Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How Much Is Lost in Using Single Items?

  • Editorials
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. *Typos in the published formula were corrected by Dan Ozer, Ph.D., UC Riverside.

References

  1. West CP, Dyrbye LN, Satele DV, Sloan JA, Shanafelt TD. Concurrent validity of single item measures of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization in burnout assessment. J Gen Internal Med. 2012; doi:10.1007/s11606-012-2015-7

  2. Clark EL. Spearman-Brown formula applied to ratings of personality traits. J Ed Psych. 1935;26:552–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Robins RW, Hendin HM, Trzesniewski KH. Measuring global self-esteem: construct validation of a single-item measure and the Rosenberg self-esteem scale. Pers Soc Psych Bull. 2001;27:151–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cohen J, Cohen P, West SG, Aiken LS. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. 3rd ed. Mahwah: Erlbaum; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  5. West CP, Dyrbye LN, Sloan JA, Shanafelt TD. Single item measures of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization are useful for assessing burnout in medical professionals. J Gen Internal Med. 2009;24:1318–1321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hays RD, Larson C, Nelson EC, Batalden PB. Hospital quality trends: a short-form patient-based measure. Med Care. 1991;29:661–668.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Nelson EC, Larson CO, Hays RD, Nelson SA, Ward D, Batalden PB. The physician and employee judgment system: reliability and validity of a hospital quality measurement method. Qual Rev Bull. 1992;18:284–292.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473–483.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hambleton RK, Swaminathan H. Item response theory: principles and applications. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff; 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hays RD, Morales LS, Reise SP. Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st Century. Med Care. 2000;38(Suppl):II28–42.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Choi SW, Reise SP, Pilkonis PA, Hays RD, Cella D. Efficiency of static and computer adaptive short forms compared to full-length measures of depressive symptoms. Qual Life Res. 2010;19:125–136.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, 911 Broxton Avenue, Los Angeles, CA, 90024, USA

    Ron D. Hays PhD

  2. Department of Psycholgy, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Steven Reise PhD

  3. Charles Drew University, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    José Luis Calderón MD

Authors
  1. Ron D. Hays PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Steven Reise PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. José Luis Calderón MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ron D. Hays PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hays, R.D., Reise, S. & Calderón, J.L. How Much Is Lost in Using Single Items?. J GEN INTERN MED 27, 1402–1403 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-012-2182-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-012-2182-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation