Search

Background and Objectives: Previous studies suggested that the Chinese version of the Short-Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) had smaller variability in the physical functioning (PF) and physical component summary (PCS) scores than the English SF-36. This may translate into differences in discriminative ability and sample size requirement., Materials and Methods: Data were drawn from a community-based survey and a randomised crossover study of Singaporeans bilingual in the Chinese and English languages. The abilities of the two PF and PCS versions in discriminating subjects who reported chronic illness and acute disease symptoms versus those who did not were compared., Results: In all four comparisons (i.e. two health criteria in two studies) the Chinese version of PF showed a larger effect size than the English version. In three out of four comparisons the Chinese version of PCS showed a larger effect size than the English version., Conclusions: The Chinese version appeared more efficient in detecting a statistically significant difference between groups. Other factors being the same, the Chinese SF-36 may require a smaller sample size than the English SF-36 for the studies of physical aspects of health-related quality of life.

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.

Scaling assumptions and validity of the English (UK) and Chinese (HK) short form 36 health survey (SF-36) were assessed in a community-based survey of 5,503 Chinese, Malays and Indians in Singapore using the international quality of life assessment project approach of item and scale level validation. Missing data for SF-36 items and scales occurred in less than 1.0% of subjects. Item level validation of both versions generally supported assumptions underlying Likert scoring and hypothesised item-order clustering. Item level factor analysis supported the eight-scale structure of the SF-36. In scale level validation, SF-36 scale scores showed wide variability and acceptable internal-consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha > 0.70 for six English and seven Chinese scales), conformed to hypothesised patterns and generally varied according to hypotheses in subjects known to differ in quality of life. Scale level factor analysis of both versions yielded very similar patterns of factor correlation, comparable to that found in Japan, but differing from that seen in Western populations. Taken together, these results support the validity of the English (UK) and Chinese (HK) SF-36 versions in the multi-ethnic Asian socio-cultural context of Singapore.