Listening to respondents: : a qualitative assessment of the Short-Form 36 Health Status Questionnaire
Abstract
Standardised health status questionnaires are widely used to obtain subjective assessments of health. However, little research has investigated the meaning of the data they produce. Statistical tests will highlight some problems with the structure and wording of a questionnaire but they cannot shed any light on the way in which respondents interpret questions or their intended meaning when they select a response. Various qualitative techniques are being used within disciplines such as sociology and psychology to test both the language of survey instruments and the cognitive bases of surveys. This paper outlines some of these methods and reports findings from a qualitative research study in the UK with a widely used questionnaire- the Short-Form 36 Health Status Questionnaire. The value of including in-depth, qualitative validation techniques in the development and testing of surveys used to collect subjective assessments of health is clearly demonstrated by the findings of the study.Download Info
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic Info
Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Social Science & Medicine.
Volume (Year): 54 (2002)
Issue (Month): 1 (January)
Pages: 11-21
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description
Order Information:
Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional
Web: http://www.elsevier.com/orderme/journalorderform.cws_home/315/journalorderform1/orderooc/id=654&ref=654_01_ooc_1&version=01
Related research
Keywords: Subjective health measurement Qualitative methods SF-36;References
No references listed on IDEASYou can help add them by filling out this form.
Citations
Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.Cited by:
- Jin-Tan Liu & Meng-Wen Tsou & James Hammitt, 2007. "Health Information and Subjective Survival Probability: Evidence from Taiwan," NBER Working Papers 12864, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Laura Camfield & Gina Crivello & Martin Woodhead, 2009. "Wellbeing Research in Developing Countries: Reviewing the Role of Qualitative Methods," Social Indicators Research, Springer, vol. 90(1), pages 5-31, January.
- Joanna Sale, 2007. "Perceptions of a Quality of Work-Life Survey from the Perspective of Employees in a Canadian Cancer Centre," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 41(6), pages 779-791, December.
Lists
This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Statistics
Access and download statisticsCorrections
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:54:y:2002:i:1:p:11-21For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wendy Shamier).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.