CC3-0512SF-E中文资料

Brief communicationIs the standard SF-12Health Survey valid and equivalent for a Chinese population?Cindy m1,Eileen Y.Y.Tse1&Barbara Gandek21Family Medicine Unit,the University of Hong Kong,Hong Kong SAR(E-mail:clklam@hku.hk);2IQOLA Project,Health Assessment Lab,Boston,MA USAAccepted in revised form15June2004AbstractIntroduction:Chinese is the world’s largest ethnic group but few health-related quality of life(HRQoL) measures have been tested on them.The aim of this study was to determine if the standard SF-12was valid and equivalent for a Chinese population.Methods:The SF-36data of2410Chinese adults randomly selected from the general population of Hong Kong(HK)were analysed.The Chinese(HK)specific SF-12 items and scoring algorithm were derived from the HK Chinese population data by multiple regressions. The SF-36PCS and MCS scores were used as criteria to assess the content and criterion validity of the SF-12.The standard and Chinese(HK)specific SF-12PCS and MCS scores were compared for equivalence. Results:The standard SF-12explained82%and89%of the variance of the SF-36PCS and MCS scores, respectively,and the effect size differences between the standard SF-36and SF-12scores were less than0.3. Six of the Chinese(HK)specific SF-12items were different from those of the standard SF-12,but the effect size differences between the Chinese(HK)specific and standard SF-12scores were mostly less than0.3. Conclusions:The standard SF-12was valid and equivalent for the Chinese,which would enable more Chinese to be included in clinical trials that measure HRQoL.Key words:Health-related quality of life,SF-12,Chinese,Validity,EquivalenceIntroductionChinese make up nearly a quarter of the world’s population.They should be included in global and cross-cultural clinical trials but this is often not possible in studies that measure health-related quality of life(HRQoL)because of language and cultural barriers.Most HRQoL measures are in English and originate from the Western culture,so they need to be translated and validated before they can be applied to the Chinese.The Chinese (Hong Kong)translation of the MOS36-item Short Form Health Survey(SF-36)and its physical and mental health summary(PCS and MCS) Scales have been shown to be valid and equivalent for the Chinese[1–5],but the length of the SF-36 limits its acceptability in some clinical trials that need to measure a number of outcomes.The standard SF-12Health Survey(SF-12),an abbre-viated form of the SF-36that yields the PCS and MCS scores,is becoming a popular HRQoL measure in clinical trials because it can be com-pleted in a few minutes[6,7].The items and scoring algorithm of the standard SF-12were derived from data of a US general population survey in1990[6–8].The standard SF-12PCS and MCS scores are norm-based on the US general population whose mean is50and standard deviation(SD)is10[6,9].The12items include two from each of the physical functioning, role-physical,role-emotional and mental health scales and one item from each of the bodily pain, general health,vitality and social functioning scales of the SF-36.The items were selected by multiple regressions in order to explain the largest proportion of the total variance in the SF-36PCSQual Life Res(2005)14:539–547ÓSpringer2005and MCS scores.The response to each item is weighted separately by the PCS and MCS regres-sion coefficient and then summated to give the standard SF-12PCS and MCS scores,respectively.A small number and weighting of items may make a HRQoL measure more culture-sensitive [10,11].All previous studies on the validity and equivalence of the standard SF-12were carried out in Caucasian populations[8,12].There was very little data from any Chinese or Asian population whose cultures are quite different from those of the West.The rank orders by item mean of three(PF9, GH3and RE3)SF-36items were found to be different