How comparable are different measures of self-rated health? Evidence from five European countries

Jürges, Hendrik ; Avendano, Mauricio ; Mackenbach, Johan P.

meadp_137_07.pdf - Published

Download (452kB)

URN: urn:nbn:de:bsz:180-madoc-15480
Document Type: Working paper
Year of publication: 2007
The title of a journal, publication series: MEA Discussion Papers
Volume: 137
Place of publication: Mannheim
Publication language: English
Institution: Außerfakultäre Einrichtungen > VWL insb Makroök u Wirtschaftspol (Börsch-Supan 1989-2011)
School of Law and Economics > Sonstige - Fakultät für Rechtswissenschaft und Volkswirtschaftslehre
MADOC publication series: Veröffentlichungen des MEA (Mannheim Research Institute For the Economics of Aging) > MEA Discussion Papers
Subject: 300 Social sciences, sociology, anthropology
Subject headings (SWD): Gesundheit , Messung , SHARE <Projekt> , Internationaler Vergleich
Keywords (English): Self-rated health , world health , international comparisons , research design , Europe
Abstract: Self-rated health (SRH) is a common health measurement in international research. Yet different versions of this item are often applied. This study compares the US (United States) version (from excellent to poor) and the EU (European) version (from very good to very bad) of SRH, and examines differences in their associations with demographic and objective health variables. Data were drawn from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE), comprising information from 11,622 respondents aged 50 years and over in five countries. Respondents were presented with both the EU and US versions. Information was collected on basic demographics and health variables including chronic diseases, symptoms, functional limitations and depression. Firstly, the distribution of each version of the SRH item was assessed, and both relative and literal concordance was examined. Subsequently, multivariate regression analysis was used to assess differences in the associations of both items with demographic and health indicators. The US version has a more symmetric distribution and smaller variance than the EU version. Although the EU version discriminates better at the negative end, the US version shows better discrimination at the negative end of the scale. 69% of respondents provided literally concordant answers, while only about one third provided relatively concordant answers. Overall, however, less than 10% of respondents were discordant in either sense. Furthermore, the two versions were strongly correlated (polychoric correlation

Dieser Eintrag ist Teil der Universitätsbibliographie.

Das Dokument wird vom Publikationsserver der Universitätsbibliothek Mannheim bereitgestellt.

Metadata export


+ Search Authors in

+ Download Statistics

Downloads per month over past year

View more statistics

You have found an error? Please let us know about your desired correction here: E-Mail

Actions (login required)

Show item Show item