-interval" nature of the scales. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) results supported the generalizability of response choice magnitudes across countries; labels explained 64% to 77% of the variance in ratings, and country explained 1% to 3%. These results support the equivalence of SF-36 response choice labels across countries. Departures from the assumption of equal intervals, when observed, were similar across countries and were greatest for the two response scales that are recalibrated under standard SF-36 scoring. Results provide justification for scoring translations of individual items using standard SF-36 scoring; whether these items form the same scales in other countries as they do in the United States is evaluated with tests of scaling assumptions.
对来自不同国家的 SF - 36 健康调查（SF - 36）中反应选项标签所赋予含义的相似性进行了评估。来自 13 个国家的评判员便利样本（范围为 10 至 117；中位数 = 48）使用瑟斯顿等距呈现法的一种变体对反应选项标签的翻译进行评分。评判员在一条 10 厘米长的线上标记一个点，该线代表反应选项标签的强度（例如，相对于“差”和“优”的锚点，“好”的强度）。对评分进行评估以确定反应量表内反应选项标签的顺序一致性；相邻反应选项标签之间的差异为等距的程度；以及由于反应选项标签、国家、评判员以及反应选项标签与国家之间的相互作用导致的方差量。结果证实了反应选项标签的假设排序；各国和各反应量表的有序对百分比范围为 88.7%至 100%（中位数 = 98.2%）。对反应选项标签平均强度的检查支持了量表的“准区间”性质。方差分析（ANOVA）结果支持反应选项强度在各国的可推广性；标签解释了评分中方差的 64%至 77%，国家解释了 1%至 3%。这些结果支持了 SF - 36 反应选项标签在各国的等效性。当观察到偏离等距假设的情况时，各国情况相似，并且在按照标准 SF - 36 评分重新校准的两个反应量表中最为明显。结果为使用标准 SF - 36 评分对单个项目的翻译进行评分提供了依据；这些项目在其他国家是否与在美国形成相同的量表，通过量表假设检验进行评估。