between the HK Chinese and US popu-lations[1].Although the differential item func-tioning(DIF)of a few items did not affect the validity of the SF-36Scales that summated all the items without weighting[1,13],they may have an effect on the validity and equivalence of the much shorter standard SF-12.The aim of this study was to determine if the standard SF-12was valid and equivalent for the Chinese population of Hong Kong,or whether a Chinese(HK)specific SF-12was needed.The standard SF-12is valid if it really measures the SF-36PCS and MCS scores,which are what it pur-ports to measure.The selected items should be representative and adequate in explaining the SF-36PCS and MCS scores(content validity),and the SF-12should give similar PCS and MCS scores as the SF-36(criterion validity).The standard SF-12 is equivalent if no more than three of the12items selected specifically from the Chinese(HK)popu-lation were different from those of the standard SF-12,as that found in other countries(item equivalence)[8];and if there is no important dif-ference between the results of the Chinese(HK) specific and standard scoring algorithms(mea-surement equivalence)[8,14,15].MethodsData of2410Chinese adults randomly selected from the general population of Hong Kong that were collected in the Chinese(Hong Kong)SF-36 norming survey in1998were used for analysis in this study.The detailed sampling and data collec-tion methods have been described in previous pa-pers[16,17].All subjects answered the Chinese (Hong Kong)translation of the SF-36and a structured questionnaire on sociodemographic data.Each subject was also asked to indicate whether he/she had ever been diagnosed by a doctor to have hypertension,diabetes mellitus, heart disease,stroke,chronic pulmonary disease, chronic joint disease,psychological illness or any other chronic disease.A subject was classified as not having any chronic disease if the responses to these chronic disease questions were all negative. Table1shows that the sociodemographic charac-teristics of the subjects were similar to those of the general adult population in Hong Kong[18].The sample was comparable to the US population sample[19]from which the standard SF-12was derived in mean age(42.9vs.43.6years)and sex distribution(47.8%vs.48%males).The Chinese(HK)specific SF-12items were selected by multiple regressions of the Chinese (HK)specific SF-36PCS and MCS scores derived from the HK Chinese adult population[3],based on the criteria of the International Quality of Life Assessment(IQOLA)Project for cross-cultural adaptation of the SF-12[8].The Chinese(HK) specific PCS and MCS regression constants and coefficients for each item response were obtained by regressing the Chinese(HK)specific SF-36PCS and MCS scores on the Chinese(HK)specific item scores.The SAS programme was used for the multiple regressions analyses.The SPSS Pro-gramme for Windows10.0(SPSS Inc.Chicago,IL, USA)was used for all other data analyses.The standard SF-12PCS and MCS scores were calculated by the standard algorithm described in the SF-12Manual[6].The Chinese(HK)specific and standard mean SF-12PCS and MCS scores were determined for all subjects and by self-re-ported chronic disease groups.Content validity was assessed by the proportion of total variance of the SF-36PCS and MCS scores explained by the SF-12PCS and MCS,and P90%was the expected standard[6,8].It was further assessed by Pearson correlations between the SF-12and SF-36PCS and MCS scores and the expected standard was P0.9[6,8].Effect size dif-ference between corresponding SF-12and SF-36 PCS and MCS scores was used to determine if the SF-12gave similar or different results from those of the SF-36(Criterion validity).Effect size dif-ference between the SF-36and SF-12scores was540calculated by dividing their difference by the standard deviation(SD)of the SF-36summary score.Measurement equivalence between the standard and Chinese(HK)specific SF-12wasfirst assessed by Pearson correlations(expected standard P0.9) and then the effect size differences between the standard and Chinese(HK)specific scores.The effect size difference was calculated by dividing the difference between the corresponding SF-12 scores by the SD of the Chinese(HK)specific SF-12score.The standard and Chinese(HK)SF-12 scores were also compared by chronic disease groups in order to determine if they performed differently in different groups.A spectrum of chronic diseases(Heart,chronic pulmonary,psy-chological and chronic joint)that are known to affect HRQoL were used as tracer conditions[20]. There is no consensus on what the minimally important difference(MID)in HRQoL scores should be.Kazis et al.showed that the effect size changes in scores measured by the Arthritis Im-pact Measurement Scale were mostly between0.3 and0.5in the treatment group[21];and Wyrwich showed that the MID of the Chronic Heart Failure Questionnaire scores corresponded to effect size changes of0.34–0.37[22].We therefore adopted Cohen’s moderate effect size of0.3–0.5as the MID in this study[23,24].ResultsThe Chinese(HK)specific SF-12PCS and MCS scalesFirst forward stepwise regressions of the Chinese (HK)specific SF-36PCS and MCS scores on the SF-36items selected two items each from the physical functioning(PF1,PF8)and mental health (MH3,MH4)scales,and one item each from the role-physical(RP3),bodily pain(BP1),social functioning(SF1)and role-emotional(RE3) scales.The second forward stepwise regressions, with the general health item(GH1)and the above items forced into the model,selected the remaining items(RP2,VT4and RE1)that explained the greatest variance of the HK Chinese specific SF-36 PCS and MCS scores.It is an IQOLA criterion that GH1should be included in all versions of SF-12because it is an item common to many HRQoL measures[8].Table2shows the Chinese(HK) specific SF-12items,in comparison with the standard SF-12items.The items that were differ-ent are shown in bold.The numbers in brackets correspond to the question numbers in the SF-36 Health Survey.Table3shows the regression coefficients of the Chinese(HK)specific SF-12items and those of theTable1.Sociodemographic characteristics of study sample compared with the Hong Kong general populationSampleN=2410Hong Kong general adult population a N=5,333,610Mean age(years)42.942.3Age group(years)18–4456.7%58.6%45–6423.7%27.4%65or above15.3%14.0%Refused to answer 4.2%0%Male47.8%48.3%Female52.2%51.7%Marital statusNow married58.0%59.4%Never married33.8%31.9%Widow/widower 5.8% 6.0%Divorced/separated 1.3% 2.7%Refused to answer 1.1%0%Educational levelNo schooling 6.9%8.4%Primary22.3%20.5%Secondary52.2%54.6%Tertiary17.8%16.4%Refused to answer0.9%0%Social class by occupationManagers andadministratorsN.A.10.7%bProfessional 3.1% 5.5%Associate professional14.7%15.0%Skilled worker35.4%33.5%cSemi-skilled worker24.6%15.0%dNon-skilled worker14.4%19.8%eRefused to answer7.7%0%a Data from the Hong Kong2001Population Census.b This occupation category is not applicable to the social classby occupation classification.c Craft workers,plant and machine operators and assemblers.d Service and shop sales workers.e Workers in elementary occupation,agriculture andfishery,and unclassified.541standard SF-12items,derived from the HK gen-eral Chinese population sample.The regression coefficient of the best response choice of each item is not shown because it is the indicator variable. The Chinese(HK)specific PCS and MCS regres-sion coefficients of each item response were used separately to weight each item response for the calculation of the PCS and MCS scores.The weight for the best response choice of each item is zero.Summation of the relevant Chinese(HK) specific regression constant and item response PCS and MCS regression coefficients would give the Chinese(HK)specific SF-12PCS and MCS scores, respectively.Content and criterion validity of the SF-12PCS and MCSThe R2in Table3indicates the proportion of total variance in the SF-36PCS or MCS score that was explained by the corresponding SF-12summary score.The standard SF-12PCS and MCS ex-plained82%and89%of the total variances of the standard SF-36PCS and MCS,respectively.The Chinese(HK)specific SF-12PCS and MCS ex-plained88%and90%of the total variances of the Chinese(HK)specific SF-36PCS and MCS, respectively.Table4shows the correlations between the SF-12and SF-36PCS and MCS scores.The correla-tions between the corresponding SF-36and SF-12 summary scores all reached the expected standard of0.9.The mean and standard deviation(SD)of the Chinese(HK)specific and standard SF12and SF-36PCS and MCS scores of the whole sample and by self-reported chronic disease groups are shown in Table5.The effect size differences(effect size1) between corresponding SF-36and SF-12scores were all less than0.3.Measurement equivalence between the chinese (HK)specific and standard SF-12As shown in Table4,the correlations between the corresponding standard and Chinese(HK)specific SF-12PCS and MCS scores were just short of0.9. The standard and Chinese(HK)specific SF-12 scores are compared in Table5.The mean stan-dard SF-12PCS and MCS for the overall HK Chinese population were50.2and48.4,respec-tively,which were similar to the US general pop-ulation means of50.The Chinese(HK)specific and standard SF-12detected similar significant differences between each chronic disease group and the‘no chronic disease’group.The largest difference between the Chinese(HK)specific and standard SF-12scoring algorithms was the PCS score of people reporting heart diseases,with an effect size of0.36.DiscussionThe standard SF-12did not satisfy the criterion on item equivalence for the Chinese population inTable2.The Chinese(HK)specific SF-12items compared with the standard SF-12itemsSF-36scales Chinese(HK)specific SF-12items Standard SF-12itemsPhysical functioning(PF)PF1(3a)Vigorous activities PF2(3b)Moderate activitiesPF8(3h)Walking several blocks PF4(3d)Climbing severalflights Role-physical(RP)RP2(4b)Accomplished less RP2(4b)Accomplished lessRP3(4c)Limited in kind of work RP3(4c)Limited in kind of workBodily pain(BP)BP1(7)How much bodily painhave you had BP2(8)how much did pain interfered with workGeneral health(GH)GH1(1)Your health is...GH1(1)Your health is...Vitality(VT)VT4(9i)Did you feel tired VT2(9e)Did you have a lot of energySocial functioning(SF)SF1(6)Extent social activitieswas interfered SF2(10)How much time social activities was interferedRole-emotional(RE)RE1(5a)Cut down time on work RE2(5b)Accomplish lessRE3(5c)Didn’t do work as carefully RE3(5c)Didn’t do work as carefully Mental health(MH)MH3(9d)Felt calm&peaceful MH3(9d)Felt calm&peacefulMH4(9f)Felt downhearted&blue MH4(9f)Felt downhearted&blue 542543Table3.Forward stepwise regressions of SF-36PCS and MCS scores on the SF-12item responsesItem_Response scores PCS regression coefficients MCS regression coefficientsChinese(HK)specific Standard Chinese(HK)specific StandardPF1_1)8.042639– 2.795780–PF1_2)3.641426– 1.121187–PF2_1–)6.609693– 3.461042PF2_2–)2.782074– 1.314947PF4_1–)6.269240– 2.586866PF4_2–)2.427698–0.752688PF8_1)16.203705–7.818665–PF8_2)7.963922– 3.164988–RP2_1)4.343623)4.390177)0.705448 1.022170RP3_1)5.044296)5.0474760.256528 1.278842BP1_1)17.012005– 3.635025–BP1_2.2)12.695771– 2.349628–BP1_3.1)9.002881– 1.931547–BP1_4.2)6.377284– 1.507313–BP1_5.4)3.772960–0.652800–BP2_1–)12.257268– 2.208989BP2_2–)10.594807– 2.500285BP2_3–)7.912197– 1.500170BP2_4–)4.970550– 1.033358GH1_1)8.704344)8.042873)0.8411670.184282GH1_2)5.382641)4.663071)1.133139)0.389631GH1_3.4)3.230279)2.706827)0.660725)0.349572GH1_4.4)1.936141)1.671905)0.7950150.330309VT2_1–)1.704222–)7.001461VT2_2–)1.355533–)5.031671VT2_3–)0.262164–)4.012001VT2_4–)0.150904–)2.677302VT2_5–0.150005–)1.396547VT4_1)2.301203–)6.694192–VT4_2)1.673615–)6.555417–VT4_3)1.217702–)4.965228–VT4_4)0.849186–)2.403254–VT4_5)0.495087–)1.041427–SF1_1 