Skip to main content
Log in

A comparison of an electronic version of the SF-36 General Health Questionnaire to the standard paper version

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Because of its sound psychometric properties the SF-36 General Health Questionnaire is used throughout the world, yet it is difficult to analyse and score. Using a newly developed software package, onto which any questionnaire can be loaded, we developed an electronic version of the SF-36 General Health Questionnaire. The purpose of this study is test the effect of the electronic mode of administration on the measurement properties of the SF-36. In a randomised cross-over design study 79 healthy individuals and 36 chronic pain patients completed both electronic and paper versions of the SF-36. Seventy-one percent preferred the electronic SF-36, 7% stated no preference, and 22% preferred the paper version. Completion time for the electronic SF-36 was slightly less, and there were no missing or problematical responses, whereas 44% of participants had at least one missing or problematical response in the paper version. Data entry and auditing time was 8 hours. There was less than 4% inter-version difference for any of the SF-36 sub-scales. The electronic SF-36 was well accepted and slightly quicker to complete than the paper version. We conclude that the electronic SF-36 is equivalent in performance and more effective than the paper version.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lohr KN. Advances in health status assessment. Overview ofthe conference. Med Care 1989; 27(Suppl 3): S1-S11.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Drummond HE, et al. Electronic quality of life questionnaires: A comparison ofpen-based electronic questionnaires with conventional paper in a gastrointestinal study. Qual Life Res 1995; 4: 21–26.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Pouwer FJ, et al. A comparison ofthe standard and the computerized versions ofthe Well-being Questionnaire (WBQ) and the Diabetics Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ). Qual Life Res 1998; 7: 33–38.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Velikova G, et al. Automated collection ofquality-of-life data: A comparison ofpaper and computer touch-screen questionnaires. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17(3): 998–1007.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bloom DE. Technology, experimentation, and the quality of survey data. Science 1998; 280 (May).

  6. Ware JE, et al. SF-36 Health Survey; Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston: 1993.

  7. McHorney CA, Ware JE, Jr, Raczek AE. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests ofvalidity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care 1993; 31(3): 247–263.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ware JE, Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30(6): 473–483.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bowling A. Measuring Disease. Philadelphia: Open University Press, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Statistical Package for Social Sciences, Chicago.

  11. Burke JD, et al. Test-retest reliability in psychiatric patients ofthe SF-36 Health Survey. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 1994; 5: 189–194.

    Google Scholar 

  12. American PA. Guidlines for Computer Based Tests and Interpretation. 1986.

  13. Pocock SJ. Clinical Trials: A Practical Approach. London: Wiley, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Altman D. Some common problems in medical research. In: Armitage P, Berry G (eds), Statistical Methods in Medical Research, Oxford: Blackwell.

  15. Brenner H, KU. Dependence of weighted j coefficients on the number of categories. Epidemiology 1995; 7(2): 199–202.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement ofobserver agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33(1): 159–174.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Maitland ME, Mandel AR. A client-computer interface for questionnaire data. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1994; 75(6): 639–642.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Judy M. Ryan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ryan, J.M., Corry, J.R., Attewell, R. et al. A comparison of an electronic version of the SF-36 General Health Questionnaire to the standard paper version. Qual Life Res 11, 19–26 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014415709997

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014415709997

Navigation