Psychometric qualities of the rand 36-item health survey 1.0: A multidimensional measure of general health status

  • Karen I. Vander Zee
  • Robbert Sanderman
  • Joost W. Heyink
  • Hanneke de Haes


The reliability and validity of the RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0 were investigated in a population sample of 1,063 inhabitants of a Dutch township, all age 17or older. Confirmatory factor analysisonly partly supported the internal structure of the RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0. The internal consistency of the instrument was high. Pointing to high convergent validity, a multitrait-multimelhod matrix revealed that the RAND-36 scales showed higher correlations with corresponding scales from other instruments than with noncorresponding scales. However, indicating low discriminant validity, some of these correlations did not exceed the intercorrelations among the RAND-36 scales. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) showed significant effects of age for physical functioning, role limitations (physical problem), general health perception and pain, and significant effects of education on physical functioning and general health perception. Significant sex differences were found for mental health only. The results of this study on the psychometric properties of the RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0 seem promising. There is a need for further studies investigating its factor structure and cross-cultural equivalence.

Key words

RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0 health status measurement population survey psychometric qualitie 


  1. Aaronson, N. K., Acquadro, C., Alonso, J., Apolone, G., Buequet, D., Builinger, M., Bungay, K., Fukuhara, B., Gandek, B., Keller, S., Razavi, D., Sanson-Fisher, R., Sullivan, M., Wood-Dauphinec, S., Wagner, A., & Ware, J. E. (1992). International Quality of Life Assessment (lQOLA) project: Special communication. Quality of Life Research, 1, 349–351.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, J. S. C. Sullivan, F., & Usherwood, T. P. (1990). The Medical Outcome Study Instrument (MOSI)—Use of a new health status measure in Britain. Family practice, 7, 205–218.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bouma, J., Ranchor, A. V., & Sanderman, R. (1993). Social class and health differences. An empirical study into the relationship between well-being, depression, perceived health, chronic diseases and social class. In A. V. Ranchor, J. Bouma, & R. Sandernan (Eds.), Socical Economische Status en her myorardinfarct: Verslag ten behoeve van de Programmacommissie Sociecl Economische Gezondheidsverschillen (SEGV) [Socioeconomic status and myocardial infarction]. Groningen, The Netherlands: Noordelijk Centrum voor Gezondhcidsvraagstukken.Google Scholar
  4. Brazier, J. E., Harper, R., Jones, N. M. B., Cathain, A., Thomas, K. J., Usherwood, T., & Westlaks, L. (1992). Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: New outcomes measure for primary care. British Medical Journal, 305, 160–164.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brook, R. J., Ware, J. E., Davies-Avery, A., Stewart, A. L., Donald, C. A., Rogers, W. H., Williams, K. N., & Johnston, S. A. (1979). Overview of adult heallh status measures fielded in RAND’s Health Insurance Study. Medical Cure, 15, 724–735.Google Scholar
  6. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod-matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 546–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). Hypochondriasis, neuroticism. and aging: When.are somatic complaints unfounded? American Psychologist, 40, 19–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1987) Personality assessment in psychosomatic medicine. Value of a trait taxonomy. Advances in Psychosomatic Medicine, 17, 71–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. DeBakker, D. H., Claesens, A. A. M. C. & Van der Velden, J. (1992). Man-vrouw verschillen in gezondheid en medische consumptie. Nutionale studie van ziekten en verrichtingen in de hwsartsenpraktijk [Sex-differences in health and in the use of Heallh Services. A national study of diseases and operations in general practice]. Utrecht. The Netherlands: NIVEL.Google Scholar
  10. Essink-Bot, M. L.,& Ruttcn-VanMölken, M. P. M. H. (1991). Het meten van de gezondheidsistoestand: invenrarisatie van meetinstrumemen voor medical technology assessment [The measurement of health status: An overview of measures for medical technology assessment]. Rotterdam/Maastricht: Institute of Community Health Care/Institute of Medical Technology Assessment. Erasmus University Rotterdam/University of Limhurg.Google Scholar
  11. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual for the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. San Diego, CA: Education and Industrial Testing Services.Google Scholar
  12. Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1991). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Scales (EPS Adult). London: Hodder & Stoughton.Google Scholar
  13. Garait, A. M., Ruta, D. A.,Abdalla, M. I., Buckingham, J. K.,& Russell, L. T. (1993). The SF-36 health survey questionnaire. An outcome measure suitable for routline use within the NHS? British Medical Journal, 306, 1440–1443.Google Scholar
  14. Hays, R. D., & Hayaski, T. (1990). Beyond internal consistency reliability: Rationale and user’s guide for Munnrail Scaling Analysis Program on the microcomputer. Behavior Research Methods. Instruments and Computers, 22, 167–175.Google Scholar
  15. Hunt, S., McKenna, S. P., & McEwen, J. (1989). The Nottingham Health Profile user’s manual, Manchester, England: Galen Research & Consultancy.Google Scholar
  16. Jenkinson, C., Coulter, A., & Wright, L. (1993). Short form (SF-36) health survey questionnaire. Normative data for adults in working age. British Medical Journal, 306, 1437–1440.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Kiers, H. A. L. (1990). SCA: A program for simultaneous components analysis of variables measured in two or more populations. Groningen, The Netherlands: Progamma.Google Scholar
  18. König-Zahn, C., Furer, J., & Tax, B. (1991) Interimrapport project gezondtieidsmeting [Interim report of a health assessment project]. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Institute of Social Medicine, University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  19. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1986). Personality, coping, and coping effectiveness in an adult sample. Journal of Personality, 54, 385–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McDermott, W. (1981). Absence of indicators of the influence of physicians on a society’s health. American Journal of Medicine, 7, 833–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McHorney, C. A., Ware, J. E., Lu, J. F. R., & Sherbourne, C. D. (.1994). The MOS 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36). III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions and reliability across diverse palient groups. Medical Care, 32, 40–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McHorney, C. A., Ware, J. E., & Raczek, A. E. (1993). The MOS 36-Item Short Form Heallh Status Survey (SF-36). II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Medical Care, 31, 247–263.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McHorney, C. A., Ware, J. E., Rogers, W., Raczek, A. E., & Lu, J. F.(1992). The validity and relative precision of MOS short- and long-form health status scales and Dartmouth COOP charts: Results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Medical Care, 30, MS2S3-MS265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nelson, E. C., Landgraf, J. M., Hays, R. D., Wasson, J. H., & Kirk, J. W. (1990). The functional status of patients: How can it be measured in physicians offices? Medical Care, 28, 1111–1126.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
  26. RAND Health Sciences Program. (1992). RAND 36-item health survey 1.0. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.Google Scholar
  27. Sanderman, R., Eysenck, S. B. G., & Arrindell, W. A. (1991). Cross-cultural comparisons of personality: The Netherlands and England. Psychoiogical Reports, 69, 1091–1096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Scholten, J. H. C., & VanWeel, C. (1992). Functional status assessment in family practice: The Dartmouth COOP Functional Health Assessment Charts/WONCA. Lelystad. The Netherlands: Meditekst.Google Scholar
  29. Sherbourne, C. D., & Meredith, L. S. (1992). Quality of self-report data: A comparison of older and younger chronically ill patients. Journal of Gerontology, 47, S204-S211.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Stewart, A. L., Hays, R. D., & Ware, J. E (1988). The MOS Short form general health survey. Medical Care, 26, 724–735.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ten Berge, J. M. F., & Sicro, F. W. (1994). Factornnalyse [Factor analysis]. In A. Knippenberg & F. W. Siero (Eds.). Multivariate Analyse. Beknopte inleiding en toepassingen [Multivariate analysis Introduction and Applications], (pp. 53–82) Houten, The Netherlands: Bohn Staflen & van Loghum.Google Scholar
  32. VanderZee, K. L., & Sanderman, R. (1994). Het meten van de algemeng gezondheidsutestand met de RAND-36. Een handleiding [Measuring general health Status with the RAND-36. Users Manual] Groningen, The Netherlands: Northern Center of Health Care Research.Google Scholar
  33. VanderZee, K. L. Sanderman, R.,& Heyink, J. (1996). A comparison of two multidimensional measures of health status: The Nottingham Health Profile and the RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0. Quality of Life Research, 5, 165–174.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. VanWeel, C., König-Zahn, C., Touw-Otten, F. W. M. M., VanDuijn, N. P., & Meyboom-DeJong, B. (1995). Measuring junctional health status with the COOP/WONCA Charts, Groningen, The Netherlands: Northern Center of Health Care Research.Google Scholar
  35. Ware, J. E., & Sherhourne, C. D. (1992). The SF-36 short-form health status survey: I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30, 473–481.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Watson, D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (1989). Health complaints, stress and distress; Exploring the central role of negative affecuvily. Psychological Review, 96, 234–254.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of Behavioral Medicine 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karen I. Vander Zee
    • 1
  • Robbert Sanderman
    • 1
  • Joost W. Heyink
    • 2
  • Hanneke de Haes
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of GroningenTS GroningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Northern Center for Healthcare ResearchUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUniversity of AmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations