This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

How comparable are different measures of self-rated health? Evidence from five European countries

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Hendrik Jürges ()
Mauricio Avendano
Johan Mackenbach (Mannheim Research Institute for the Economics of Aging (MEA))

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

Self-rated health (SRH) is a common health measurement in international research. Yet different versions of this item are often applied. This study compares the US (United States) version (from excellent to poor) and the EU (European) version (from very good to very bad) of SRH, and examines differences in their associations with demographic and objective health variables. Data were drawn from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE), comprising information from 11,622 respondents aged 50 years and over in five countries. Respondents were presented with both the EU and US versions. Information was collected on basic demographics and health variables including chronic diseases, symptoms, functional limitations and depression. Firstly, the distribution of each version of the SRH item was assessed, and both relative and literal concordance was examined. Subsequently, multivariate regression analysis was used to assess differences in the associations of both items with demographic and health indicators. The US version has a more symmetric distribution and smaller variance than the EU version. Although the EU version discriminates better at the negative end, the US version shows better discrimination at the negative end of the scale. 69% of respondents provided literally concordant answers, while only about one third provided relatively concordant answers. Overall, however, less than 10% of respondents were discordant in either sense. Furthermore, the two versions were strongly correlated (polychoric correlation = 0.88), had similar associations with demographics and health indicators, and showed a similar pattern of variation across countries. Health levels based on different versions of the self-rated health item are not directly comparable and require rescaling of items. However, both versions represent parallel assessments of the same latent health variable. We did not find evidence that the EU version is preferable to the US version as standard measure of SRH in European countries.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. 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.

File URL: http://www.mea.uni-mannheim.de/mea_neu/pages/files/nopage_pubs/5fti5rtbhp1t6afk_137-07.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Mannheim Research Institute for the Economics of Aging (MEA), University of Mannheim in its series MEA discussion paper series with number 07137.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: 16 Jul 2007
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:mea:meawpa:07137

Contact details of provider:
Postal: MEA - Mannheimer Forschungsinstitut Ökonomie und Demographischer Wandel, L13, 17, University of Mannheim, 68131 Mannheim
Phone: +49/621/181.1862
Fax: +49/621/181.1863
Web page: http://www.mea.uni-mannheim.de/

Order Information:
Email:

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Samir Chaturvedi) The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Samir Chaturvedi to update the entry or send us the correct address..

Related research
Keywords:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
  1. Ulf Olsson, 1979. "Maximum likelihood estimation of the polychoric correlation coefficient," Psychometrika, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 443-460, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. Crossley, Thomas F. & Kennedy, Steven, 2002. "The reliability of self-assessed health status," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 643-658, July. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? All bibliographic data on IDEAS has been put in the public domain by the publishers.

This page was last updated on 2009-12-15.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.