Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 1, Issue 3, pp 143–149 | Cite as

The functional status questionnaire

Reliability and validity when used in primary care
  • Alan M. Jette
  • Allyson R. Davies
  • Paul D. Cleary
  • David R. Calkins
  • Lisa V. Rubenstein
  • Arlene Fink
  • Jacqueline Kosecoff
  • Roy T. Young
  • Robert H. Brook
  • Thomas L. Delbanco
Original Articles


A comprehensive functional assessment requires thorough and careful inquiry, which is difficult to accomplish in most busy clinical practices. This paper examines the reliability and validity of the Functional Status Questionnaire (FSQ), a brief, standardized, self-administered questionnaire designed to provide a comprehensive and feasible assessment of physical, psychological, social and role function in ambulatory patients. The FSQ can be completed and computer-scored in minutes to produce a one-page report which includes six summated-rating scale scores and six single-item scores. The clinician can use this report both to screen for and to monitor patients’ functional status. In this study, the FSQ was administered to 497 regular users of Boston’s Beth Israel Hospital’ Healthcare Associates and 656 regular users of 76 internal medicine practices in Los Angeles. The data demonstrate that the FSQ produces reliable sub-scales with construct validity. The authors believe the FSQ addresses many of the problems behind the slow diffusion into primary care of systematic functional assessment.

Key words

Functional Status Questionnaire 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Nelson E, Conger B, Douglass R, et al. Functional health status levels of primary care patients. JAMA 1983;249:3331–38CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Katz S, Fort AB, Moskowitz R, et al. Studies of illness in the aged. The Index of ADL: a standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function. JAMA 1963;185:914CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jette A, Deniston OL. Inter-observer reliability of the Functional Status Assessment Instrument. J Chron Dis 1978;31:573–89CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bergner M, Bobbitt R, Carter W, et al. The Sickness Impact Profile: development and final revision of a health status measure. Med Care 1981;19:787–805CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pfeiffer E (ed). Multidimensional Functional Assessment: The OARS Methodology. Durham, NC, Center for the Study of Aging and Human Development, Duke University. 1975Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brook R, Ware J, Davies-Avery et al. Overview of adult health status measures fielded in Rand’s Health Insurance Study. Med Care 1979;17 (July suppl) 1–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sackett D, Chambers L, MacPherson AS, et al. The development and application of indices of health: general methods and a summary of results. Am J Public Health 1977;67:423–7CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Parkerson GR, Behlback SH, Wagner EH, et al. The Duke-UNC Health Profile: An adult health status instrument for primary care. Med Care 1981;19:806–28CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Meenan R, Anderson J, Kazis L, et al. Outcome assessment in clinical trials: evidence for the sensitivity of a health status measure. Arthritis Rheum 1984;27:1344–52CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rubenstein L, Calkins D, Fink A, et al. How to help your patients function better. West J Med 1985;143:114–7PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stewart A, Ware JE Jr, Brook RH. Construction and scoring of aggregate functional status measures. Vol. 1 & 2. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 1982 (Rand publ. no. R-2551-1-HHS and N-1706-1-HHS)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Veit CT, Ware JE Jr. The structure of psychological distress and well-being in general populations. J Consult Clin Psychol 1983;51:730–42CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nunally J. Psychometeric theory. New York: McGraw Hill; 1967Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kane RA, Kane RI. Assessing the elderly: a practical guide to measurement. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books; 1981Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service. Office of Health Research, Statistics and Technology, National Center for Health Statistics. Current Estimates From the Health Interview Survey: U.S. — 1978. DHEW Publ. No. (PHS) 80-1551, US Gov’t Printing Office, Washington, DC; 1979Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Feller B. Americans needing help to function at home. Advance data. Vital & health statistics of the National Center for Health Statistics, No. 92, US DHHS; 1983Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Levkoff SE, Clearly PD, Wetle T. Differences in the appraisal of health between the aged and middle aged. Unpublished manuscript, 1984Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Myers JK, et al. 6 months prevalence of psychiatric disease in 3 communities — 1980–1982. Arch Gen Psychiat 1984;41:959–67CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Berkman L. The assessment of social networks and social support in the elderly. J Am Geriatr Soc 1983;31:743–9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Helmstadter GC. Principles of psychological measurement. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1973; pp 251–66Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD, Davies AR, et al. Surveying general health status. The Rand Corporation (in press 1985)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gilson BS, Bergner M, Bobbit RA, et al. Revision and test of the Sickness Impact Profile, Department of Health Services, School of Public Health and Community Medicine. University of Washington, mimeographed report, 1974Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Research and Education in Primary Care Internal Medicine 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alan M. Jette
    • 1
  • Allyson R. Davies
  • Paul D. Cleary
  • David R. Calkins
  • Lisa V. Rubenstein
  • Arlene Fink
  • Jacqueline Kosecoff
  • Roy T. Young
  • Robert H. Brook
  • Thomas L. Delbanco
  1. 1.MGH Institute of Health ProfessionsMassachusetts General HospitalBoston

Personalised recommendations