Original articleMeasuring Health in Patients With Cervical and Lumbosacral Spinal Disorders: Is the 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey a Valid Alternative for the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey?
Section snippets
Methods
This cross-sectional study was performed by using patients recruited from an outpatient orthopedic clinic between February 2005 and August 2006. The study was approved by the institutional review board of West Virginia University, and all patients provided written informed consent.
Results
Table 1 provides the descriptive summary of the sociodemographic and clinical data for both groups. The lumbosacral group tended to be older, have more comorbidities, have a higher proportion of smokers, and have more previous spine surgeries than the cervical group, but this was not statistically significant.
Table 2 displays the scale scores and summary scores of the SF-36v2 and SF-12v2 for the cervical and lumbosacral groups. There were strong correlations between the SF-36v2 and SF-12v2 in
Discussion
The SF-12v2 is an efficient method of collecting health outcome data for patients with spinal disorders. The SF-12v2 provides clinicians with the assessment of the broad health summaries and the detailed individual health profiles that are not available in SF-12v1. However, there is a paucity of evidence supporting the validity of the SF-12v2 in patients with spinal disorders. This study validated the use of the SF-12v2 in patients undergoing elective spinal surgery and determined additional
Conclusions
This study shows for the first time that the SF-12v2 is a valid alternative for the SF-36v2 in assessing the health status of patients with spinal disorders. The SF-12v2 adequately reflects both the health summary scores and the individual health profiles of SF-36v2. However, important factors including age, level of comorbidities, and smoking history need to be taken into consideration when assessing the SF-12v2 general health profile. These important factors are often part of the standard
Acknowledgment
We thank Lola Burke, BS, for her technical assistance in electronically scoring the surveys.
References (19)
- et al.
The SF-12 in the Australian population: cross-validation of item selection
Aust N Z J Public Health
(2002) - et al.
Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM
(2000) - et al.
The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36)I. Conceptual framework and item selection
Med Care
(1992) - et al.
The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II.Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs
Med Care
(1993) - et al.
The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III.Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups
Med Care
(1994) - et al.
How to score version 2 of the SF-36 health survey
(2000) - et al.
Criterion validity and reliability of the SF-36 in a population sample
Qual Life Res
(1994) - et al.
Evaluating translations of health status questionnairesMethods from the IQOLA project. International Quality of Life Assessment
Int J Technol Assess Health Care
(1995) - et al.
Responsiveness of common outcome measures for patients with low back pain
Spine
(1999)
Cited by (0)
No commercial party having a direct financial interest in the results of the research supporting this article has or will confer a benefit upon the authors or upon any organization with which the authors are associated.