Comparison of the SF-36 physical function subscale and the Barthel Index in the subarachnoid hemorrhage population

2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10755/163826
Category:
Abstract
Type:
Presentation
Title:
Comparison of the SF-36 physical function subscale and the Barthel Index in the subarachnoid hemorrhage population
Author(s):
Alexander, Sheila; Kim, Yookyung; Kerr, Mary; Yonas, Howard
Author Details:
Sheila Alexander, University of Pittsburgh, School of Nursing, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, email; salexand@pitt.edu; Yookyoung Kim; Mary Kerr; Howard Yonas
Abstract:
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the psychometric characteristics of the Short-form-36 physical function subscale (SF-36 PF) and the Barthel Index (BI) in the subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) population. Research Question: To determine reliability, factor structure and validity of the SF-36PF and BI in the SAH population. Methods: Initial injury severity scores [Glasgow Coma Score (GCS), Hunt & Hess score (H&H), and Fisher grades] were collected prospectively on 75 subjects upon admission after severe SAH. Glasgow Outcome Score (GOS), Modified Rankin Score (MRS), BI, and SF-36 PF were assessed via telephone interview at 3 months, 6 months and at 12 months post injury. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's coefficient alpha. Post-dictive validity was assessed by correlating 3 month SF-36 PF and BI scores with indices of severity of injury. Correlations with 6 and 12 months MRS and GOS assessed short term and long term predictive validity of the scales. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to assess dimensionality of the underlying constructs. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of the SF-36PF and BI at 3 months in predicting 12 month outcomes. Good outcomes were defined as a GOS 4, and poor outcomes as a GOS 3. Multiple regression analysis identified the best model for predicting functional outcomes in this population. Results & Conclusions: Neither scale correlated with any demographic variables. Both scores correlated significantly with GCS (SF-36PF- r= .33, p=.01; BI- r=.33, p=.01) and H&H (SF-36PF-r= -.28, p=.03; BI- r=-.30, p=.02), but not Fisher grade (SF-36PF- r= -.08, p=.55; BI- r=-.04, p=.78). The SF-36 PF and the BI both had excellent internal consistency with alphas > = .95. The 3 month SF-36 PF also had high short and long term predictive validity as compared to the GOS (6 mo. r= .58, p < = .001; 12 mo r= .525, p < = .001) and MRS(6 mo. r= -.70, p < = .001; 12 mo. r= -.71, p < = .001). The 3 month BI also had high short and long term predictive validity as compared to the GOS (6 mo. r= .72, p < = .001; 12 mo r= .625, p < = .001) and MRS (6 mo. r= -.74, p < = .001; 12 mo. r= -.74, p < = .001). CFA for both the SF-36PF and BI showed unidimensional factorial model has a good fit to the data. ROC curve analysis revealed that a score of 16 on the SF-36 PF and a score of 18 on the BI provided optimal levels of sensitivity and specificity in predicting good versus poor 12 month outcomes. Multiple linear regression identified the BI (at 3 months) to be the better predictor of 12 month outcomes. Implications for Nursing Practice and Knowledge Development in Nursing: The SF-36 PF and BI show similar psychometric properties in the SAH population as compared to other populations. They both correlated well with clinical indicators of severity of injury. They both show excellent reliability and validity when compared to the GOS and MRS in this population.
Repository Posting Date:
27-Oct-2011
Date of Publication:
27-Oct-2011
Conference Date:
2002
Conference Name:
14th Annual Scientific Sessions
Conference Host:
Eastern Nursing Research Society
Conference Location:
University Park, Pennsylvania, USA
Note:
This is an abstract-only submission. If the author has submitted a full-text item based on this abstract, you may find it by browsing the Virginia Henderson Global Nursing e-Repository by author. If author contact information is available in this abstract, please feel free to contact him or her with your queries regarding this submission. Alternatively, please contact the conference host, journal, or publisher (according to the circumstance) for further details regarding this item. If a citation is listed in this record, the item has been published and is available via open-access avenues or a journal/database subscription. Contact your library for assistance in obtaining the as-published article.

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.type.categoryAbstracten_US
dc.typePresentationen_GB
dc.titleComparison of the SF-36 physical function subscale and the Barthel Index in the subarachnoid hemorrhage populationen_GB
dc.contributor.authorAlexander, Sheilaen_US
dc.contributor.authorKim, Yookyungen_US
dc.contributor.authorKerr, Maryen_US
dc.contributor.authorYonas, Howarden_US
dc.author.detailsSheila Alexander, University of Pittsburgh, School of Nursing, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, email; salexand@pitt.edu; Yookyoung Kim; Mary Kerr; Howard Yonasen_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10755/163826-
dc.description.abstractPurpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the psychometric characteristics of the Short-form-36 physical function subscale (SF-36 PF) and the Barthel Index (BI) in the subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) population. Research Question: To determine reliability, factor structure and validity of the SF-36PF and BI in the SAH population. Methods: Initial injury severity scores [Glasgow Coma Score (GCS), Hunt & Hess score (H&H), and Fisher grades] were collected prospectively on 75 subjects upon admission after severe SAH. Glasgow Outcome Score (GOS), Modified Rankin Score (MRS), BI, and SF-36 PF were assessed via telephone interview at 3 months, 6 months and at 12 months post injury. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's coefficient alpha. Post-dictive validity was assessed by correlating 3 month SF-36 PF and BI scores with indices of severity of injury. Correlations with 6 and 12 months MRS and GOS assessed short term and long term predictive validity of the scales. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to assess dimensionality of the underlying constructs. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of the SF-36PF and BI at 3 months in predicting 12 month outcomes. Good outcomes were defined as a GOS 4, and poor outcomes as a GOS 3. Multiple regression analysis identified the best model for predicting functional outcomes in this population. Results & Conclusions: Neither scale correlated with any demographic variables. Both scores correlated significantly with GCS (SF-36PF- r= .33, p=.01; BI- r=.33, p=.01) and H&H (SF-36PF-r= -.28, p=.03; BI- r=-.30, p=.02), but not Fisher grade (SF-36PF- r= -.08, p=.55; BI- r=-.04, p=.78). The SF-36 PF and the BI both had excellent internal consistency with alphas > = .95. The 3 month SF-36 PF also had high short and long term predictive validity as compared to the GOS (6 mo. r= .58, p < = .001; 12 mo r= .525, p < = .001) and MRS(6 mo. r= -.70, p < = .001; 12 mo. r= -.71, p < = .001). The 3 month BI also had high short and long term predictive validity as compared to the GOS (6 mo. r= .72, p < = .001; 12 mo r= .625, p < = .001) and MRS (6 mo. r= -.74, p < = .001; 12 mo. r= -.74, p < = .001). CFA for both the SF-36PF and BI showed unidimensional factorial model has a good fit to the data. ROC curve analysis revealed that a score of 16 on the SF-36 PF and a score of 18 on the BI provided optimal levels of sensitivity and specificity in predicting good versus poor 12 month outcomes. Multiple linear regression identified the BI (at 3 months) to be the better predictor of 12 month outcomes. Implications for Nursing Practice and Knowledge Development in Nursing: The SF-36 PF and BI show similar psychometric properties in the SAH population as compared to other populations. They both correlated well with clinical indicators of severity of injury. They both show excellent reliability and validity when compared to the GOS and MRS in this population.en_GB
dc.date.available2011-10-27T11:14:31Z-
dc.date.issued2011-10-27en_GB
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-27T11:14:31Z-
dc.conference.date2002en_US
dc.conference.name14th Annual Scientific Sessionsen_US
dc.conference.hostEastern Nursing Research Societyen_US
dc.conference.locationUniversity Park, Pennsylvania, USAen_US
dc.description.noteThis is an abstract-only submission. If the author has submitted a full-text item based on this abstract, you may find it by browsing the Virginia Henderson Global Nursing e-Repository by author. If author contact information is available in this abstract, please feel free to contact him or her with your queries regarding this submission. Alternatively, please contact the conference host, journal, or publisher (according to the circumstance) for further details regarding this item. If a citation is listed in this record, the item has been published and is available via open-access avenues or a journal/database subscription. Contact your library for assistance in obtaining the as-published article.-
All Items in this repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.