Modelling Variability of Quality of Life Scores: A Study of Questionnaire Version and Bilingualism

Background and objectives: Modelling variability of quality of life scores can not only improve our understanding of the characteristics of the measurement tools, but also shed light on sample size requirements. Although the English and Chinese versions of the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) are...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Quality of life research 2004-06, Vol.13 (5), p.897-906
Main Authors: Y.-B. Cheung, J. Thumboo, Machin, D., P.-H. Feng, M.-L. Boey, S.-T. Thio, K.-Y. Fong
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Aged
Bilingualism
Estimators for the mean
Female
Gaussian distributions
Health Status Indicators
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Modeling
Multilingualism
Older people
Quality of Life
Questionnaires
Regression Analysis
Sample Size
Sensitivity and Specificity
Singapore
Standard deviation
Statistical discrepancies
Studies
Surveys and Questionnaires
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background and objectives: Modelling variability of quality of life scores can not only improve our understanding of the characteristics of the measurement tools, but also shed light on sample size requirements. Although the English and Chinese versions of the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) are commonly considered equivalent, they have not been compared in terms of variability. Furthermore, bilingual and monolingual persons may differ in cognition and responses to questionnaires. Methods: In a community-based survey of quality of life in Singapore, a society where both English and Chinese are widely used and bilingualism is prevalent, 2590 respondents answered either version of the SF-36. We studied the impact of questionnaire version and bilingualism on the variability of SF-36 scores by regression modelling, with adjustment for covariates. Results: The Chinese version had smaller variances in the physical functioning (PF) and the physical component summary scores than the English version. The variance ratios (VRs) were respectively 0.32 and 0.60 (each p < 0.01), controlling for covariates. Bilingualism was not associated with variability in SF-36 scores except PF (VR = 0.78; p < 0.05). Conclusions: As a result of a smaller variance, using the Chinese version of SF-36 among bilingual Chinese people may require a smaller sample size than using the English version.
ISSN:0962-9343
1573-2649
DOI:10.1023/B:QURE.0000025588.68920.55