Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16047498›Full record

SynthesisQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2005

Are factor analytical techniques used appropriately in the validation of health status questionnaires? A systematic review on the quality of factor analysis of the SF-36.

Henrica C W de Vet, Herman J Adèr, Caroline B Terwee, François Pouwer

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02469714 (Integrated Care & Patient Navigators for Latinos With Serious Mental Illness), which is not on this map. Cited by 113 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
113citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02469714 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2015, after this paper: background citation

Integrated Care & Patient Navigators for Latinos With Serious Mental Illness

TypeinterventionalSponsorIllinois Institute of TechnologyRan2015 to 2016Enrolled110ConditionsMental DisordersArmsPeer Navigator Intervention
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

113 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Evaluating the psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome measurements for urolithiasis: a COSMIN-based systematic review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Measurement properties of translated versions of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 Patient Questionnaire, SRS-22: a systematic review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2015
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

53 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Henrica C W de VetInstitute for Research in Extramural Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. HCW.deVet@vumc.nl
Herman J Adèr
Caroline B Terwee
François Pouwer

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Factor analysis is widely used to evaluate whether questionnaire items can be grouped into clusters representing different dimensions of the construct under study. This review focuses on the appropriate use of factor analysis. The Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36) is used as an example. Articles were systematically searched and assessed according to a number of criteria for appropriate use and reporting. Twenty-eight studies were identified: exploratory factor analysis was performed in 22 studies, confirmatory factor analysis was performed in five studies and in one study both were performed. Substantial shortcomings were found in the reporting and justification of the methods applied. In 15 of the 23 studies in which exploratory factor analysis was performed, confirmatory factor analysis would have been more appropriate. Cross-validation was rarely performed. Presentation of the results and conclusions was often incomplete. Some of our results are specific for the SF-36, but the finding that both the application and the reporting of factor analysis leaves much room for improvement probably applies to other health status questionnaires as well. Optimal reporting and justification of methods is crucial for correct interpretation of the results and verification of the conclusions. Our list of criteria may be useful for journal editors, reviewers and researchers who have to assess publications in which factor analysis is applied.

Indexed as

Factor Analysis, StatisticalHealth Status IndicatorsHumansReproducibility of ResultsResearchSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.