Psychometric Properties of the Short Form-36 (SF-36) in Parents of Children with Mental Illness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the stressful experiences of parenting children with mental illness, researchers and health professionals must ensure that the health-related quality of life of these vulnerable parents is measured with sufficient validity and reliability. This study examined the psychometric properties of the SF-36 in parents of children with mental illness. The data come from 99 parents whose children were currently receiving mental health services. The correlated two-factor structure of the SF-36 was replicated. Internal consistencies were robust (α > 0.80) for all but three subscales (General Health, Vitality, Mental Health). Inter-subscale and component correlations were strong. Correlations with parental psychopathology ranged from r = −0.32 to −0.60 for the physical component and r = −0.39 to −0.75 for the mental component. Parents with clinically relevant psychopathology had significantly worse SF-36 scores. SF-36 scores were inversely associated with the number of child diagnoses. The SF-36 showed evidence of validity and reliability as a measure of health-related quality of life in parents of children with mental illness and may be used as a potential outcome in the evaluation of family-centered approaches to care within child psychiatry. Given the relatively small sample size of this study, research should continue to examine its psychometric properties in more diverse samples of caregivers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".