指向 SF-8 身心量表无效的证据:融合有效性评估。

IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Leslie A Hayduk, Matthias Hoben, Carole Estabrooks
{"title":"指向 SF-8 身心量表无效的证据:融合有效性评估。","authors":"Leslie A Hayduk, Matthias Hoben, Carole Estabrooks","doi":"10.1186/s12874-024-02387-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The SF-8™ Short Form Health Survey creates physical and mental health scale scores from responses to eight survey questions. These widely used scales demonstrate reasonable reliablity, and some forms of validity but have not been assessed for fusion validity. We assess the fusion validity of the SF-8 physical and mental health scales, and provide comments assisting fusion validity assessment of other scales.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Checking the fusion validity of a scale requires including the scale and its constituent indicators in a structural equation model that has at least one variable causally downstream from the scale. We assessed fusion validity of the SF-8 physical and mental health scales in the context of work-related variables for care aides working in Canadian long-term care homes. Variables causally downstream from physical and mental health, such as work burnout, permit checking whether the SF-8 indicator items fuse to form cogent physical and mental scales, irrespective of whether those indicators share common-factor foundations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found that the SF-8 physical and mental health scales did not function appropriately. The scales inappropriately claimed effects for several items that had no effects and provided biased estimates of other effects. These deficiencies seem grounded in the scales' developmental history, which implicitly bolstered selection of some causally ambiguous items and paid insufficient attention to component factor model testing.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our observations of causal incongruities question whether the SF-8 can provide valid assessments of physical and mental health. However, it would be imprudent to discontinue SF-8 use on the basis of a single study suggesting invalidity. This uncomfortable conclusion can be rechecked by re-analyzing data from any project that employed the SF-8 and recorded even one causal consequence of physical or mental health. The power of fusion validity assessment comes from connecting the recorded consequences simultaneously to both the scale and the items from which that scale is calculated.</p>","PeriodicalId":9114,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","volume":"24 1","pages":"274"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11552401/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evidence pointing toward invalidity of the SF-8 physical and mental scales: a fusion validity assessment.\",\"authors\":\"Leslie A Hayduk, Matthias Hoben, Carole Estabrooks\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12874-024-02387-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The SF-8™ Short Form Health Survey creates physical and mental health scale scores from responses to eight survey questions. These widely used scales demonstrate reasonable reliablity, and some forms of validity but have not been assessed for fusion validity. We assess the fusion validity of the SF-8 physical and mental health scales, and provide comments assisting fusion validity assessment of other scales.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Checking the fusion validity of a scale requires including the scale and its constituent indicators in a structural equation model that has at least one variable causally downstream from the scale. We assessed fusion validity of the SF-8 physical and mental health scales in the context of work-related variables for care aides working in Canadian long-term care homes. Variables causally downstream from physical and mental health, such as work burnout, permit checking whether the SF-8 indicator items fuse to form cogent physical and mental scales, irrespective of whether those indicators share common-factor foundations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found that the SF-8 physical and mental health scales did not function appropriately. The scales inappropriately claimed effects for several items that had no effects and provided biased estimates of other effects. These deficiencies seem grounded in the scales' developmental history, which implicitly bolstered selection of some causally ambiguous items and paid insufficient attention to component factor model testing.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our observations of causal incongruities question whether the SF-8 can provide valid assessments of physical and mental health. However, it would be imprudent to discontinue SF-8 use on the basis of a single study suggesting invalidity. This uncomfortable conclusion can be rechecked by re-analyzing data from any project that employed the SF-8 and recorded even one causal consequence of physical or mental health. The power of fusion validity assessment comes from connecting the recorded consequences simultaneously to both the scale and the items from which that scale is calculated.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9114,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Medical Research Methodology\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"274\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11552401/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Medical Research Methodology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02387-z\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02387-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:SF-8™ 短表健康调查根据对 8 个调查问题的回答得出生理和心理健康量表分数。这些广泛使用的量表显示出合理的可靠性和某些形式的有效性,但尚未对其融合有效性进行评估。我们对 SF-8 身心健康量表的融合效度进行了评估,并对其他量表的融合效度评估提出了建议:检查量表的融合效度需要将量表及其组成指标纳入结构方程模型,该模型至少有一个变量与量表有因果关系。我们结合在加拿大长期护理院工作的护理助理的工作相关变量,评估了 SF-8 身心健康量表的融合有效性。与身心健康有因果关系的下游变量(如工作倦怠)允许检查 SF-8 指标项目是否融合形成了有说服力的身心健康量表,无论这些指标是否具有共同的因素基础:我们发现,SF-8 身心健康量表的功能并不恰当。这些量表不恰当地宣称了几个没有影响的项目的影响,并对其他影响进行了有偏差的估计。这些缺陷似乎与量表的发展历史有关,因为量表的发展历史暗中支持了一些因果关系不明确的项目的选择,并且对成分因子模型测试重视不够:结论:我们观察到的因果关系不协调现象对 SF-8 能否提供有效的身心健康评估提出了质疑。然而,如果仅凭一项研究表明 SF-8 无效就停止使用,那就太轻率了。可以通过重新分析任何使用 SF-8 并记录了身体或精神健康的哪怕一个因果后果的项目数据,来重新检查这一令人不安的结论。融合效度评估的力量来自于同时将记录的后果与量表和计算量表的项目联系起来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evidence pointing toward invalidity of the SF-8 physical and mental scales: a fusion validity assessment.

Background: The SF-8™ Short Form Health Survey creates physical and mental health scale scores from responses to eight survey questions. These widely used scales demonstrate reasonable reliablity, and some forms of validity but have not been assessed for fusion validity. We assess the fusion validity of the SF-8 physical and mental health scales, and provide comments assisting fusion validity assessment of other scales.

Methods: Checking the fusion validity of a scale requires including the scale and its constituent indicators in a structural equation model that has at least one variable causally downstream from the scale. We assessed fusion validity of the SF-8 physical and mental health scales in the context of work-related variables for care aides working in Canadian long-term care homes. Variables causally downstream from physical and mental health, such as work burnout, permit checking whether the SF-8 indicator items fuse to form cogent physical and mental scales, irrespective of whether those indicators share common-factor foundations.

Results: We found that the SF-8 physical and mental health scales did not function appropriately. The scales inappropriately claimed effects for several items that had no effects and provided biased estimates of other effects. These deficiencies seem grounded in the scales' developmental history, which implicitly bolstered selection of some causally ambiguous items and paid insufficient attention to component factor model testing.

Conclusion: Our observations of causal incongruities question whether the SF-8 can provide valid assessments of physical and mental health. However, it would be imprudent to discontinue SF-8 use on the basis of a single study suggesting invalidity. This uncomfortable conclusion can be rechecked by re-analyzing data from any project that employed the SF-8 and recorded even one causal consequence of physical or mental health. The power of fusion validity assessment comes from connecting the recorded consequences simultaneously to both the scale and the items from which that scale is calculated.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Medical Research Methodology
BMC Medical Research Methodology 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
2.50%
发文量
298
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Research Methodology is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in methodological approaches to healthcare research. Articles on the methodology of epidemiological research, clinical trials and meta-analysis/systematic review are particularly encouraged, as are empirical studies of the associations between choice of methodology and study outcomes. BMC Medical Research Methodology does not aim to publish articles describing scientific methods or techniques: these should be directed to the BMC journal covering the relevant biomedical subject area.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信