Report Viewer
NINDS CDE Notice of Copyright
Sickness Impact Profile (SIP)
Sickness Impact Profile (SIP)
| Availability |
Please visit this website for more information about the instrument: Sickness Impact Profile
Authors: Marilyn Bergner, Betty Gilson, Johns Hopkins University
|
| Classification |
Exploratory: Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), Huntington's Disease (HD) and Myotonic Dystrophy (DM)
|
| Short Description of Instrument |
The Sickness Impact Profile (SIP) is a generic Health Status questionnaire consisting of 136 items in 12 categories and 2 dimensions: physical and psychosocial. This behaviorally based patient self-report instrument measure of sickness-related dysfunction was designed "to provide an appropriate and sensitive measure of health status for use in assessing the effects of health care services". (Bergner et al., 1981) Domains include sleep and rest, eating, work, home management, recreation and pastimes, ambulation, mobility, body care and movement, social interaction, alertness behavior, emotional behavior, and communication.
Length of time for administration can be burdensome (20-30 minutes).
|
| Comments/Special Instructions |
The final version of the SIP was based on data from 3 trials and from data collected on some 2000 subjects from an Alabama study. (Bergner et al., 1976; Bergner et al., 1981; Gilson et al., 1975)
|
| Scoring and Psychometric Properties |
Scoring:
Scores are calculated by assigning predetermined weights of severity of dysfunction and summing the weighted items for a given SIP category. SIP scores are expressed as a percent of total dysfunction, with higher scores representing greater dysfunction.
In addition to 12 category scores, a physical dimension score, a psychosocial dimension score, and an overall summary score can be calculated to summarize results. Higher scores indicate worse health status.
Psychometric Properties: See Bergner et al., 1981 for validity, reliability and ability to detect change.
|
| Rationale/Justification |
Strengths: The SIP has been translated for use in Dutch, French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Serbian and Spanish
Weaknesses: Length of time to administer can be burdensome. The scoring method has been criticized because the relative contribution of each category to the overall score has little justification. For example, the maximum possible score for each category varies not only by the number of items but by the weightings thereby affecting the contribution of each category towards the overall score.
|
| References |
Key References:
Gilson BS, Gilson JS, Bergner M, Bobbit RA, Kressel S, Pollard WE, Vesselago M. The sickness impact profile. Development of an outcome measure of health care. Am J Public Health. 1975 Dec;65(12):1304-10.
Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Pollard WE, Martin DP, Gilson BS. The sickness impact profile: validation of a health status measure. Med Care. 1976 Jan;14(1):57-67.
Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Kressel S, Pollard WE, Gilson BS, Morris JR. The sickness impact profile: conceptual formulation and methodology for the development of a health status measure. Int J Health Serv. 1976;6(3):393-415.
Carter WB, Bobbitt RA, Bergner M, Gilson BS. Validation of an interval scaling: the sickness impact profile. Health Serv Res. 1976 Winter;11(4):516-28.
Additional References:
Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Carter WB, Gilson BS. The Sickness Impact Profile: development and final revision of a health status measure. Med Care. 1981 Aug;19(8):787-805.
de Bruin AF, Diederiks JP, de Witte LP, Stevens FC, Philipsen H. Assessing the responsiveness of a functional status measure: the Sickness Impact Profile versus the SIP68. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997 May;50(5):529-40.
MacKenzie CR, Charlson ME, DiGioia D, Kelley K. Can the Sickness Impact Profile measure change? An example of scale assessment. J Chronic Dis. 1986;39(6):429-38.
Document last updated December 2024
|