IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mea/meawpa/07137.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

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

Author

Listed:
  • Hendrik Jürges

    ()

  • Mauricio Avendano
  • Johan Mackenbach

    (Munich Center for the Economics of Aging (MEA))

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Hendrik Jürges & Mauricio Avendano & Johan Mackenbach, 2007. "How comparable are different measures of self-rated health? Evidence from five European countries," MEA discussion paper series 07137, Munich Center for the Economics of Aging (MEA) at the Max Planck Institute for Social Law and Social Policy.
  • Handle: RePEc:mea:meawpa:07137
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://mea.mpisoc.mpg.de/uploads/user_mea_discussionpapers/5fti5rtbhp1t6afk_137-07.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Ulf Olsson, 1979. "Maximum likelihood estimation of the polychoric correlation coefficient," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 44(4), pages 443-460, December.
    3. Appels, A. & Bosma, H. & Grabauskas, V. & Gostautas, A. & Sturmans, F., 1996. "Self-rated health and mortality in a Lithuanian and a Dutch population," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 42(5), pages 681-689, March.
    4. Carlson, Per, 1998. "Self-perceived health in East and West Europe: another European health divide," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 46(10), pages 1355-1366, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jylhä, Marja, 2009. "What is self-rated health and why does it predict mortality? Towards a unified conceptual model," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 307-316, August.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mea:meawpa:07137. 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: (Henning Frankenberger). General contact details of provider: http://www.mea.mpisoc.mpg.de/ .

    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 CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.