Abstract
The reliability and validity of the RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0 were investigated in a population sample of 1,063 inhabitants of a Dutch township, all age 17or older. Confirmatory factor analysisonly partly supported the internal structure of the RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0. The internal consistency of the instrument was high. Pointing to high convergent validity, a multitrait-multimelhod matrix revealed that the RAND-36 scales showed higher correlations with corresponding scales from other instruments than with noncorresponding scales. However, indicating low discriminant validity, some of these correlations did not exceed the intercorrelations among the RAND-36 scales. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) showed significant effects of age for physical functioning, role limitations (physical problem), general health perception and pain, and significant effects of education on physical functioning and general health perception. Significant sex differences were found for mental health only. The results of this study on the psychometric properties of the RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0 seem promising. There is a need for further studies investigating its factor structure and cross-cultural equivalence.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aaronson, N. K., Acquadro, C., Alonso, J., Apolone, G., Buequet, D., Builinger, M., Bungay, K., Fukuhara, B., Gandek, B., Keller, S., Razavi, D., Sanson-Fisher, R., Sullivan, M., Wood-Dauphinec, S., Wagner, A., & Ware, J. E. (1992). International Quality of Life Assessment (lQOLA) project: Special communication. Quality of Life Research, 1, 349–351.
Anderson, J. S. C. Sullivan, F., & Usherwood, T. P. (1990). The Medical Outcome Study Instrument (MOSI)—Use of a new health status measure in Britain. Family practice, 7, 205–218.
Bouma, J., Ranchor, A. V., & Sanderman, R. (1993). Social class and health differences. An empirical study into the relationship between well-being, depression, perceived health, chronic diseases and social class. In A. V. Ranchor, J. Bouma, & R. Sandernan (Eds.), Socical Economische Status en her myorardinfarct: Verslag ten behoeve van de Programmacommissie Sociecl Economische Gezondheidsverschillen (SEGV) [Socioeconomic status and myocardial infarction]. Groningen, The Netherlands: Noordelijk Centrum voor Gezondhcidsvraagstukken.
Brazier, J. E., Harper, R., Jones, N. M. B., Cathain, A., Thomas, K. J., Usherwood, T., & Westlaks, L. (1992). Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: New outcomes measure for primary care. British Medical Journal, 305, 160–164.
Brook, R. J., Ware, J. E., Davies-Avery, A., Stewart, A. L., Donald, C. A., Rogers, W. H., Williams, K. N., & Johnston, S. A. (1979). Overview of adult heallh status measures fielded in RAND’s Health Insurance Study. Medical Cure, 15, 724–735.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod-matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 546–553.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). Hypochondriasis, neuroticism. and aging: When.are somatic complaints unfounded? American Psychologist, 40, 19–28.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1987) Personality assessment in psychosomatic medicine. Value of a trait taxonomy. Advances in Psychosomatic Medicine, 17, 71–82.
DeBakker, D. H., Claesens, A. A. M. C. & Van der Velden, J. (1992). Man-vrouw verschillen in gezondheid en medische consumptie. Nutionale studie van ziekten en verrichtingen in de hwsartsenpraktijk [Sex-differences in health and in the use of Heallh Services. A national study of diseases and operations in general practice]. Utrecht. The Netherlands: NIVEL.
Essink-Bot, M. L.,& Ruttcn-VanMölken, M. P. M. H. (1991). Het meten van de gezondheidsistoestand: invenrarisatie van meetinstrumemen voor medical technology assessment [The measurement of health status: An overview of measures for medical technology assessment]. Rotterdam/Maastricht: Institute of Community Health Care/Institute of Medical Technology Assessment. Erasmus University Rotterdam/University of Limhurg.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual for the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. San Diego, CA: Education and Industrial Testing Services.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1991). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Scales (EPS Adult). London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Garait, A. M., Ruta, D. A.,Abdalla, M. I., Buckingham, J. K.,& Russell, L. T. (1993). The SF-36 health survey questionnaire. An outcome measure suitable for routline use within the NHS? British Medical Journal, 306, 1440–1443.
Hays, R. D., & Hayaski, T. (1990). Beyond internal consistency reliability: Rationale and user’s guide for Munnrail Scaling Analysis Program on the microcomputer. Behavior Research Methods. Instruments and Computers, 22, 167–175.
Hunt, S., McKenna, S. P., & McEwen, J. (1989). The Nottingham Health Profile user’s manual, Manchester, England: Galen Research & Consultancy.
Jenkinson, C., Coulter, A., & Wright, L. (1993). Short form (SF-36) health survey questionnaire. Normative data for adults in working age. British Medical Journal, 306, 1437–1440.
Kiers, H. A. L. (1990). SCA: A program for simultaneous components analysis of variables measured in two or more populations. Groningen, The Netherlands: Progamma.
König-Zahn, C., Furer, J., & Tax, B. (1991) Interimrapport project gezondtieidsmeting [Interim report of a health assessment project]. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Institute of Social Medicine, University of Nijmegen.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1986). Personality, coping, and coping effectiveness in an adult sample. Journal of Personality, 54, 385–405.
McDermott, W. (1981). Absence of indicators of the influence of physicians on a society’s health. American Journal of Medicine, 7, 833–843.
McHorney, C. A., Ware, J. E., Lu, J. F. R., & Sherbourne, C. D. (.1994). The MOS 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36). III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions and reliability across diverse palient groups. Medical Care, 32, 40–66.
McHorney, C. A., Ware, J. E., & Raczek, A. E. (1993). The MOS 36-Item Short Form Heallh Status Survey (SF-36). II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Medical Care, 31, 247–263.
McHorney, C. A., Ware, J. E., Rogers, W., Raczek, A. E., & Lu, J. F.(1992). The validity and relative precision of MOS short- and long-form health status scales and Dartmouth COOP charts: Results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Medical Care, 30, MS2S3-MS265.
Nelson, E. C., Landgraf, J. M., Hays, R. D., Wasson, J. H., & Kirk, J. W. (1990). The functional status of patients: How can it be measured in physicians offices? Medical Care, 28, 1111–1126.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill
RAND Health Sciences Program. (1992). RAND 36-item health survey 1.0. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Sanderman, R., Eysenck, S. B. G., & Arrindell, W. A. (1991). Cross-cultural comparisons of personality: The Netherlands and England. Psychoiogical Reports, 69, 1091–1096.
Scholten, J. H. C., & VanWeel, C. (1992). Functional status assessment in family practice: The Dartmouth COOP Functional Health Assessment Charts/WONCA. Lelystad. The Netherlands: Meditekst.
Sherbourne, C. D., & Meredith, L. S. (1992). Quality of self-report data: A comparison of older and younger chronically ill patients. Journal of Gerontology, 47, S204-S211.
Stewart, A. L., Hays, R. D., & Ware, J. E (1988). The MOS Short form general health survey. Medical Care, 26, 724–735.
Ten Berge, J. M. F., & Sicro, F. W. (1994). Factornnalyse [Factor analysis]. In A. Knippenberg & F. W. Siero (Eds.). Multivariate Analyse. Beknopte inleiding en toepassingen [Multivariate analysis Introduction and Applications], (pp. 53–82) Houten, The Netherlands: Bohn Staflen & van Loghum.
VanderZee, K. L., & Sanderman, R. (1994). Het meten van de algemeng gezondheidsutestand met de RAND-36. Een handleiding [Measuring general health Status with the RAND-36. Users Manual] Groningen, The Netherlands: Northern Center of Health Care Research.
VanderZee, K. L. Sanderman, R.,& Heyink, J. (1996). A comparison of two multidimensional measures of health status: The Nottingham Health Profile and the RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0. Quality of Life Research, 5, 165–174.
VanWeel, C., König-Zahn, C., Touw-Otten, F. W. M. M., VanDuijn, N. P., & Meyboom-DeJong, B. (1995). Measuring junctional health status with the COOP/WONCA Charts, Groningen, The Netherlands: Northern Center of Health Care Research.
Ware, J. E., & Sherhourne, C. D. (1992). The SF-36 short-form health status survey: I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30, 473–481.
Watson, D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (1989). Health complaints, stress and distress; Exploring the central role of negative affecuvily. Psychological Review, 96, 234–254.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
We thank Willem Arrindell, Adelita Ranchor. and Jelte Bouma for their valuable comments on an earlier version orthis article
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Vander Zee, K.I., Sanderman, R., Heyink, J.W. et al. Psychometric qualities of the rand 36-item health survey 1.0: A multidimensional measure of general health status. Int. J. Behav. Med. 3, 104–122 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327558ijbm0302_2
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327558ijbm0302_2