Measuring Health in Patients With Cervical and Lumbosacral Spinal Disorders: Is the 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey a Valid Alternative for the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey?

Abstract 

Lee CE, Browell LM, Jones DL. Measuring health in patients with cervical and lumbosacral spinal disorders: is the 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey a valid alternative for the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey?

Objectives

To determine the convergent validity of the 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey, version 2 (SF-12v2), with 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, version 2 (SF-36v2), in patients with spinal disorders, and to determine other key factors that might further explain the variances between the 2 surveys.

Design

Cross-sectional study.

Setting

Orthopedic ambulatory care.

Participants

Eligible participants (N=98; 24 with cervical, 74 with lumbosacral disorders) who were aged 18 years and older, scheduled to undergo spinal surgery, and completed the SF-36v2.

Interventions

Not applicable.

Main Outcome Measures

SF-36v2 and SF-12v2 (extracted from the SF-36v2).

Results

The 2 summary scores, physical and mental component scores (r range, .88–.97), and most of the scale scores (r range, .81–.99) correlated strongly between the SF-12v2 and SF-36v2, except for the general health score (cervical group, r=.69; lumbosacral group, r=.76). Stepwise linear regression analyses showed the SF-12v2 general health scores (cervical: β=.61, P<.001; lumbosacral: β=.68, P<.001) and the level of comorbidities (cervical: β=−.37, P=.014; lumbosacral: β=−.18, P=.039) were significant predictors of the SF-36v2 general health score in both groups, whereas age (β=.32, P<.001) and smoking history (β=−.22, P=.005) were additional predictors in the lumbosacral group.

Conclusions

SF-12v2 is a practical and valid alternative for the SF-36v2 in measuring health of patients with cervical or lumbosacral spinal disorders. The validity of the SF-12v2 general health score interpretation is further improved when the level of comorbidities, age, and smoking history are taken into consideration.

Key Words: Cervical vertebrae, Lumbosacral region, Patient outcome assessment, Rehabilitation, Validity of results