2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Does the single-item self-rated health measure the same thing across different wordings? Construct validity study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          The self-rated health (SRH) item is frequently used in health surveys but variations of its form (wording, response options) may hinder comparisons between versions over time or across surveys. The objectives were to determine (a) whether three SRH forms are equivalent, (b) the form with the best construct validity and (c) the best coding scheme to maximize equivalence across forms.

          Methods

          We used data from 58,023 respondents of the Swiss Health Survey. Three SRH forms were used. Response options varied across forms and we explored four coding schemes (two considering SRH as continuous, two as dichotomous). Construct validity of the SRH was assessed using 34 health predictors to estimate the explained variance.

          Results

          Distributions of response options were similar across SRH forms, except for the “good” and “very good” options (“good” in form 1: 58.6%, form 2: 65.0% and form 3: 44.1%). Explained variances differed across SRH forms, with form 3 providing the best overall explained variance, regardless of coding schemes. The linear coding scheme maximised the equivalence across SRH forms.

          Conclusion

          The three SRH forms were not equivalent in terms of construct validity. Studies examining the evolution of SRH over time with surveys using different forms should use the linear coding scheme to maximise equivalence between SRH forms.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (10.1007/s11136-020-02533-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Self-rated health and mortality: a review of twenty-seven community studies.

          We examine the growing number of studies of survey respondents' global self-ratings of health as predictors of mortality in longitudinal studies of representative community samples. Twenty-seven studies in U.S. and international journals show impressively consistent findings. Global self-rated health is an independent predictor of mortality in nearly all of the studies, despite the inclusion of numerous specific health status indicators and other relevant covariates known to predict mortality. We summarize and review these studies, consider various interpretations which could account for the association, and suggest several approaches to the next stage of research in this field.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            What do global self-rated health items measure?

            One of the most frequently used health status measures consists of a single item that asks respondents to rate their overall health as excellent, good, fair, or poor. This study identified the conceptual domain that is assessed by this self-rated health measure. Findings from 158 in-depth interviews revealed that the same frame of reference is not used by all respondents in answering this question. Some study participants think about specific health problems when asked to rate their health, whereas others think in terms of either general physical functioning or health behaviors. The data further revealed that the specific referents that are used vary by age. In addition, more tentative findings suggest that the use of specific referents may also vary by education and race. Finally, the results suggest that certain referents may not be related to closed-ended health ratings in predictable ways.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The reliability of the Minimum European Health Module.

              The Minimum European Health Module (MEHM) consists of 3 global questions concerning 3 health domains: self-perceived health, chronic conditions and long-term activity limitation. The objective of this paper is to evaluate the reliability of the MEHM. Participants of the Belgian Food Consumption Survey were interviewed twice: 170 individuals were selected for the MEHM reliability evaluation. For each of the 3 questions Pearson and Kappa coefficients were estimated. Analyses were stratified by gender, age, education, language and time between the interviews. The Pearson correlations are between 0.73 and 0.81. The Kappa estimates are good or excellent: 0.74 (self-perceived health), 0.77 (chronic conditions) and 0.68 (activity limitation). Also stratified analyses indicated in general an acceptable reliability. The MEHM has an acceptable reliability.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                stephane.cullati@unifr.ch
                Journal
                Qual Life Res
                Qual Life Res
                Quality of Life Research
                Springer International Publishing (Cham )
                0962-9343
                1573-2649
                20 May 2020
                20 May 2020
                2020
                : 29
                : 9
                : 2593-2604
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.8534.a, ISNI 0000 0004 0478 1713, Population Health Laboratory, , University of Fribourg, ; Fribourg, Switzerland
                [2 ]GRID grid.8591.5, ISNI 0000 0001 2322 4988, Institute of Sociological Research, , University of Geneva, ; Geneva, Switzerland
                [3 ]GRID grid.8591.5, ISNI 0000 0001 2322 4988, Department of Readaptation and Geriatrics, , University of Geneva, ; Geneva, Switzerland
                [4 ]GRID grid.8591.5, ISNI 0000 0001 2322 4988, Quality of Care Service, Department of Readaptation and Geriatrics, Faculty of Medicine, , University of Geneva, ; Chemin Thury 3, 1206 Geneva, Switzerland
                [5 ]GRID grid.266102.1, ISNI 0000 0001 2297 6811, Department of Paediatrics, , University of California, ; San Francisco, CA USA
                [6 ]GRID grid.8591.5, ISNI 0000 0001 2322 4988, Unit of Development and Research in Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, , University of Geneva, ; Geneva, Switzerland
                [7 ]GRID grid.8591.5, ISNI 0000 0001 2322 4988, Institute of Demography and Socioeconomics, , University of Geneva, ; Geneva, Switzerland
                [8 ]GRID grid.150338.c, ISNI 0000 0001 0721 9812, Division of Primary Care Medicine, Department of Primary Care Medicine, , Geneva University Hospitals, ; Geneva, Switzerland
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3881-446X
                Article
                2533
                10.1007/s11136-020-02533-2
                7434800
                32436111
                6e1bdb1d-3b6e-4ef1-9fcb-fb966cdd8d48
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 13 May 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: Swiss Cancer League
                Award ID: KLS-3144-02-2013
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Article
                Custom metadata
                © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

                Public health
                self-rated health,questions wording,response options,construct validity,population health measurement

                Comments

                Comment on this article