A meta-analytic review of measurement equivalence study findings of the SF-36® and SF-12® Health Surveys across electronic modes compared to paper administration

Abstract

PurposePatient-reported outcome (PRO) measures originally developed for paper administration are increasingly being administered electronically in clinical trials and other health research studies. Three published meta-analyses of measurement equivalence among paper and electronic modes aggregated findings across hundreds of PROs, but there has not been a similar meta-analysis that addresses a single PRO, partly because there are not enough published measurement equivalence studies using the same PRO. Because the SF-36(R) Health Survey (SF-36) is a widely used PRO, the aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis of measurement equivalence studies of this survey.MethodsA literature search of several medical databases used search terms for variations of “SF-36” or “SF-12” and “equivalence” in the title or abstract of English language publications. The eight scale scores and two summary measures of the SF-36 and SF-12 were transformed to norm-based scores (NBS) using developer guidelines. A threshold of within ± 2 NBS points was set as the margin of equivalence. Comprehensive meta-analysis software was used.ResultsTwenty-five studies were included in the meta-analysis. Results indicated that mean differences across domains and summary scores ranged from 0.01 to 0.39 while estimates of agreement ranged from 0.76 to 0.91, all well within the equivalence threshold. Moderator analyses showed that time between administration, survey language, and type of electronic device did not influence equivalence.ConclusionsThe results of the meta-analysis support equivalence of paper-based and electronic versions of the SF-36 and SF-12 across a variety of disease populations, countries, and electronic modes.

Comparing Psychometric Properties of the SF-36 and SF-12 in Measuring Quality of Life among Adolescents in China: A Large Sample Cross-sectional Study

“…Unlike previous research [35,[37][38][39], we found the domains of BP and SF in general had poor discrimination of items, while PF in general, as well as BP, SF, RP, and VT on the SF-12, had higher discriminations of items than in SF-36. We suggest that, compared with PF items, the items in these other domains were not easy for teenagers to understand, resulting in a lack of sensitivity in the measurement.…”

“…On the other hand, it may also be attributed to the presence of inconsistent responses, which might occur if respondents completed a questionnaire without comprehending the items, which might occur with adolescents [21]. Due to the brevity of the SF-12 instrument, related research has shown that it is not possible to get reliable information for each of the eight domains, so that one would not be able to draw conclusions about speci c domains [37]. Indeed, we found the SF-36 was better than the SF-12 in terms of reliability.…”

<p>Evaluation of the Paper and Smartphone Versions of the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report (QIDS-SR16) and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) in Depressed Patients in China</p>

“…Previous studies generally showed good concordance between the electronic and paper versions of various questionnaires across a wide variety of diseases and conditions, [25][26][27] but those studies were not controlled clinical trials, they did not use smartphone electronic versions, and did not include scales used in depression. Nevertheless, the results of the present study for QIDS-SR16 and PHQ-9 are consistent between the paper and electronic versions, as supported by the previous studies mentioned above.…”

Health-Related Quality of Life of Medical Students in a Chinese University: A Cross-Sectional Study

“…Data collection was carried out during class intervals or after classes in online and offline forms. The different forms of the questionnaire, either online or paper-based, had little impact on the equivalence of our study [15]. Students' participation was voluntary, and the survey was anonymised.…”