Psychometric Considerations in Functional Status Instruments

Part of the Frontiers of Primary Care book series (PRIMARY)


Psychometrics is simply about measurement. Good measures of the variables being studied are essential to assure that the questions of interest can be answered. The adequacy of measures can be judged in terms of their variability, reliability, validity (including response bias), sensitivity, practicality, and interpretability.* These features of good measures will be described here as they apply to measures of functional status in clinical settings. The advantages of multiitem measures over single-item measures are reviewed, and a few suggestions are made regarding the evaluation of the clinical utility of the measures.


Functional Status Content Validity True Score Health Status Measure Sickness Impact Profile 
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.
    Guilford JP. Psychometric Methods. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1954.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nunnally JC. Psychometric Theory, ed 2. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1978.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    McDowell IY, Newell C. Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaries. New York, Oxford University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bergner M, Rothman ML. Health status measures: An overview and guide for selection. Am Rev Public Health 8: 191–210, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ware JE, Brook RH, Davies-Avery A, et al. Conceptualization and Measurement of Health for Adults in the Health Insurance Study: Vol. I, Model of Health and Methodology. Santa Monica, CA; The Rand Corp. (publication number R-1987/1-HEW), 1980.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hunt SM, McKenna SP, McEwen J, Williams J, Papp E. The Nottingham Health Profile: Subjective health status and medical consultations. Soc Sci Med 15A: 221–229, 1981.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Katz S, Ford AB, Moskowitz RW, Jackson BA, Jaffe MW. Studies of illness in the aged: The index of ADL. JAMA 185: 914–919, 1963.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Katz S, Downs TD, Cash HR, Grotz RC. Progress in the developement of the Index of ADL. The Gerontologist Spring, 1970, pp. 20–30.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bradburn NM, Sudman S, et al. Improving Interview Method and Questionnaire Design. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1979.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Thorndike RL. Reliability. In Jackson DN, Messick S (eds). Problems in Human Assessment. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1967.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 15: 297–334, 1951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Anastasi A. Psychological Testing, ed 4. New York, MacMillan, 1976.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nachmias C, Nachmias D. Research Methods in the Social Sciences. London, St. Martins Press, 1981.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Edwards AL. Techniques of Attitude Scale Construction. New York, AppletonCentury-Crofts Inc., 1957.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guttman LA. A basis for scaling qualitative data. Am Sociol Rev 9: 139–150, 1944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Helmstadter GC. Principles of Psychological Measurement. New York, AppletonCentury-Crofts, Inc., 1964.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Andrews FM. Construct validity and error components of survey measures: A structural modeling approach. Pub Opin Quart 48: 409, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    American Psychological Association. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC, American Psychological Association, 1985.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Robins LR, Helzer JE, Croughan J, Ratliff KS. National Institute of Mental Health Diagnostic Interview Schedule: Its history, characteristics, and vaildity. Arch Gen Psychiatry 38: 381–389, 1981.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ware JE, Brook RH, Davies AR, Lohr K. Choosing measures of health status for individuals in general populations. Am J Pub Health 71: 620–625, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ware JE. Standards for validating health measures: Definitions and content J Chron Dis 40: 473–480, 1987.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stewart AL. A framework of health indicators. In Stewart AL, Ware JE (eds). Measuring Functional Status and Well-Being: The Medical Outcomes Study Approach (Manuscript submitted for publication).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bergner M. Measurement of health status. Med Care 23: 696–704, 1985.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gilson BS, Gilson JS, Bergner M, et al. The Sickness Impact Profile: Development of an outcome measure of health care. Am J Pub Hlth 65: 1304–1310, 1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cronbach LJ, Meehl PE. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psych Bull 52: 281–302, 1955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Beck AT, Ward CH, Mendelson M, et al. An inventory for measuring depression. Arch Gen Psych 4: 53–63, 1961.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Koenig R, Levin SM, Brennan MJ. The emotional status of cancer patients as measured by a psychological test. J Chron Dis 20: 923–930, 1967.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Silberfarb PM, Maurer LH, Crouthmel CS. Psychosocial aspects of neoplastic disease: I, Functional status of breast cancer patients during different treatment regimens. Am J Psychia 137: 450–455, 1980.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ware JE. Methodological considerations in the selection of health assessment procedures. In Wenger NK et al. (eds) Assessment of quality of life in clinical trials of cardiovascular therapies. New York: Le Jacq Publishing Inc., 1984.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Campbell DT, Fiske DW. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol Bull 56: 81–105, 1959.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kerlinger FN, Pedhazur EJ. Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, 1973.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stewart AL, Hays RD, Ware JE. The MOS Short-Form General Health Survey: Reliability and validity in a patient population. Med Care 26: 724–735, 1988.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dillman DA. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York, Wiley & Sons, 1978.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Edwards AL. The measurement of personality traits by scales and inventories. New York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1970.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Converse JM, Presser S. Survey questions: Handcrafting the standardized questionnaire. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1986.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Deyo RA, Patrick D. Barriers to the use of health status measures in clinical investigation, patient care, and policy research. Med Care 27 (Supp): 5254–5268, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Deyo RA, Inui TS. Toward clinical applications of health status measures: Sensitivity of scales to clinically important changes. Hlth Sery Res 19: 276–289, 1984.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Deyo RA, Centor RM. Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical changes: An analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chron Dis 39: 897–906.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Miller GA. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psycho! Rev 63: 81–97, 1959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Osgood C, Suci G, Tannenbaum P. The measurement of meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1957.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Brook RH, Ware JE, Rogers WH, et al. Does free care improve adults’ health? N Engl J Med 309: 1426–1434, 1983.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Stewart AL, Greenfield S, Hays RD, et al. Functional status and well being of patients with chronic conditions: Results from the Medical Outcomes Study. JAMA 262: 907–913, 1989.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Nelson EC, Landgraf JM, Hays RD, et al. The COOP function charts: A set of single item health status measures for use in clinical practice. In Stewart AL, Ware JE (eds). Measuring Functional and Well-Being: The Medical Outcome Study Approach (Manuscript submitted for publication).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Nelson EC, Wasson J, Kirk J, et al. Assessment of function in routine clinical practice: Description of the COOP chart method and preliminary findings. J Chron Dis 40 (Suppl): 55S - 63S, 1987.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Berry S. Methods of data collection and ensuring respondent cooperation. In Stewart AL, Ware JE (eds) Measuring Functional Status and Well-Being: The Medical Outcomes Study Approach (Manuscript submitted for publication).Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Jette AM, Davies AR, Cleary PD, et al. The Functional Status Questionnaire: Reliability and validity when used in primary care. J Gen Int Med 1: 143–1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Stewart AL, Hays RD, Ware JE, Bindman A. The MOS Short-Form General Health Survey: Reliability and validity in a patient and a disadvantaged population. In Stewart AL, Ware JE (eds). Measuring Functional Status and Well-Being: The Medical Outcomes Study Approach (Manuscript submitted for publication).Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Tarlov AR. Shattuck Lecture—the increasing supply of physicians, the changing structure of the health services system, and the future practice of medicine. N Engl J Med 308: 1235, 1983.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ellwood P. Shattuck lecture—outcomes management—a technology of patient experience. N Engl J Med 318: 1549–1556, 1988.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    American College of Physicians Health and Public Policy Committee. Comprehensive functional assessment for elderly patients. Ann Int Med 109: 70–72, 1988.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Rubenstein LV, Calkins DR, Young RT, Fink A, Delbanco TL, Brook RH. Improving patient functional status: Can questionnaires help? Clin Res 34: 835A, 1986.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Calkins DR, Rubenstein LV, Cleary PD, Jette AM, Brook RH, Delbanco TL. The functional status questionnaire: A controlled trial in a hospital based practice. Clin Res 34: 359A, 1986.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kazis LE, Meenan RF, Anderson JJ, Swift MA. The clinical utility of health status information in rheumatoid arthritis patients: A controlled trial. Arth Rheum 30 (4) (Suppl): S12, 1987.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 1990

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations