SF-36 Scoring and SAS Program Generator

07/01/96 9:46 AM 1

A Microcomputer Program (sf36.exe) that Generates

SAS Code for Scoring the SF-36 Health Survey

Ron D. Hays, Cathy D. Sherbourne, Karen L. Spritzer, Wil J. Dixon

DRU-1437-PI

Abstract

This paper describes a microcomputer that can be used to generate SAS code that for scoring SF-36 Health Survey, one of the most widely used measures of health-related quality of life today. The generated SAS code scores the 8

SF-36 scales as well as the SF-36 physical and mental health composite scores. In addition, the program produces code that provides US general population normative scores, age and gender adjusted to one’s sample. The significance of the difference between the sample and the general population on each SF-36 scale score is also generated. Example input and output files are included. Selected SF-36 publications are cited. The SF-36 Health

Survey items are given in the Appendix.

07/01/96 9:46 AM

A Microcomputer Program (sf36.exe) that Generates

SAS Code for Scoring the SF-36 Health Survey

The SF-36 taps eight health concepts: physical functioning, bodily pain, role limitations due to physical health problems, role limitations due to personal or emotional problems, emotional well-being, social functioning, energy/fatigue, and general health perceptions. It also includes a single item that provides an indication of perceived change in health. These 36 items were adapted from longer instruments completed by patients participating in the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS), an observational study of variations in physician practice styles and patient outcomes in different systems of health care delivery (Hays &

Shapiro, 1992; Stewart, Sherbourne, Hays, et al., 1992).

Scoring the Eight SF-36 Scales

We recommend that responses be scored as described below (the RAND method). A somewhat different scoring procedure for the pain and general health scales was advocated by New England Medical Center (NEMC) investigators (Ware, Snow, Kosinski,, & Gandek, 1993). Although only our scoring recommendations for these scales are described here, the SAS program generator we provide scores these two scales both ways. Pain scale scores scored the RAND versus NEMC way correlated 0.99 in the MOS, with a mean difference of 3.33 (NEMC scoring yields lower pain scores on average). General health perception scale scores also correlated 0.99 in the

MOS, with a mean difference of -1.37 (NEMC scoring yields higher general health scores on average). For further information about the scoring differences, see Hays, Sherbourne, and Mazel (1993).

Scoring the SF-36 is a two-step process. First, pre-coded numeric values are recoded per the scoring key given in Table 1. Note that all items are scored so that a high score defines a more favorable health state. In addition, each item is scored on a 0 to 100 range so that the lowest and highest possible scores are set at 0 and 100, respectively.

Scores represent the percentage of total possible score achieved. In step 2, items in the same scale are averaged together to create the 8 scale scores. Table 2 lists the items averaged together to create each scale. Items that are left blank (missing data) are not taken into account when calculating the scale scores. Hence, scale scores represent the average for all items in the scale that the respondent answered. If all items in a scale are missing, then the scale score is also missing.

Example: Items 20 and 32 are used to score the measure of social functioning. Each of the two items has 5 response choices. However, a high score (response choice 5) on item 20 indicates extreme limitations in social functioning, while a high score (response choice 5) on item 32

2

07/01/96 9:46 AM 3 indicates the absence of limitations in social functioning. To score both items in the same direction, Table 1 shows that responses 1 through 5 for item 20 should be recoded to values of 100, 75, 50, 25, and 0, respectively. Responses 1 through 5 for item 32 should be recoded to values of 0, 25, 50, 75, and 100, respectively. Table 2 shows that these two recoded items should be averaged together to form the social functioning scale. If the respondent is missing one of the two items, the person's score will be equal to that of the nonmissing item.

Table 3 presents information on the reliability, central tendency and variability of the scales in the MOS when scored using this method.

To use the enclosed programs, it is necessary to have a SAS dataset with the SF-36 items in it. The program, sf36.exe, is used in combination with your SAS file of SF-36 items to create SAS code for scoring the

SF-36 scales.

In addition to having a SAS dataset with SF-36 items, you need to create an ASCII file that specifies the variable names you have assigned to the 36 SF-36 items in your study. When sf36.exe is executed, you will be asked for the name of the input file: WHAT FILE CONTAINS THE INPUT

SETUP?

Notice that the input file (sf36.in) consists of a list of 36 variable names, each entered on a separate row beginning in column one (see Table 4). The variable names need to be listed to correspond with the order of items presented in the Appendix. For example, the first item reads "In general, would you say your health is: Excellent, Very good, Good, Fair, Poor?" On the first row of the input file, you should list the variable name you assigned to this item. You need to list the actual SAS names used for your data set so that the generated SAS code will include rename statements linking your

SAS names to the SAS names used in the generated code (the generated code uses names I1 through I36 following the order of items in the Appendix).

If you use the same SAS names as assumed in the program (I1 through

I36), you can use the sf36.in file (see Table 4) as the input file when you execute sf36.exe. If you use different SAS names, you will have to create a file that reflects these differences (see sf36.ex, Table 5, for an example of a different input file). Note that you should not use the variable names I1 through I36 for variables other than the SF-36 items or SAS will not be able to distinguish the SF-36 items from these other variables.

The program assumes that your dataset includes a continuous measure of AGE (named "AGE") and a gender variable called "MALE" (coded 0 = female, 1 = male).

The sf36.exe program produces a file, sf36.sas, that contains SAS code for scoring the sf-36 scales. For the pain and general health scales, both the

RAND and NEMC scoring are provided. Scale scores are created for persons that answer any of the items in a scale (Note that NEMC only creates scores for person who answer half or more of the items in a scale.)

07/01/96 9:46 AM 4

The SAS code in sf36.sas assumes that the name of the SAS dataset that includes the SF-36 items is "TEMP" (see SET TEMP in the generated

SAS code). If your file has a different name, you should change this part of the sf36.sas file to reflect that. Note that a raw data file,

sf36.raw, is also produced and that this file is read by sf36.sas when it is run. This raw data file includes information about US general population means and standard deviations (Ware et al., 1993)

Example of Using sf36.exe

Table 5 provides an example of an input file, sf36.in2, for sf36.exe. In this example, the SF-36 items were assigned the SAS names T1 through T36 in the study in which they were used. The input file is read by sf36.exe and this information is used in creating the file, sf36.sas, shown in Table 6.

Scoring the SF-36 Physical and Mental Health Composite Scores

Running sf36b.exe will produce SAS code, saved as sf36add.sas, that will create T-scores for the 8 SF-36 scales (using the US general population norms). In addition, physical and mental health composite scores for the SF-36 (Ware, Kosinkski, & Keller, 1994) and the SF-12 (Ware,

Kosinski, & Keller, 1995, 1996) are produced. The sf36add.sas file can be appended to sf36.sas for analyses of the SF-36 scales and composite scores. Running the resulting sf36.sas file yields the output shown for the sample data shown in Table 7.

The output includes descriptive statistics for the 8 SF-36 scales and

US general population norms, age and gender adjusted to your sample. The

SF-36 SAS names used are as follows:

PHYFUN10 Physical functioning in your sample

PFISFM Physical functioning in general population

ROLEP4 Role limitations--physical in your sample

RPSFM Role limitations--physical in general population

PAIN2 Pain in your sample--RAND scoring

SFPAIN

BPSFM

GENH5

SFGENH5

Pain in your sample--NEMC scoring

Pain in general population

General health in your sample--RAND scoring

General health in your sample--NEMC scoring

GENSFM General health in general population

EMOT5 Emotional well-being in your sample

MHSFM

ROLEE3

Emotional well-being in general population

Role limitations--emotional in your sample

RESFM Role limitations--emotional in general population

ENFAT4 Energy in your sample

ENFTSFM Energy in general population

SOCFUN2 Social function in your sample

07/01/96 9:46 AM 5

SFSFM Social function in general population

Table 7 illustrates the output of means, standard deviations, minimum and maximum values for each of these scales. Note that only the mean values are provided for the general population values (PFISFM, RPSFM,

BPSFM, GENSFM, MHSFM, RESFM, ENFTSFM, SFSFM), because the standard deviations and ranges produced by SAS for these scales are not relevant (i.e., These variances and ranges because they are based on mean scores derived from age and gender subgroups of the general population, and are not the general population estimates of these statistics).

In addition to the descriptive statistics, sf36.sas provides t-statistics

(asymptotically z-statistics) for the significance of the difference between

SF-36 scores in the sample compared to the US general population (ZPHY10,

ZRP, ZBP, ZGENH, ZENFT, ZSF, ZRE, ZMHI). Finally, sf36.sas outputs SF-

36 scale scores for the sample, corresponding T-scores for each scale, and the physical (AGG_PHYS) and mental health (AGG_MENT) composite T-scores.

The sample size and descriptive statistics provided here may differ from the prior output, because in the prior output respondents are omitted if they have missing data on age or gender (these variables are needed to adjust the general population values to one’s sample).

For further information please contact either:

Ron D. Hays or Cathy D. Sherbourne

RAND RAND

1700 Main Street 1700 Main Street

P.O. Box 2138 P.O. Box 2138

Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138 Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138

(310) 393-0411 Ext.7581 (Voice) (310) 393-0411 Ext. 7216 (Voice)

(310) 393-4818 (FAX) (310) 393-4818 (FAX)

Ronald_Hays@rand.org Cathy_Sherbourne@rand.org

07/01/96 9:46 AM

Selected SF-36 Publications (Including Those Cited Above)

Aaronson, N.K., Acquadro , C., Alonso, J., Apolone, G. Bucquet, D.,

Bullinger, M., Bungay, K., Fukuhara, S., Gandek, B., Keller, S.,

Razavi, D., Sanson-Fisher, R., Sullivan, M., Wood-Dauphinee, S.,

Wagner, A., & Ware, J. E. (1992). International quality of life

assessment (IQOLA) project. Quality of Life Research, 1, 349-351.

Anderson, R.T., Aaronson, N.K,. and Wilkin D. (1993). Critical review of

the international assessments of health-related quality of life.

Quality of Life Research, 2, 369-395.

Andresen, E., Patrick, D. L., Carter, W. B., & Malmgren, J. A. (1995).

Comparing the performance of health status measures for healthy

older adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 43,

1030-1034.

Barry, M. J., Walder-Corkery, E., Chang, Y., Tyll, L. T., Cherkin, D. C.,

& Fowler, F. J. (1996). Measurement of overall and disease-specific

health status: Does the order of questionnaires make a difference?

Journal of Health Services Research, 1, 20-27.

Beusterien, K. M., Nissenson, A. R., Port, F. K., Kelly, M., Steinwald, B., &

Ware, J. E. (1996). The effects of recombinant human erythropoietin on

functional health and well-being in chronic dialysis patients. Journal of

the American Society of Nephrology, 7, 763-773.

Bouchet, C., Guillemin, F., & Briancon, S. (1996). Nonspecific

effects in longitudinal studies: Impact on quality of life

measures. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 49, 15-20.

Bousquet, J., Bullinger, M., Fayol, C., Marquis, P., Valentin, B.,

& Burtin, B. (1994). Assessment of quality of life in patients with

perennial allergic rhinitis with the French version of the SF-36 health

status questionnaire. Journal of Allergy Clin Immunol, 94, 182-188.

Bousquet, J., Knani, J., Dhivert, H., Richard, A., Chicoye, A., Ware,

J.E., and Michel, F-B. (1994). Quality of life in asthma. I. Internal

consistency and validity of the SF-36 questionnaire. American Journal

of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 149, 371-375.

Brazier, J. (1993). The SF-36 health survey questionnaire - a tool for

economists. Health Economics, 2, 213-215.

Brazier, J.E., Harper, R., Jones, N.M.B., O'Cathain, A., Thomas, K.J.,

Usherwood, T., and Westlake, L. (1992). Validating the SF-36 health

survey questionnaire: New outcome measure for primary care. British

Medical Journal, 305, 160-4.

Brazier, J., Jones, N., & Kind, P. (1993). Testing the validity of the

Euroqol and comparing it with the SF-36 health survey questionnaire.


Bullinger M. (1996). German translation and psychometric testing

of the SF-36 health survey: Preliminary results from the IQOLA

6

07/01/96 9:46 AM

project. Social Science and Medicine.

Fifer S., Mathias SD, Patrick DL, Mazonson PD, Lubeck DP, Buesching DP.

(1994). Untreated anxiety among adult primary care patients in a health

maintenance organization. Archives of General Psychiatry, 51,740-750.

Fryback, D.G., Dasbach, E.J., Klein, R., et al. (1993). The Beaver Dam

Health Outcomes Study: Initial catalog of health state quality factors.

Medical Decision Making, 13, 89-102.

Ganz, P. A., Coscarelli, A., Fred, C., Kahn, B., Polinsky, M. L., &

Petersen, L. (in press). Breast cancer survivors: Psychosocial concerns

and quality of life. Breast Cancer Treatment and Research.

Ganz, P. A., Day,R., Ware, J. E., Redmond, C., & Fisher, B. (in press).

Baseline quality of life assessment in the National Surgical Adjuvant

Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) Breast Cancer Prevention Trial.

Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

Garratt, A.M., MacDonald, L.M., Ruta, D.A., Russell, I. T., Buckingham,

J. K., & Krukowski, Z. H. (1993). Towards measurement of outcome for

K. patients with varicose veins. Quality in Health Care, 2, 5-10.

Garratt, A.M., Ruta, D.A., Abdalla, M.I., Buckingham, J.K., & Russell, I.T.

(1993). The SF 36 health survey questionnaire: An outcome measure

suitable for routine use within the NHS? British Medical Journal, 306,

1440-1444.

Garratt, A. M., Ruta, D. A., Abdalla, M. I., & Russell, I. T. (1994). SF 36

health survey questionnaire: II. Responsiveness to changes in health

status in four common clinical conditions. Quality in Health Care, 3,

186-192.

Gliklich, R. E., & Hilinski, J. M. (1995). Longitudinal sensitivity of

generic and specific health measures in chronic sinusitis. Quality

of Life Research, 4, 27-32.

Haley, S.M., McHorney, C.A., and Ware, J.E. (1994). Evaluation

of the MOS SF-36 Physical Functioning scale (PF-10):

I. Unidimensionality and reproducibility of the Rasch item scale.

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 47, 671-684.

Hays, R. D., Kravitz, R. L., Mazel, R. B., Sherbourne, C. D., DiMatteo, M. R.,

Rogers, W. H., & Greenfield, S. (1994). The impact of patient adherence on

health outcomes for chronic disease patients in the Medical Outcomes

Study. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 17, 347-358.

Hays, R. D., Marshall, G. N., Wang, E. Y. I., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1994).

Four-year cross-lagged associations between physical and mental health in

the Medical Outcomes Study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 62, 441-449.

Hays, R. D., & Shapiro, M. F. (1992). An overview of generic health-related

quality of life measures for HIV research. Quality of Life Research, 1, 91-

97

Hays, R.D., Sherbourne, C.D., & Mazel, R.M. (1993). The RAND 36-item

7

07/01/96 9:46 AM 8

health survey 1.0. Health Economics, 2, 217-227.

Hays, R. D., Stewart, A. L., Sherbourne, C. D., & Marshall, G. N. (1993).

The ‘states versus weights’ dilemma in quality of life measurement.


Hays, R. D., Wells, K.B., Sherbourne, C. B., Rogers, W. H., & Spritzer, K.

(1995). Functioning and well-being outcomes of patients with

depression compared to chronic medical illness. Archives of

General Psychiatry, 52, 11-19

Hill, S., Harries, U., & Popay, J. (1995). Is the short form 36 (SF-36)

suitable for routine health outcomes assessment in health care for

older people? Evidence from preliminary work in community based health

services in England. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health,

50, 94-98.

Hornbrook, M. C., & Goodman, M. J. (1995). Assessing relative health

plan risk with the RAND-36 Health Survey. Inquiry, 32, 56-74.

Hueston, W. J., Mainous, A. G., & Schilling, R. (1996). Patients

with personality disorders: Functional status, health care utilization,

and satisfaction with care. Journal of Family Practice, 42, 54-60.

Hunt, S. M., & McKenna, S. P. (1993). Measuring patients’ views of their

health: SF 36 misses the mark. British Medical Journal, 307, 125.

Jenkinson, C., Coulter, A., & Wright, L. (1993). Short form 36 (SF 36)

health survey questionnaire: Normative data for adults of working

age. British Medical Journal, 306, 1437-1440.

Jenkinson, C., Lawrence, K., McWhinnie, D., & Gordon, J. (1995).

Sensitivity to change of health status measures in a randomized

controlled trial: Comparison of the COOP charts and the SF-36.


Jenkinson, C., Peto, V., & Coulter, A. (1994). Measuring change

over time: A comparison of results from a global single item of

health status and the multi-dimensional SF-36 health status survey

questionnaire in patients presenting with menorrhagia. Quality


Jenkinson, C., Peto, V., & Coulter, A. (1996). Making sense of ambiguity:

Evaluation of internal reliability and face validity of the SF 36

questionnaire in women presenting with menorrhagia. Quality in Health

Care, 5, 9-12.

Jenkinson, C., and Wright, L. (1993). The SF-36 health survey

questionnaire. Auditorium, 2, 7-12.

Jenkinson, C. Wright, L., & Coulter, A. (1994). Criterion validity and

reliability of the SF-36 in a population sample. Quality of Life

Research, 3, 7-12.

Johnson, P. A., Goldman, L., Orav, E. J., Garcia, T., Pearson, S. D.,

& Lee, T. H. (1995). Comparison of the Medical Outcomes Study

Short-form 36-Item Health Survey in black patients and white patients

07/01/96 9:46 AM

with acute chest pain. Medical Care, 33, 145-160.

Julious, S. A., George, S., & Campbell, M. J. (1995). Sample sizes

for studies using the short form 36 (SF-36). Journal of Epidemiology

and Community Health, 49, 642-644.

Kantz, M.E., Morris, W.J. , Levitsky, K., Ware, J.E. and Davies, A.R. (1992).

Methods for assessing condition-specific and generic functional

status outcomes after total knee replacement. Medical Care, 30,

MS240-MS252.

Katz, J.N., Larson, M.G., Phillips, C.B., Fossel, A.H., and H Liang, M.H.

(1992). Comparative measurement sensitivity of short and longer

health status instruments. Medical Care, 30, 917-925.

Kurtin, P.S., Davies, A.R., Meyer, K.B., DeGiacomo, J.M., & Kantz, M.E.

(1992). Patient-based health status measures in outpatient dialysis:

Early experience in developing an outcomes assessment program.

Medical Care, 30, MS136-149; 1992.

Lancaster, T.R, Singer, D.E., Sheehan, M.A., Oertel, L.B., Maraventano,

S.W., Hughes, R.A., & Kistler, J.P. (1991). The impact of long-term

Warfarin therapy on quality of life: Evidence from a randomized trial.

Archives of Internal Medicine, 151, 1944-1949.

Lansky, D., Butler, J.B.V., & Waller, F.T. (1992). Using health status

measures in the hospital setting: From acute care to "outcomes

management". Medical Care, 30, MS57-MS73.

Levin, N.W., Lazarus, J.M., & Nissenson, A.R. (1993). National

cooperative rHu erthropoletin study in patients with chronic renal

failure - an interim report. American Journal of Kidney Disease, 22

(2, Suppl 1), 3-12.

Litwin, M., Hays, R. D., Fink, A., Ganz, P. A., Leake, B., Leach, G. E.,

& Brook, R. H. (1995). Quality of life outcomes in men treated for

localized prostate cancer. Journal of the American Medical

Association, 273, 129-135.

Lubeck, D.P, & Fries, J.F. (1993). Health status among persons

infected with human immunodeficiency virus: A community-based

study. Medical Care, 31, 269-276.

Lyons, R. A., Perry, H. M., & Littlepage, B. N. (1994). Evidence for

the validity of the Short-Form 36 Questionnaire (SF-36) in an

elderly population. Age and Aging, 23, 182-184.

Mangione, C. M. Phillips, R. S., Lawrence, M. G., Seddon, J. M., Orav, J.,

& Goldman, L. (1994). Improved visual function and attenuation

of declines in health-related quality of life after cataract

extraction. Archives of Opthalmology, 112, 1419-1425.

Martin, C., Marquis, P., & Bonfils, S. (1994). A "quality of life

questionnaire" adapted to duodenal ulcer therapeutic trials.

Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology, 29, 40-43.

Mathias, S. D., Fifer, S. K., Mazonson, P. D., Lubeck, D. P.,

9

07/01/96 9:46 AM 10

Buesching, D. P., & Patrick, D. L. (1994). Necessary but not

sufficient: The effect of screening and feedback on outcomes of

primary care patients with untreated anxiety. Journal of

General Internal Medicine, 9, 606-615.

McCallum, J. (1995). The SF-36 in an Australian sample: Validating

a new generic health status measure. Australian Journal of

Public Health, 19, 160-166.

McHorney, C.A., Kosinski, M., & Ware, J.E. (1994). Comparisons

of the costs and quality of norms for the SF-36 health survey

collected by mail versus telephone interview: Results from a national

survey. Medical Care, 32, 551-567.

McHorney, C. A., & Ware, J. E. (1995). Construction and validation of

an alternate form general mental health scale for the Medical

Outcomes Study short-form health survey. Medical Care, 33, 15-28.

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 validity among diverse patient

groups. Medical Care, 32, 40-66.

McHorney, C.A., Ware, J.E., & Raczek, A.E. (1993). The MOS 36-

item short-form health 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.R.

(1992). The validity and relative precision of MOS Short- and Long-

Form Health Status Scales and Dartmouth COOP Charts. Medical Care,

30, MS253-265.

Meyer, K.B., Espindle, D.M., DeGiacomo, J.M., Jenuleson, C.S., Kurtin, P.S.,

& Davies, A.R. (1994). Monitoring dialysis patients' health status.

American Journal of Kidney Diseases, 24, 267-279.

Nerenz, D.R., Repasky, D.P., Whitehouse, F.W., & Kahkonen, D.M. (1992)

Ongoing assessment of health status in patients with diabetes mellitus.

Medical Care, 30, MS112-MS124.

Paterson, C. (1996). Measuring outcomes in primary care: A patient

generated measure, MYMOP, compared with the SF-36 health survey.

British Medical Journal, 312, 1016-1020.

Perneger, T., Allaz, A. Etter, J, & Rougemont A. (1995). Mental health and

choice between managed care and indemnity health insurance.

American Journal of Psychiatry, 152, 1020-1025.

Perneger TV, Etter JF, & Rougemont A. (1996). Switching Swiss enrollees

from indemnity health insurance to managed care: The effect on health

status and satisfaction with care. American Journal of Public Health,

86, 388-393.

Perneger, T., LePlege A., Etter J., & Rougemont A. (1995) Validation of a

French-language version of the MOS 36-Item Short Form Health Survey

07/01/96 9:46 AM 11

(SF-36) in young healthy adults. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 48,

1051-1060.

Phillips, R.C., & Lansky, D.J. (1992). Outcomes management in heart

valve replacement surgery: Early experience. Journal of Heart Valve

Disease, 1, 42-50.

Rampal, P., Martin, C., Marquis, P., Ware, J. E., & Bonfils, S.

(1994). A quality of life study in five hundred and eighty-one

duodenal ulcer patients. Scandanavian Journal of Gastroenterology,

29, 44-51.

Reuben, D.B., Valle, L.A., Hays, R.D., & Siu A.L. (1995). Measuring

physical function in community-dwelling older persons: a comparison of

self-administered, interviewer-administered, and performance-based

measures. Journal of the American Geriatric Society, 43, 17-23.

Ruta, D. A., Abdalla, M. I., Garratt, A. M., Coutts, A., & Russell, I. T.

(1994). SF 36 health survey questionnaire: I. Reliability in two

patient based studies. Quality in Health Care, 3, 180-185.

Ruta, D. A., Garratt, A. M., Chadha, Y. C., Flett, G. M., Hall, M. H.,

& Russell, I. T. (1995). Assessment of patients with menorrhagia:

How valid is a structured clinical history as a measure of health

status? Quality of Life Research, 4, 33-40.

Ruta, D. A., Garratt, A.M., Leng, M., Russell, I.T., & MacDonald, L.M.

(1994). A new approach to the measurement of quality of life: The

patient-generated index. Medical Care, 32, 1109-1126.

Ryan, C. F., & White, J. M. (1996). Health status at entry to

methadone maintenance treatment using the SF-36 health survey

questionnaire. Addiction, 91, 39-45.

Sherbourne, C. D., Hays, R. D., & Wells, K. B. (1995). Personal and

psychosocial risk factors for physical and mental health outcomes and

course of depression among depressed patients. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 345-355.

Sherbourne, C.D., Wells, K.B., & Judd, L.L. (1996). Functioning and

well-being of patients with panic disorder. American Journal of

Psychiatry, 153, 213-218.

Sherbourne, C.D., Wells, K.B., Meredith, L.S., Jackson, C.A., & Camp, P.

(in press). Comorbid anxiety disorder and the functioning and well-being

of chronically ill patients of general medical providers. Archives of

General Psychiatry.

Stewart, A. L., Sherbourne, C. D., Hays, R. D., Wells, K. B., Nelson, E. C.,

Kamberg, C. J., Rogers, W. H., Berry, S. D., & Ware, J. E. (1992). Summary

and discussion of MOS measures. In A. L. Stewart & J. E. Ware (eds.),

Measuring functioning and well-being: The Medical Outcomes Study

approach. (pp. 345-371). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Sullivan, M., Karlsson, J., & Ware, J.E. (1994). The Swedish SF-36

health survey: I. Evaluation of data quality, scaling assumptions,

07/01/96 9:46 AM

reliability, and construct validity across several populations. Social

Science and Medicine, 41, 1349-1358. van Tulder, M.W., Aaronson, N.K., & Bruning, P.F. (1994). The quality

of life of long-term survivors of Hodgkin's disease. Annals of

Oncology, 5, 152-158.

Vickrey, B.G., Hays, R.D., Graber, J., Rausch, R., Engel, J., & Brook, R.H.

(1992). A health-related quality of life instrument for patients

evaluated for epilepsy surgery. Medical Care, 30, 299-319.

Vickrey, B. G., Hays, R. D., Rausch, R., Sutherling, W. W., Engel, J., &

Brook, R. H. (1994). Quality of life of epilepsy surgery patients compared

with outpatients with hypertension, diabetes, heart disease, and/or

depressive symptoms. Epilepsia, 35, 597-607.

Wagner, A. K., Keller, S. D., Kosinski, M., Baker, G. A., Jacoby, A.,

Hsu, M., Chadwick, D. W., & Ware, J. E. (1995). Advances in

methods for assessing the impact of epilepsy and antiepileptic

drug therapy on patients' health-related quality of life. Quality


Ware, J.E. (1993). Measuring patients' views: The optimum

outcome measure: SF 36: a valid, reliable assessment of health from

the patient's point of view. British Medical Journal, 306, 1429-1444.

Ware, J. E., Gandek, B., & the IQOLA Project Group. (1994). The SF-36

Health Survey: Development and use in mental health research and the

IQOLA project. International Journal of Mental Health, 23, 49-73.

Ware, J. E., Keller, S. D., Gandek, B., Brazier, J. E., Sullivan, M.,

& The IQOLA Project Group. (1995). Evaluating translations of

health status questionnaires: Methods from the IQOLA Project.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care,

11, 525-551.

Ware, J.E., Kosinski, M., Bayliss, M.S., McHorney, C. A., Rogers, W. H.,

& Raczek, A. (1995). Comparison of methods for the scoring and

statistical analysis of SF-36 health profile and summary measures:

Summary of results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Medical Care,

33, AS264-AS279.

Ware, J. E., Kosinski, M., & Keller, S. D. (1995). SF-12: How to score

the SF-12 physical and mental health summary scores. Boston, MA:

The Health Institute, New England Medical Center.

Ware, J. E., Kosinski, M., & Keller, S. D. (1994). SF-36 physical and

mental health summary scales: A User’s Manual. Boston, MA: The

Health Institue, New England Medical Center.

Ware, J.E., Kosinski, M., & Keller, S. D. (1996). A 12-item

short-form health survey: Construction of scales and preliminary

tests of reliability and validity. Medical Care, 34, 220-233.

Ware, J.E., and Sherbourne, C.D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-

form health survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item

12

07/01/96 9:46 AM 13

selection. Medical Care, 30, 473-483.

Ware, J. E., Snow, K. K., Kosinski, M., & Gandek, B. (1993). SF-36 Health

Survey: Manual and interpretation guide. Boston: The Health

Institute.

Weinberger M, Kirkman MS, Samsa GP, Cowper PA, Shortliffe EA,

Simel DL, & Feussner JR. (1994). The relationship between glycemic

control and health-related quality of life in patients with non-insulin

dependent diabetes mellitus. Medical Care, 32, 1173-1181.

Weinberger, M., Nagle, B., Hanlon, J. T., Samsa, G. P., Schmader, K.,

Landsman, P. B., Uttech, K. M., Cowper, P. A., Cohen, H. J., &

Feussner, J. R. (1994). Assessing health-related quality of life

in elderly outpatients: Telephone versus face-to-face administration.

Journal of the American Geriatric Society, 42, 1295-1299.

Weinberger, M., Samsa, G.P., Hanlon, J.T., Schmader, K., Doyle, M.E.,

Cowper, P.A., Uttech, K.M., Cohen, H.J., & Feussner, J.R. (1991). An

evaluation of a brief health status measure in elderly veterans. Journal

of the American Geriatrics Society, 39, 691-694.

Wells, K.B., Burnam, M.A., Rogers, W., Hays, R., & Camp, P. (1992). The

course of depression in adult outpatients: Results from the Medical

Outcomes Study. Archives of General Psychiatry, 49, 788-794.

Wolinsky, F. D., & Stump, T. E. (1996). A measurement model of the

Medical Outcomes Study 36-item short-form health survey in a clinical

sample of disadvantaged, older, black, and white men and women.

Medical Care, 34, 537-548.

Ziebland S. (1995). The short form 36 health status questionnaire: Clues

from the Oxford region's normative data about its usefulness in measuring

health gain in population surveys. Journal of Epidemiology and

Community Health, 49, 102-105.

07/01/96 9:46 AM

Table 1

STEP 1: RECODING ITEMS

ITEM NUMBERS Change original response category (a)

1,2,20,22,34,36

3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12

13,14,15,16,17,18,19

21,23,26,27,30

24,25,28,29,31

1 ----------- >

2 ----------- >

3 ----------- >

4 ----------- >

5 ----------- >

1 ----------- >

2 ----------- >

3 ----------- >

1 ----------- >

2 ----------- >

1 ----------- >

2 ----------- >

3 ----------- >

4 ----------- >

5 ----------- >

6 ----------- >

1 ----------- >

2 ----------- >

3 ----------- >

4 ----------- >

32,33,35

5 ----------- >

6 ----------- >

1 ----------- >

2 ----------- >

3 ----------- >

4 ----------- >

5 ----------- >

(a) Precoded response choices as printed in the questionnaire.

To recoded value of:

80

100

0

25

50

75

100

40

20

0

0

20

40

60

100

0

100

100

80

60

100

75

50

25

0

0

50

14

07/01/96 9:46 AM 15

Scale

Physical functioning

Table 2

STEP 2: AVERAGING ITEMS TO FORM SCALES

Number Of

Items

After Recoding Per Table 1,

Average The Following Items:

Role limitations due to physical health

Role limitations due to emotional problems

Energy/fatigue

Emotional well-being

Social functioning

Pain

General health

10

4

3

4

5

2

2

5

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16

17 18 19

23 27 29 31

24 25 26 28 30

20 32

21 22

1 33 34 35 36

07/01/96 9:46 AM

Table 3

RELIABILITY, CENTRAL TENDENCY AND VARIABILITY OF SCALES

IN THE MEDICAL OUTCOMES STUDY

Scale Items Alpha Mean SD

Physical Functioning

Role Functioning/physical

Role Functioning/emotional

Energy/fatigue

10

4

3

4

0.93

0.84

0.83

0.86

70.61

52.97

65.78

52.15

27.42

40.78

40.71

22.39

Emotional well-being

Social functioning

Pain

General Health

5

2

2

5

0.90

0.85

0.78

0.78

70.38

78.77

70.77

56.99

21.97

25.43

25.46

21.11

Health Change 1 – – 59.14 23.12

Note. Data is from baseline of the Medical Outcomes Study (N = 2471), except for Health change, which was obtained one-year later.

16

I25

I26

I27

I28

I29

I30

I31

I32

I17

I18

I19

I20

I21

I22

I23

I24

I33

I34

I35

I36

I9

I10

I11

I12

I13

I14

I15

I16

I5

I6

I7

I8

I1

I2

I3

I4

07/01/96 9:46 AM

Table 4

EXAMPLE INPUT FILE (sf36.in) For SF36.EXE

17

T25

T26

T27

T28

T29

T30

T31

T32

T17

T18

T19

T20

T21

T22

T23

T24

T33

T34

T35

T36

T9

T10

T11

T12

T13

T14

T15

T16

T1

T2

T3

T4

T5

T6

T7

T8

07/01/96 9:46 AM

Table 5

EXAMPLE INPUT FILE (sf36.in2) For sf36.exe

18

07/01/96 9:46 AM

Table 6

EXAMPLE sf36.sas FILE Produced By sf36.exe

T22=I22

T23=I23

T24=I24

T25=I25

T26=I26

T27=I27

T28=I28

T29=I29

T30=I30

T14=I14

T15=I15

T16=I16

T17=I17

T18=I18

T19=I19

T20=I20

T21=I21

T6=I6

T7=I7

T8=I8

T9=I9

T10=I10

T11=I11

T12=I12

T13=I13

DATA TEMP1;

SET TEMP;

RENAME

T1=I1

T2=I2

T3=I3

T4=I4

T5=I5

19

07/01/96 9:46 AM

T31=I31

T32=I32

T33=I33

T34=I34

T35=I35

T36=I36;RUN;

*****************************************************************;

DATA TEMP1;SET TEMP1;

ARRAY RFIVEPT (I) I1 I2 I20 I22 I34 I36;

ARRAY THREEPT (I) I3 I4 I5 I6 I7 I8 I9 I10 I11 I12;

ARRAY TWOPT (I) I13 I14 I15 I16 I17 I18 I19;

ARRAY RSIXPT (I) I21 I23 I26 I27 I30;

ARRAY SIXPT (I) I24 I25 I28 I29 I31;

ARRAY FIVEPT (I) I32 I33 I35;

*****************************************************************;

I1SF=I1;I21SF=I21;I22SF=I22;

DO OVER RFIVEPT;

IF RFIVEPT=1 THEN RFIVEPT=100;

ELSE IF RFIVEPT=2 THEN RFIVEPT=75;



ELSE IF RFIVEPT=5 THEN RFIVEPT=0;END;

DO OVER THREEPT;

IF THREEPT=1 THEN THREEPT=0;

ELSE IF THREEPT=2 THEN THREEPT=50;

ELSE IF THREEPT=3 THEN THREEPT=100;END;

DO OVER TWOPT;

IF TWOPT=1 THEN TWOPT=0;

ELSE IF TWOPT=2 THEN TWOPT=100;END;

DO OVER RSIXPT;

IF RSIXPT=1 THEN RSIXPT=100;

ELSE IF RSIXPT=2 THEN RSIXPT=80;




ELSE IF RSIXPT=6 THEN RSIXPT=0;END;

20

07/01/96 9:46 AM

DO OVER SIXPT;

IF SIXPT=1 THEN SIXPT=0;

ELSE IF SIXPT=2 THEN SIXPT=20;




ELSE IF SIXPT=6 THEN SIXPT=100;END;

DO OVER FIVEPT;

IF FIVEPT=1 THEN FIVEPT=0;

ELSE IF FIVEPT=2 THEN FIVEPT=25;



ELSE IF FIVEPT=5 THEN FIVEPT=100;END;

*****************************************************************;

IF I1SF=1 THEN I1SF=5.0;

ELSE IF I1SF=2 THEN I1SF=4.4;




I1SF=(I1SF-1)*25;

21

07/01/96 9:46 AM

IF I21SF>.Z AND I22SF>.Z THEN DO;

IF I22SF=1 AND I21SF=1 THEN I22SF=6;

ELSE IF I22SF=1 AND 7>I21SF>1 THEN I22SF=5;




ELSE IF I22SF=5 AND 7>I21SF>0 THEN I22SF=1;END;

IF I21SF<=.Z AND I22SF>.Z THEN DO;





ELSE IF I22SF=5 THEN I22SF=1.0;END;







I21SF=(I21SF-1)*20;I22SF=(I22SF-1)*20;

***************************************************;

PHYFUN10=MEAN(I3,I4,I5,I6,I7,I8,I9,I10,I11,I12);

ROLEP4=MEAN(I13,I14,I15,I16);

PAIN2=MEAN(I21,I22);SFPAIN=MEAN(I21SF,I22SF);

GENH5=MEAN(I1,I33,I34,I35,I36);

SFGENH5=MEAN(I1SF,I33,I34,I35,I36);

EMOT5=MEAN(I24,I25,I26,I28,I30);

ROLEE3=MEAN(I17,I18,I19);

SOCFUN2=MEAN(I20,I32);

ENFAT4=MEAN(I23,I27,I29,I31);RUN;

****************************************************;

22

07/01/96 9:46 AM

DATA TEMP2;

SET TEMP1;

IF 18<=AGE AND MALE>=0 THEN DO;

SFAGE1=0;SFAGE2=0;SFAGE3=0;SFAGE4=0;SFAGE5=0;

SFAGE6=0;SFAGE7=0;SFAGE8=0;SFAGE9=0;

SFAGE10=0;SFAGE11=0;SFAGE12=0;

END;

IF 18<=AGE<=24 AND MALE=1 THEN SFAGE1=1;

IF 24<AGE<=34 AND MALE=1 THEN SFAGE2=1;




IF 64<AGE AND MALE=1 THEN SFAGE6=1;

IF 18<=AGE<=24 AND MALE=0 THEN SFAGE7=1;





IF 64<AGE AND MALE=0 THEN SFAGE12=1;

*********************************************************;

DATA GENPOP;

INFILE 'sf36.raw' MISSOVER;INPUT

#1 PF1 1-5

PF2 6-10

PF3 11-15

PF4 16-20

PF5 21-25

PF6 26-30

PF7 31-35

PF8 36-40

PF9 41-45

PF10 46-50

PF11 51-55

PF12 56-60

#2 PF1S 1-5

PF2S 6-10

23

07/01/96 9:46 AM

RP7 31-35

RP8 36-40

RP9 41-45

RP10 46-50

RP11 51-55

RP12 56-60

#4 RP1S 1-5

RP2S 6-10

RP3S 11-15

RP4S 16-20

RP5S 21-25

RP6S 26-30

RP7S 31-35

RP8S 36-40

RP9S 41-45

RP10S 46-50

RP11S 51-55

RP12S 56-60

#5 BP1 1-5

BP2 6-10

PF3S 11-15

PF4S 16-20

PF5S 21-25

PF6S 26-30

PF7S 31-35

PF8S 36-40

PF9S 41-45

PF10S 46-50

PF11S 51-55

PF12S 56-60

#3 RP1 1-5

RP2 6-10

RP3 11-15

RP4 16-20

RP5 21-25

RP6 26-30

24

07/01/96 9:46 AM

BP7S 31-35

BP8S 36-40

BP9S 41-45

BP10S 46-50

BP11S 51-55

BP12S 56-60

#7 GEN1 1-5

GEN2 6-10

GEN3 11-15

GEN4 16-20

GEN5 21-25

GEN6 26-30

GEN7 31-35

GEN8 36-40

GEN9 41-45

GEN10 46-50

GEN11 51-55

GEN12 56-60

#8 GEN1S 1-5

GEN2S 6-10

BP3 11-15

BP4 16-20

BP5 21-25

BP6 26-30

BP7 31-35

BP8 36-40

BP9 41-45

BP10 46-50

BP11 51-55

BP12 56-60

#6 BP1S 1-5

BP2S 6-10

BP3S 11-15

BP4S 16-20

BP5S 21-25

BP6S 26-30

25

07/01/96 9:46 AM

ENFT7 31-35

ENFT8 36-40

ENFT9 41-45

ENFT10 46-50

ENFT11 51-55

ENFT12 56-60

#10 ENFT1S 1-5

ENFT2S 6-10

ENFT3S 11-15

ENFT4S 16-20

ENFT5S 21-25

ENFT6S 26-30

ENFT7S 31-35

ENFT8S 36-40

ENFT9S 41-45

ENFT10S 46-50

ENFT11S 51-55

ENFT12S 56-60

#11SF1 1-5

SF2 6-10

GEN3S 11-15

GEN4S 16-20

GEN5S 21-25

GEN6S 26-30

GEN7S 31-35

GEN8S 36-40

GEN9S 41-45

GEN10S 46-50

GEN11S 51-55

GEN12S 56-60

#9 ENFT1 1-5

ENFT2 6-10

ENFT3 11-15

ENFT4 16-20

ENFT5 21-25

ENFT6 26-30

26

07/01/96 9:46 AM

SF7S 31-35

SF8S 36-40

SF9S 41-45

SF10S 46-50

SF11S 51-55

SF12S 56-60

#13

RE1 1-5

RE2 6-10

RE3 11-15

RE4 16-20

RE5 21-25

RE6 26-30

RE7 31-35

RE8 36-40

RE9 41-45

RE10 46-50

RE11 51-55

RE12 56-60

#14

SF3 11-15

SF4 16-20

SF5 21-25

SF6 26-30

SF7 31-35

SF8 36-40

SF9 41-45

SF10 46-50

SF11 51-55

SF12 56-60

#12 SF1S 1-5

SF2S 6-10

SF3S 11-15

SF4S 16-20

SF5S 21-25

SF6S 26-30

27

07/01/96 9:46 AM

MH4 16-20

MH5 21-25

MH6 26-30

MH7 31-35

MH8 36-40

MH9 41-45

MH10 46-50

MH11 51-55

MH12 56-60

#16

MH1S 1-5

MH2S 6-10

MH3S 11-15

MH4S 16-20

MH5S 21-25

MH6S 26-30

MH7S 31-35

MH8S 36-40

MH9S 41-45

MH10S 46-50

RE1S 1-5

RE2S 6-10

RE3S 11-15

RE4S 16-20

RE5S 21-25

RE6S 26-30

RE7S 31-35

RE8S 36-40

RE9S 41-45

RE10S 46-50

RE11S 51-55

RE12S 56-60

#15

MH1 1-5

MH2 6-10

MH3 11-15

28

07/01/96 9:46 AM

MH11S 51-55

MH12S 56-60 ;RUN;

*****************************;

29

07/01/96 9:46 AM

DATA TEST;

IF _N_=1 THEN SET GENPOP;

SET TEMP2;

PFISFM=(SFAGE1*PF1)+ (SFAGE2*PF2)+ (SFAGE3*PF3)+

(SFAGE4*PF4)+ (SFAGE5*PF5)+ (SFAGE6*PF6)+

(SFAGE7*PF7)+ (SFAGE8*PF8)+ (SFAGE9*PF9)+

(SFAGE10*PF10)+ (SFAGE11*PF11)+ (SFAGE12*PF12);

IF SFAGE1=1 THEN ZPHY10=(PHYFUN10-PFISFM)/PF1S;

ELSE IF SFAGE2=1 THEN ZPHY10=(PHYFUN10-PFISFM)/PF2S;











RPSFM=(SFAGE1*RP1)+(SFAGE2*RP2)+(SFAGE3*RP3)+

(SFAGE4*RP4)+ (SFAGE5*RP5)+ (SFAGE6*RP6)+

(SFAGE7*RP7)+ (SFAGE8*RP8)+ (SFAGE9*RP9)+

(SFAGE10*RP10)+ (SFAGE11*RP11)+ (SFAGE12*RP12);

IF SFAGE1=1 THEN ZRP=(ROLEP4-RPSFM)/RP1S;

ELSE IF SFAGE2=1 THEN ZRP=(ROLEP4-RPSFM)/RP2S;











BPSFM=(SFAGE1*BP1)+(SFAGE2*BP2)+(SFAGE3*BP3)+

30

07/01/96 9:46 AM

(SFAGE4*BP4)+ (SFAGE5*BP5)+ (SFAGE6*BP6)+

(SFAGE7*BP7)+ (SFAGE8*BP8)+ (SFAGE9*BP9)+

(SFAGE10*BP10)+ (SFAGE11*BP11)+ (SFAGE12*BP12);

IF SFAGE1=1 THEN ZBP=(SFPAIN-BPSFM)/BP1S;

ELSE IF SFAGE2=1 THEN ZBP=(SFPAIN-BPSFM)/BP2S;











GENSFM=(SFAGE1*GEN1)+(SFAGE2*GEN2)+(SFAGE3*GEN3)+

(SFAGE4*GEN4)+ (SFAGE5*GEN5)+ (SFAGE6*GEN6)+

(SFAGE7*GEN7)+ (SFAGE8*GEN8)+ (SFAGE9*GEN9)+

(SFAGE10*GEN10)+ (SFAGE11*GEN11)+ (SFAGE12*GEN12);

IF SFAGE1=1 THEN ZGENH=(SFGENH5-GENSFM)/GEN1S;

ELSE IF SFAGE2=1 THEN ZGENH=(SFGENH5-GENSFM)/GEN2S;











ENFTSFM=(SFAGE1*ENFT1)+(SFAGE2*ENFT2)+(SFAGE3*ENFT3)+

(SFAGE4*ENFT4)+ (SFAGE5*ENFT5)+ (SFAGE6*ENFT6)+

(SFAGE7*ENFT7)+ (SFAGE8*ENFT8)+ (SFAGE9*ENFT9)+

(SFAGE10*ENFT10)+ (SFAGE11*ENFT11)+ (SFAGE12*ENFT12);

IF SFAGE1=1 THEN ZENFT=(ENFAT4-ENFTSFM)/ENFT1S;

31

07/01/96 9:46 AM

ELSE IF SFAGE2=1 THEN ZENFT=(ENFAT4-ENFTSFM)/ENFT2S;











SFSFM=(SFAGE1*SF1)+(SFAGE2*SF2)+(SFAGE3*SF3)+

(SFAGE4*SF4)+ (SFAGE5*SF5)+ (SFAGE6*SF6)+

(SFAGE7*SF7)+ (SFAGE8*SF8)+ (SFAGE9*SF9)+

(SFAGE10*SF10)+ (SFAGE11*SF11)+ (SFAGE12*SF12);

IF SFAGE1=1 THEN ZSF=(SOCFUN2-SFSFM)/SF1S;

ELSE IF SFAGE2=1 THEN ZSF=(SOCFUN2-SFSFM)/SF2S;











RESFM=(SFAGE1*RE1)+(SFAGE2*RE2)+(SFAGE3*RE3)+

(SFAGE4*RE4)+ (SFAGE5*RE5)+ (SFAGE6*RE6)+

(SFAGE7*RE7)+ (SFAGE8*RE8)+ (SFAGE9*RE9)+

(SFAGE10*RE10)+ (SFAGE11*RE11)+ (SFAGE12*RE12);

IF SFAGE1=1 THEN ZRE=(ROLEE3-RESFM)/RE1S;

ELSE IF SFAGE2=1 THEN ZRE=(ROLEE3-RESFM)/RE2S;




32

07/01/96 9:46 AM








MHSFM=(SFAGE1*MH1)+(SFAGE2*MH2)+(SFAGE3*MH3)+

(SFAGE4*MH4)+ (SFAGE5*MH5)+ (SFAGE6*MH6)+

(SFAGE7*MH7)+ (SFAGE8*MH8)+ (SFAGE9*MH9)+

(SFAGE10*MH10)+ (SFAGE11*MH11)+ (SFAGE12*MH12);

IF SFAGE1=1 THEN ZMHI=(EMOT5-MHSFM)/MH1S;

ELSE IF SFAGE2=1 THEN ZMHI=(EMOT5-MHSFM)/MH2S;











IF PHYFUN10=. THEN PFISFM=.;IF PFISFM=. THEN PHYFUN10=.;

IF ROLEP4=. THEN RPSFM=.;IF RPSFM=. THEN ROLEP4=.;

IF PAIN2=. THEN BPSFM=.;IF BPSFM=. THEN PAIN2=.;

IF BPSFM=. THEN SFPAIN=.;

IF GENH5=. THEN GENSFM=.;IF GENSFM=. THEN GENH5=.;

IF GENSFM=. THEN SFGENH5=.;

IF ENFAT4=. THEN ENFTSFM=.;IF ENFTSFM=. THEN ENFAT4=.;

IF SOCFUN2=. THEN SFSFM=.;IF SFSFM=. THEN SOCFUN2=.;

IF ROLEE3=. THEN RESFM=.;IF RESFM=. THEN ROLEE3=.;

IF EMOT5=. THEN MHSFM=.;IF MHSFM=. THEN EMOT5=.;RUN;

*****************************************************;

DATA TEST;SET TEST;RUN;

PROC MEANS;

33

07/01/96 9:46 AM

VAR

PHYFUN10 ROLEP4 PAIN2 SFPAIN GENH5 SFGENH5

EMOT5 ROLEE3 ENFAT4 SOCFUN2;RUN;

PROC MEANS N MEAN;

VAR

PFISFM RPSFM BPSFM GENSFM

MHSFM RESFM ENFTSFM SFSFM;RUN;

*****************************************************;

PROC MEANS T PRT;

VAR ZPHY10 ZRP ZBP ZGENH ZENFT ZSF ZRE ZMHI;RUN;

*****************************************************;

PROC CORR NOMISS ALPHA;VAR

I3 I4 I5 I6 I7 I8 I9 I10 I11 I12;

TITLE 'PHYSICAL FUNCTIONING';RUN;

*****************************************************;


I13 I14 I15 I16;

TITLE 'ROLE LIMITATIONS--PHYSICAL';RUN;

*****************************************************;


I21 I22;

TITLE 'PAIN--RAND SCORING';RUN;

*****************************************************;


I21SF I22SF;

TITLE 'PAIN--NEMC SCORING';RUN;

*****************************************************;


I1 I33 I34 I35 I36;

TITLE 'GENERAL HEALTH--RAND SCORING';RUN;

*****************************************************;

34

07/01/96 9:46 AM


I1SF I33 I34 I35 I36;

TITLE 'GENERAL HEALTH--NEMC SCORING';RUN;

*****************************************************;


I24 I25 I26 I28 I30;

TITLE 'EMOTIONAL WELL-BEING';RUN;

*****************************************************;


I17 I18 I19 ;

TITLE 'ROLE LIMITATIONS--EMOTIONAL';RUN;

*****************************************************;


I20 I32;

TITLE 'SOCIAL FUNCTION';RUN;

*****************************************************;


I23 I27 I29 I31;

TITLE 'ENERGY';RUN;

*****************************************************;

35

07/01/96 9:46 AM

Table 7

EXAMPLE SAS Output from sf36.sas FILE

Variable N Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum

---------------------------------------------------------------------

PHYFUN10 177 82.4293785 20.6300431 10.0000000 100.0000000

ROLEP4 177 90.2542373 19.4108626 0 100.0000000

PAIN2 177 84.2090395 17.3862808 25.0000000 100.0000000

SFPAIN 177 81.1242938 19.0079627 20.0000000 100.0000000

GENH5 177 73.0508475 15.3561030 25.0000000 100.0000000

SFGENH5 177 74.5423729 15.1481195 27.0000000 100.0000000

EMOT5 177 75.5706215 15.5941727 20.0000000 100.0000000

ROLEE3 177 82.2975518 29.3101553 0 100.0000000

ENFAT4 177 68.1073446 16.8197260 20.0000000 100.0000000

SOCFUN2 177 78.9548023 20.7349533 0 100.0000000

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Variable N Mean

---------------------------

PFISFM 177 91.7229944

RPSFM 177 89.2180226

BPSFM 177 80.0205650

GENSFM 177 77.1684746

MHSFM 177 74.9923164

RESFM 177 83.2776836

ENFTSFM 177 63.6044633

SFSFM 177 86.0232203

---------------------------

Variable T Prob>|T|

--------------------------------

ZPHY10 -6.0582746 0.0001

ZRP 0.1866498 0.8522

ZBP 0.6750584 0.5005

ZGENH -2.4358239 0.0159

ZENFT 3.5896520 0.0004

ZSF -4.5436598 0.0001

ZRE -0.3998480 0.6898

ZMHI 0.5717541 0.5682

--------------------------------

36

07/01/96 9:46 AM

Variable N Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum

---------------------------------------------------------------------

PHYFUN10 181 82.5138122 20.4777949 10.0000000 100.0000000

PF_T 181 49.1219757 8.9442605 17.4495019 56.7595665

ROLEP4 181 90.1933702 19.4676701 0 100.0000000

RP_T 181 52.6612489 5.7601275 25.9746802 55.5628513

SFPAIN 181 80.9779006 18.9625232 20.0000000 100.0000000

BP_T 181 52.3286173 8.0490226 26.4453268 60.4029282

SFGENH5 181 74.2430939 15.1322510 27.0000000 100.0000000

GH_T 181 51.0064304 7.5024894 27.5835563 63.7765672

EMOT5 181 75.5138122 15.5701309 20.0000000 100.0000000

EM_T 181 50.3729160 8.6443626 19.5522680 63.9673738

ROLEE3 181 81.9521179 29.7042237 0 100.0000000

RE_T 181 50.1990627 8.9938749 25.3855174 55.6636188

SOCFUN2 181 79.0055249 20.6116195 0 100.0000000

SF_T 181 47.9478374 9.2113124 12.6403464 57.3302476

ENFAT4 181 67.8453039 16.7596852 20.0000000 100.0000000

EN_T 181 53.2539351 8.0307384 30.3279008 68.6615009

AGG_PHYS 181 51.5414156 6.3803919 31.2261296 68.9868203

AGG_MENT 181 50.1132380 8.9281718 15.9550097 69.6975957

---------------------------------------------------------------------

37

07/01/96 9:46 AM 38

APPENDIX: SF-36 QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS

1. In general, would you say your health is:

(Circle One Number)

Excellent ............................................. 1

Very good ............................................ 2

Good .................................................... 3

Fair ..................................................... 4

Poor ..................................................... 5

2. Compared to one year ago, how would you rate your health in general now?


Much better now than one year ago......................................... 1

Somewhat better now than one year ago ................................ 2

About the same .......................................................................... 3

Somewhat worse now than one year ago ................................. 4

Much worse now than one year ago ......................................... 5

8.

9.

6.

7.

10.

11.

12.

5.

3.

4.

The following items are about activities you might do during a typical day. Does your health now limit

you in these activities? If so, how much?

(Circle One Number on Each Line)

Vigorous activities, such as running, lifting heavy objects, participating in strenuous sports ..........................

Yes,

Limited a Lot

1

Yes, a Little

2

No,

Limited Not Limited at All

3

Moderate activities, such as moving a table, pushing a vacuum cleaner, bowling, or playing golf .......................

Lifting or carrying groceries ...............................................

Climbing several flights of stairs ......................................

Climbing one flight of stairs ..............................................

Bending, kneeling, or stooping ...........................................

Walking more than a mile ...............................................

Walking several blocks ....................................................

Walking one block .............................................................

Bathing or dressing yourself ..............................................

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

07/01/96 9:46 AM 39

During the past 4 weeks, have you had any of the following problems with your work or other regular daily activities as a result of your physical health?

13. Cut down the amount of time you spent on work or other activities ....................................................................


Yes

1

No

14. Accomplished less than you would like .........................

15. Were limited in the kind of work or other activities .......

16. Had difficulty performing the work or other activities

1

1

2

2

2

(for example, it took extra effort) ...................................... 1 2

During the past 4 weeks, have you had any of the following problems with your work or other regular daily activities as a result of any emotional problems (such as feeling depressed or anxious)?

17. Cut down the amount of time you spent on work or other activities ......................................................


Yes

1

No

18. Accomplished less than you would like ......................... 1

2

2

19. Didn’t do work or other activities as carefully as usual . 1 2

20. During the past 4 weeks, to what extent has your physical health or emotional problems interfered with your normal social activities with family, friends, neighbors, or groups?


Not at all ............................................. 1

Slightly .............................................. 2

Moderately .......................................... 3

Quite a bit ........................................... 4

Extremely ........................................... 5

21. How much bodily pain have you had during the past 4 weeks?


None .................................................... 1

Very mild ............................................ 2

Mild ..................................................... 3

Moderate ............................................. 4

Severe ................................................. 5

Very severe ......................................... 6

07/01/96 9:46 AM 40

22. During the past 4 weeks, how much did pain interfere with your normal work (including both work outside the home and housework)?


Not at all ............................................. 1

A little bit ........................................... 2

Moderately .......................................... 3

Quite a bit ........................................... 4

Extremely ........................................... 5

These questions are about how you feel and how things have been with you during the past 4 weeks. For each question, please give the one answer that comes closest to the way you have been feeling.

How much of the time during the past 4 weeks . . .


23. Did you feel full of pep? ............................

24. Have you been a very nervous person? ...

25. Have you felt so down in the dumps that nothing could cheer you up? ............

26. Have you felt calm and peaceful? ............

27. Did you have a lot of energy? ...................

28. Have you felt downhearted and blue? .....

29. Did you feel worn out? ..............................

30. Have you been a happy person? ..............

31. Did you feel tired? ....................................

32.

All Most of the of the

A Good

Bit of

Some A Little None of the of the of the

Time Time the Time Time Time Time

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

During the past 4 weeks, how much of the time has your physical health or emotional

problems interfered with your social activities (like visiting with friends, relatives, etc.)?


All of the time ..................................... 1

Most of the time ................................. 2

Some of the time ................................ 3

A little of the time .............................. 4

None of the time ................................. 5

07/01/96 9:46 AM 41

How TRUE or FALSE is each of the following statements for you.


33. I seem to get sick a little easier than other people......................................................

34. I am as healthy as anybody I know. ...............

35. I expect my health to get worse. .....................

36. My health is excellent. ....................................

Definitely Mostly

True

1

1

1

1

True

2

2

2

2

Don’t

Know

3

3

3

3

Mostly

False

4

4

4

4

Definitely

False

5

5

5

5

SF-36 Scoring and SAS Program Generator

Related documents

Products

Support

SF-36 Scoring and SAS Program Generator

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib