Evaluating the SF-36 Questionnaire for Childhood Cancer Survivors
Author Information
Author(s): Reulen Raoul C, Zeegers Maurice P, Jenkinson Crispin, Lancashire Emma R, Winter David L, Jenney Meriel E, Hawkins Mike M
Primary Institution: Centre for Childhood Cancer Survivor Studies, University of Birmingham
Hypothesis
Is the SF-36 questionnaire a valid and reliable instrument for assessing self-perceived health status in adult survivors of childhood cancer?
Conclusion
The SF-36 questionnaire is valid and reliable for assessing health status in long-term survivors of childhood cancer, though ceiling effects should be considered.
Supporting Evidence
- Missing values ranged from 0.5 to 2.9 percent across items.
- Ceiling effects were highest in the role limitation-physical (76.7%) and role limitation-emotional (76.5%) scales.
- Cronbach's alpha coefficients exceeded 0.70, indicating high reliability.
- 88% of participants completed all items on the questionnaire.
- Correlations between items and their hypothesized scales exceeded the standard of 0.40.
Takeaway
This study looked at a health survey called SF-36 to see if it works well for adults who survived childhood cancer. It found that the survey is good at measuring their health, but sometimes people score too high.
Methodology
The study analyzed SF-36 data from a population-based cohort of adult survivors of childhood cancer, focusing on data completeness, scale score distribution, item-internal consistency, item-discriminant validity, internal consistency, and scaling assumptions.
Limitations
The study only used cross-sectional data, limiting the ability to assess changes over time.
Participant Demographics
Participants were adult survivors of childhood cancer diagnosed between 1940 and 1991, aged 16 years or older at recruitment.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website