This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: group before treatment, with similar
problems which affected the quality of life, but one year
postoperatively they have become more heterogeneous
and represent different states of recovery . Both instruments meet the reliability standards for group-level application in most respects, although none of them achieved
the degree of reliability that be would be desirable in individual-based assessment.
The result in this study showed significant convergent correlation coefficients between scores of the comparable
dimensions except for physical activity and social activity,
indicating a considerable convergence of the NHP and SF36 scale. Prieto et al  and Meyer-Rosberg et al 
demonstrated similar results with an average convergent
validity. Thus the NHP and SF-36 are relatively equal in
the validity and corroborate that the subscales probably
reflect similar impacts of chronic lower limb ischaemia.
However, social isolation in the NHP showed a higher
correlation with mental health in the SF-36 and might
measure more psychological aspects of social life, whilst
social functioning in the SF-36 tends to assess social activities according to the higher correlation with energy in
NHP. Similarly the physical functioning in the SF-36
showed a higher correlation with energy and may reflect
physical activities of daily living rather than physical
mobility. This suggests that the SF-36 and NHP measure
different aspects of physical and social activities.
Validity in terms of the instruments' relative ability to discriminate among different levels of the ischaemia could
only demonstrate that patients with CLI had significantly
more problems with pain and physical mobility before
treatment than patients with IC measured by the NHP.
Klevsgård et al  showed similar results, that the NHP
was more sensitive in discriminating deterioration in pain
and physical mobility than the SF-36. In contrast, Brown
et al  demonstrated that the SF-36 was more sensitive
than the NHP for identifying people still troubled with
angina or breathlessness after a myocardial infarction.
Despite the lack of significant differences between
patients with IC and patients with CLI, the NHP scale
tends to be more sensitive in explaining the quality of life
in this group of patients with regard to the dimension of
pain and physical mobility. The important issue thus is to
consider how well the measurement method explains
health-related phenomena which are significant for the
particular targeted disease or group of patients. http://www.hqlo.com/content/2/1/9 The SF-36 was the more responsive instrument in detecting changes in quality of life over time in patients with IC,
including bodily pain and physical functioning one year
postoperatively. However, in patients with CLI, the NHP
was the more responsive instrument, with significant
changes in pain and physical mobility, while the SF-36
showed a significant change only in bodily pain. Falcoz et
al  also demonstrated that the SF-36 was more responsive...
View Full Document
- Fall '13