IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Elderly people's ratings of the importance of health-related factors to their self-assessments of health

Listed author(s):
  • Benyamini, Yael
  • Leventhal, Elaine A.
  • Leventhal, Howard
Registered author(s):

    Identifying the bases for self-assessed health (SAH) has interested researchers in their attempts to understand its validity as a predictor of future health outcomes. Quantitative approaches typically used statistical methods to identify correlates of SAH while qualitative approaches asked people to elaborate on the reasons underlying their rating of health. The current study used a quantitative methodology, asking 487 elderly people to rate the importance of 42 health-related factors as bases for their SAH judgment. Factors indicating overall functioning/vitality were rated highly by all participants. Factors indicating current disease were rated highly by people reporting poor/fair SAH while risk factors and positive indicators were rated highly by those reporting good, very good, or excellent health. Thus, there seems to be a clear distinction between poor and fair SAH that reflect levels of illness, and higher levels of SAH that reflect levels of health.

    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.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Social Science & Medicine.

    Volume (Year): 56 (2003)
    Issue (Month): 8 (April)
    Pages: 1661-1667

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:56:y:2003:i:8:p:1661-1667
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    Order Information: Postal:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:56:y:2003:i:8:p:1661-1667. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

    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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.