, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 49–56 | Cite as

Multivariate Analysis of Health Status Scores

Chronic Airway Disorders and the MOS SF-36
  • Emily R. Cox
  • Chris M. Kozma
  • C. Eugene Reeder
Original Reasearch Article


Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with follow-up canonical discriminant analysis may be used to interpret differences in health-related quality of life measured by the Medical Outcome Study Short Form 36 (MOS SF-36). Due to the modera te correlations between the 8 health dimensions of the SF-36, MANOVA is theoretically a more appropriate method th an traditional univariate approaches for detecting group differences on the SF-36. Additionally, canonical discriminant analysis presents a novel approach to understanding the relationship between health dimensions of the SF-36 and model-independent variables.

Results from the MANOVA and canonical discriminant analysis provide evidence of the sensitivity of the SF-36 in cross-sectional, self-reported data, Significant differences in health status (α ≤ 0.05 ) were found for the variables of age, and primary physician visits, and between le vels of disease severity, type of breathing problem, whether patients had seen a specialist or not, use of emergency room, the comorbid states of depression and anhritis, and income. No significant differences in health status were reported between males and females or racial groups.


Health Dimension Canonical Discriminant Analysis Canonical Structure Breathing Problem Health Status Score 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Cooley WW, Lohnes PR. Multivariate data analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 1971Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36−item short-form health survey (SF−36): conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30: 473–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McHorney CA, Ware JE, Lu JF, et al. The MOS 36−item short-form health survey (SF−36): III. Test of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Med Care 1994; 32: 40–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    McHorney CA, Ware JE, Raczek AE. The MOS 36−item short-form health survey (SF−36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care 1993; 31: 247–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McHorney CA, Ware JE, Rogers W, et al. The validity and reative precision of MOS short- and long-form health status scales and Dartmouth Coop charts: results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Med Care 1992; 30: MS253–65Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kantz ME, Harris WJ, Levitsky K, et al. Methods for assessing condition-specific and generic functional status outcomes after total knee replacement. Med Care 1992; 30: MS240–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kurtin PS, Davies AR, Meyer KB, et al. Patient-based health status measures in outpatient dialysis: early experience in developing an outcomes assessment program. Med Care 1992; 30: MS136–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lancaster TR, Singer DE, Sheehan MA, et al. The impact of long-term warfarin therapy on quality of life. Arch Int Med 1991; 151: 1944–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nerenz DR, Repasky DP, Whitehouse FW, Kahkonen DM. Ongoing assessment of health status in patients with diabetes mellitus. Med Care 1992; 30: MS112–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bozivich H, Bancroft TA, Hartley HO. Power of analysis of variance test procedures for certain incompletely specified models: I. Ann Math Stat 1956; 27: 1017–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mead R, Bancroft TA, Han C. Power of analysis of variance test procedures for incompletely specified fixed models. Ann Stat 1975: 3 (4): 797–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Paull AE. On a preliminary test for pooling mean squares in the analysis of variance. Ann Math Stat 1950; 21: 539–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    National Institutes of Health. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma. Bethesda (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services, National Asthma Education Program; 1991. Report no.: DHHS Publication 91–3042Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Borgen FH, Seling MJ. Uses of discriminant analysis following MANOVA: multivariate statistics for multivariate purposes. J Appl Psychol 1978; 63 (6): 689–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jones PW, Baveystock CM, Littlejohns P. Relationships between general health measured with the Sickness Impact Profile and respiratory symptoms, physiological measures and mood in patients with chronic airflow limitations. Am Rev Resp Dis 1989; 140: 1538–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Morgan AD, Peck DF, Buchanan DF, McHardy GJR. Psychological facets contributing to disproportionate disability in chronic bronchitis. J Psychosom Res 1983; 27: 259–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rosser R, Denford J, Heslop A, et al. Breathlessness psychological morbidity in chronic bronchitis and emphysema: a study of psychotherapeutic management. Psychol Med 1983; 13: 93–110PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Williams SF, Bury MR. Impairment, disability and handicap in chronic respiratory illness. Soc Sci Med 1989; 29: 609–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emily R. Cox
    • 1
  • Chris M. Kozma
    • 1
  • C. Eugene Reeder
    • 1
  1. 1.College of PharmacyUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations