September 14, 2011Environmental Health and Preventive MedicineOpen Access

Scale development of health status for secondary data analysis using a nationally representative survey

Q: What is the clinical evidence from this study?

Study design: Cross-Sectional. Population: Health-related quality of life (n=383745). Intervention: Multi-dimensional health scales vs. Single-item health measures. Primary outcome: Internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha) and validity (AUC for diagnosed illnesses).

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Key result

The mental health scale demonstrated high reliability (Cronbach's α=0.90), whereas physical and summary health scales showed lower reliability (α=0.64 and 0.67) and require further validation.

Population

383,745 individuals aged 15 years or older from the 2007 Comprehensive Survey of the Living Conditions of…

Design

Cross-sectional

Authors

ANAkihiro NishiUniversity of California, Los Angeles HNHaruko NoguchiWaseda University HHHideki HashimotoJichi Medical University

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Supports K6 for mental health assessment in Japanese secondary data; physical and summary scales leave validity open pending further validation.

Study Design

Type

Cross-Sectional (n=383,745)

Structured PICO

Population

383,745 community-dwelling individuals aged 15 years and older in Japan, assessed for physical and mental health-related quality of life using a nationally representative cross-sectional survey.

Outcome

Reliability (internal consistency using Cronbach's alpha) and validity (AUC for diagnosed illnesses) of physical, mental, and summary health scalespatient reported

While the K6 scale is highly reliable for assessing mental health in the Japanese population, the developed physical and summary health scales require further refinement and validation before widespread use in secondary data analysis.

Limitations

Missing values for physical and mental health (15.8% of population excluded) may not have been random
Internal consistency reliability of the physical and summary health scales was not sufficiently high
External criteria for validity tests were not adequate enough
The simple summation method used to integrate physical and mental health into a summary scale is questionable
Missing values of physical health and mental health (K6) may have influenced the results as missing observations may not have been random.
The internal consistency reliability of the physical and summary health scales was not sufficiently high.
The external criteria for validity tests are not adequate enough to support the results.
The summary health scale, by integrating the physical and mental health scale through simple summation, remains questionable and should be more carefully examined.

Cite This Study

Nishi et al. (2011) conducted a cross-sectional in Health-related quality of life (n=383,745). Multi-dimensional health scales vs. Single-item health measures was evaluated on Internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha) and validity (AUC for diagnosed illnesses). The mental health scale demonstrated high reliability (Cronbach's α=0.90), whereas physical and summary health scales showed lower reliability (α=0.64 and 0.67) and require further validation.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a99d19ca2ec1cee3d4d260e https://doi.org/10.1007/s12199-011-0240-z

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Implication

Supports K6 for mental health assessment in Japanese secondary data; physical and summary scales leave validity open pending further validation.

Scale development of health status for secondary data analysis using a nationally representative survey

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Study Design

Structured PICO

Limitations

Cite This Study

Scale development of health status for secondary data analysis using a nationally representative survey

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Study Design

Structured PICO

Limitations

Cite This Study

Also Consider

Also Consider