2.955278–)14.617923–SF1_2 1.116653–)12.142296–SF1_3 1.433979–)7.841254–SF1_40.861761–)4.676580–SF2_1–0.286656–)8.236227SF2_2–)0.189464–)6.857423SF2_3–0.193895–)5.284785SF2_4–0.482796–)3.301877RE1_1 2.468990–)6.099051–RE2_1– 2.747609–)6.981024RE3_1 1.642657 2.143392)5.120612)5.946570MH3_10.486081 2.865890)8.496928)8.255860MH3_2 1.644377 3.500893)8.257450)6.883770MH3_30.696675 2.694178)6.255882)5.404594MH3_40.864621 2.333822)4.238056)3.439909MH3_50.774435 1.609226)2.544268)1.943186MH4_10.851938 4.534201)12.868018)15.794343MH4_2)0.119061 2.494064)9.187208)12.925241MH4_3 1.319095 2.212045)7.247869)9.157472Hong Kong.Six items of the Chinese(HK)specific SF-12were different from those of the standard SF-12,suggesting some cultural differences in dif-ferential item functioning(DIF)of the SF-36be-tween the Chinese and US populations[13,25]. The number of items that were different between the standard and Chinese(HK)SF-12was larger than those found in nine European countries, probably because there are more differences be-tween the Chinese than European cultures and the US culture[8].No other country has selected PF1, BP1and RE1as the best SF-12items,which may reflect DIF that is unique to the Chinese culture. However,one must be cautious in generalising the results from this study to other Chinese popula-tions because the social system and people’s life style in Hong Kong are very different from those of Mainland China and other Chinese societies. Quality of life assessment is influenced not only by one’s ethnicity;it is also affected by social norms. Chinese populations living in different parts of the world may have developed different social expec-tations and standards of quality of life although they have the same cultural origin.Studies com-paring the population specific SF-12items between Chinese populations in Hong Kong,Mainland China,Taiwan,Singapore and Western countries could provide interesting information on whether DIF is ethnic or population specific.The standard SF-12PCS explained only82%of the total variance of the SF-36PCS score because three items(two from the physical functioning and one from the bodily pain scales)that contributed strongly to the standard SF-12PCS score were not the best items for the HK Chinese population. Despite this deficiency,there were very strong correlations(P0.9)between the standard SF-12 and SF-36PCS and MCS scores,and there were very small differences(effect size<0.3)between corresponding SF-36and standard SF-12scores in different groups of subjects.Thefindings supported the content and criterion validity of the standard SF-12for the Chinese population in Hong Kong. The mean standard SF-12PCS and MCS scores of the HK subjects were only0.2and1.6points different from the US population mean of50, suggesting that the standard SF-12was equivalent for this Chinese population.Pooling of the stan-dard SF-12data between the US and HK Chinese populations may be possible.Table3.(Continued)Item_Response scores PCS regression coefficients MCS regression coefficientsChinese(HK)specific Standard Chinese(HK)specific StandardMH4_40.987409 1.627192)4.368062)5.395771MH4_50.7170320.870407)2.320460)2.871620Constant60.17553455.55153462.74237861.557734R20.87660.82320.90170.8897Table4.Correlations between the SF-36and SF-12PCS and MCS scoresStd36PCS Std12MCS HK36MCS HK12PCSStd36MCS)0.1260.9380.9850.022Std12PCS0.897)0.073)0.0210.847HK36PCS0.9750.0500.0000.936HK12MCS)0.0490.8940.9500.040Notes:Std36PCS=SF-36PCS calculated by the standard(US)scoring algorithm.Std36MCS=SF-36MCS calculated by the standard(US)scoring algorithm.Std12PCS=SF-12PCS calculated by the standard(US)scoring algorithm.Std12MCS=SF-12 MCS calculated by the standard(US)scoring algorithm.HK36PCS=SF-36PCS calculated by the Chinese(HK)specific scoring algorithm.HK36MCS=SF-36MCS calculated by the Chinese(HK)specific scoring algorithm.HK12PCS=SF-12PCS calculated by the Chinese(HK)specific scoring algorithm.HK12MCS=SF-12MCS calculated by the Chinese(HK)specific scoring algorithm. 544As expected,the Chinese(HK)specific SF-12 had better psychometric properties than the stan-dard SF-12,which could imply better sensitivity and responsiveness for the Chinese.However,the Chinese(HK)specific SF-12did not seem to dif-ferentiate between‘chronic disease’and‘no chronic disease’groups better than the standard SF-12.The differences in the SF-12scores ob-tained by the two scoring algorithms were all smaller than the minimally important differenceTable5.Chinese(HK)specific and standard PCS and MCS scores by groupsMean(SD)Std PCS HK PCS Std MCS HK MCSAll subjects(n=2410)SF-3651.4(7.7)50.0(10.0)48.0(9.4)50.0(10.0)SF-1250.2(7.0)50.0(9.4)48.4(8.8)50.0(9.5)Effect size10.1600.040Effect size20.020.17No chronic disease(n=1493)SF-3653.8(5.5)53.5(6.7)48.6(8.7)50.5(9.2)SF-1252.3(4.8)53.2(6.3)49.1(8.1)50.6(8.8)Effect size10.270.040.060.01Effect size20.140.17Any chronic disease(n=917)SF-3647.4(8.9)44.3(11.8)47.0(10.4)49.2(11.1)SF-1246.9(8.5)*44.7(11.0)*47.4(9.8)*49.1(10.5)*Effect size10.060.030.040.01Effect size20.200.16Heart disease(n=94)SF-3641.7(11.0)36.0(14.7)46.9(10.2)49.2(10.9)SF-1241.8(10.6)*37.0(13.4)*46.7(9.4)48.7(10.9)Effect size10.010.070.020.05Effect size20.360.18Psychological diseases(n=94)SF-3645.8(9.6)41.6(12.9)40.2(10.8)41.6(11.8)SF-1245.4(9.0)*42.0(11.7)*41.4(10.1)*42.7(11.4)*Effect size10.040.030.110.09Effect size20.290.11Pulmonary diseases(n=128)SF-3646.6(10.9)43.6(14.2)44.6(10.6)46.0(11.1)SF-1246.3(10.6)*43.9(13.4)*44.4(10.4)*46.3(10.6)*Effect size10.030.020.020.03Effect size20.180.18Joint diseases(n=473)SF-3645.7(9.3)41.8(12.3)47.1(10.3)49.3(11.1)SF-1245.4(9.1)*42.6(11.4)*47.4(9.6)*49.0(10.7)*Effect size10.030.070.030.03Effect size20.250.15Notes:Std PCS=PCS score calculated by the standard(US)scoring algorithm;HK PCS¼PCS calculated by the Chinese(HK) specific scoring algorithm;Std MCS¼MCS calculated by the standard(US)scoring algorithm;HK MCS=MCS calculated by the Chinese(HK)specific scoring algorithm.Effect Size1difference between SF-12and SF-36summary score/SD of SF-36summary score.Effect Size2difference between standard and Chinese(HK)specific SF-12summary score/SD of the Chinese(HK)specific SF-12 summary score.*Difference between‘no chronic disease’and the disease group is significant by the two-sample t-test,with p<0.05.545(MID).Small improvements in cultural specificity and psychometric properties may not necessarily translate to real advantages in practice,and they have to be balanced against a decrease in inter-national comparability.This point has also been highlighted by Skevington et al.[26,27],who found that country specific items did not signifi-cantly improve the performance of the standard WHO Quality of Life(WHOQoL)Assessment Form.A major limitation of this cross-sectional study was that it could not assess the responsiveness of the standard and Chinese(HK)specific SF-12.The information on the sensitivity of the SF-12in discriminating between chronic disease groups was also limited by possible errors in subjects’self-reporting.Further studies are required to deter-mine the responsiveness and sensitivity of the standard SF-12and Chinese(HK)specific SF-12 as outcome measures in clinical trials.It should also be pointed out that subjects in this study answered the full SF-36Health Survey from which the data of the standard and Chinese(HK) specific SF-12were extracted.Further studies should be carried out to determine if people would answer the standard and Chinese(HK)specific SF-12differently if they are presented as two independent stand-alone surveys instead of embedded items of a longer questionnaire. ConclusionsThis was thefirst study to show that the standard SF-12Health Survey was valid and equivalent for a Chinese population.The standard SF-12items and scoring algorithm are recommended for the Chinese so that cross-cultural comparison and pooling of data are possible.The Chinese(HK) specific SF-12showed better psychometric prop-erties than the standard SF-12,thus,the Chinese (HK)specific SF-12may have a place in small local studies that require a more sensitive HRQoL measure instead of international comparability. We hope ourfindings will encourage more studies of the standard SF-12in Chinese popula-tions in other parts of China,Singapore and Western countries to provide more evidence in support of the use of this popular HRQoL mea-sure on the world’s largest ethnic group,so that Chinese can be included in more clinical trials. Further research on the population specific SF-12 items in different Chinese populations could pro-vide interesting information on whether differen-tial item functioning is ethnic or population specific.AcknowledgementsThe general population norming survey of the Chinese(Hong Kong)SF-36was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Hong Kong (EC842-96).It was funded by the Health Services Research Grant,the Government of Hong Kong SAR(HSRC#711026).I would like to thank Alex Chan,Willis Ho, Joanna Shing,Ka-Lai Chan,Wai-Hung Yu,June Chan,Chi-Kwan Wong,Wing-Yee Lai,Yick-Lok Chan and Hing-Wai Tsang,for their help in data collection and analysis.Parts of this paper have been submitted to the University of Hong Kong for the award of the Doctor of Medicine degree.Referencesm CLK,Gandek B,Ren XS,Chan MS.Tests of scalingassumptions and construct validity of the Chinese(HK) version of the SF-36Health Survey.J Clin Epidemiol1998;51:1139–1147.m CLK.Reliability and construct validity of the Chinese(Hong Kong)SF-36for patients in primary care.H K Pract 2003;25:468–475.m CLK,Tse EYY,Gandek B.Construct validity,reli-ability and equivalence of the SF-36Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales in a Chinese population(under review).4.Thumboo J,Fong KY,Chan SP,et al.The equivalence ofEnglish and Chinese SF-36versions in bilingual Singapore Chinese.Qual Life Res2002;11:495–503.5.Thumboo J,Fong KY,Machin D,et al.A community-based study of scaling assumptions and construct validity of the English(UK)and Chinese(HK)SF-36in Singapore.Qual Life Res2001;10:175–188.6.Ware JE,Kosinski M,Keller SD,How to Score the SF-12Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales.2edn.Bos-ton:The Health Institute,New England Medical Center;1995.7.Ware JE,Kosinski M,Keller SD.A12-item Short-FormHealth Survey.Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity.Med Care1996;34:220–233.5468.Gandek B,Ware JE,Aaronson NK.Cross-validation ofitem selection and scoring for the SF-12Health Survey in nine countries:Results from the IQOLA Project.J Clin Epidemiol1998;51:1171–1178.9.Ware JE,Kosinski M.Norm-based scoring for physicaland mental summary measures.In:Ware JE,Kosinski M (eds),SF-36Physical&Mental Health Summary Scales:A Manual for Users of Version1.Lincoln,Rhode Island: QualityMetric,Inc.;2001:28–35.10.Guillemin F,Bombardier C,Beaton D.Cross-culturaladaptation of health-related quality of life measures:Lit-erature review and proposed guidelines.J Clin Epidemiol 1993;46:1417–1432.11.McColl E,Christiansen T,Konig-Zahn C.Making the rightchoice of outcome measure.In:Hutchinson A,Bentzen N, Konig-Zahn C,(eds),Cross Cultural Health Outcome Assessment:A User’s Guide.Ruinen,The Netherlands: European Research Group on Health Outcomes;1997:12–26.12.Lim LLY,Fisher e of the12-item Short-Form(SF-12)Health Survey in an Australian heart and stroke pop-ulation.Qual Life Res1999;8:1–8.13.Bjorner JB,Kreiner S,Ware JE,Damsgaard MT,Berch P.Differential item functioning in the Danish translation of the SF-36.J Clin Epidemiol1998;51:1189–1202.14.Herdman M,Fox-Rushby J,Badia X.A model ofequivalence in the cultural adaptation of HRQoL instru-ments:The universalist approach.Qual Life Res1998;7: 323–335.15.Bullinger M.Ensuring international equivalence of qualityof life measures:Problems and approaches to solutions.In: Orley J,Kuyken W(eds),Quality of Life Assessment: International Perspectives.Berlin:Springler-Verlag;1994: 33–40.m CLK,Lauder IJ,Lam TP,Gandek B.Populationbased norming of the Chinese(HK)version of the SF-36 Health Survey.H K Pract1999;21:460–470.m CLK,Fong DYT,Lauder IJ,Lam TP.The effect ofhealth-related quality of life(HRQoL)on health service utilisation of a Chinese population.Soc Sci Med2002;55: 1635–1646.18.Census&Statistics Department Hong Kong,Main Tablesof the2001Population Census.Hong Kong:Census& Statistics Department,HKSAR;2002.19.Gandek B,Ware JE.Methods for validating and normingtranslations of health status questionnaires:The IQOLA Project approach.J Clin Epidemiol1998;51:953–959. m CLK,Lauder IJ,Lam TPD.The impact of chronicdiseases on health services and quality of life of a Chinese Pacific Fam Med2003;2:98–106.22.Kazis LE,Anderson JJ,Meenan RF.Effect sizes forinterpreting changes in health status.Med Care1989;27: S178–S189.23.Wyrwich KW,Nienaber NA,Tierney WM,Wolinsky FD.Linking clinical relevance and statistical significance in evaluating intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life.Med Care1999;37:469–478.24.Cohen J.The t-test for measures.In:Cohen J(ed.),Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences.Hillsdale,New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates;1988: 19–74.25.Norman GR,Sridhar FG,Walter SD,Guyatt GH.Therelation of distribution-and anchor-based approaches in interpretation of changes in health related quality of life.Med Care2001;39:1039–1047.25.Holman R,Lindeboom R,Vermeulen M,Glas CAW,deHaan RJ.The Amsterdam Linear Disability Score(ALDS) Project,differential item functioning with regard to gender.QOL Newsleter2002;29:13–14.26.Skevington SM.Advancing cross-cultural research onquality of life:Observations drawn from the WHOQoL development.Qual Life Res2002;11:135–144.27.Skevington SM,Bradshaw J,Saxena S.Selecting nationalitems for the WHOQoL:Conceptual and psychometric considerations.Soc Sci Med1999;48:473–487.Address for correspondence:Cindy m,MBBS,MD, FRCGP,FHKAM,Family Medicine Unit,The University of Hong Kong,3rd Floor,Ap Lei Chau Clinic,161Main Street, Ap Lei Chau,Hong Kong SARFax:+852-********;E-mail:clklam@hku.hk547。

------ED系统异常《ST-SYER》
------EE驱动在不能启动《SD-DNRS》
------EF控制在不能启动《SW-NRS》
0。将MON1不变，把MON0旋转到1位置。显示轿箱与平衡驼的位置，平衡是为0-0之间，
显示1等于256MM，那么显示2等于512MM。
将MON1不变，把MON0旋转到2位置。数据输入《安装时间用 ，和SW1同时使用》
------E0A 称重数值异常检出〈SW-WGER〉
------E0B E1板异常检出〈SW-E1PBC〉
------E0C URS/DRS开关故障〈SW-UDHSE〉
------E0D DZ检查回路故障检出〈SW-DZCER〉
------E0E 5 ON故障《SW-5 ONER》
------E0F #LB ON故障《SW-LBONER》
显示结果：----E40 没有异常
----E41 紧急停止运行记录2次〈SW-EST2〉
----E42 整流器电流过低时检出〈SS-LVLTT〉
----E43 紧急停止回复〈SW-ESTR〉
----E44 LB线圈故障断电时检出
----E45 5线圈故障断电时检出
----E46பைடு நூலகம்BK1线圈故障
----E47 BK2线圈故障
七．将MON1旋转到1位置，将MON0旋转到6位置时的显示结果如下：
显示结果：----E60 没有异常
----E61 整流器电压不足
----E62 集极驱动板异常《SS-GDFH》
----E63 逆变器保护回路动作《SS-LFO》
----E64 29安全回路动作时检出《SS-29LT》锁存记忆》
----E65 12V电源异常

CB540(黑色) CB541(蓝色) CB542(黄色) CB543(红色) HP9700 HP9701 HP9702 HP9703 HPCE310A
HPCE311 HPCE312 HPCE313 HP530 HP531 HP532 HP533 HP3960 HP3961 HP3962 HP3963 Q6000（黑色) Q6001（蓝色) Q6002（黄色) Q6003（红色) HP2670 HP2671 HP2672 HP2673 HPCE250 （黑） HPCE251 （蓝） HPCE252 （黄） HPCE253 （红） HPQ6470（黑色) HPQ6471（蓝色) HPQ6472（黄色) HPQ6473（红色) HP2670 HP2681 HP2682 HP2683 HP7580 HP7581 HP7582 HP7583 HPCB400A HPCB401A HPCB402A HPCB403A HPCE260A黑 HPCE261A兰
施乐3116 （三星 1510） 施乐3117 施乐3119 施乐2065 施乐2050 施乐202 Xerox 施乐3428 施乐 施乐203/204 施乐3435 施乐3200 施乐P8E 施乐3220 施乐PE220 施乐580 施乐210 施乐4508 施乐CT201613粉合 施乐CT201613粉合 施乐CT201937粉合 佳能FX-3 佳能FX-9 佳能E-16 佳能EP-22 佳能EP-25 佳能EP-26 佳能EP-65 佳能N 佳能W 佳能U 佳能H 佳能303 Canon 佳能 佳能305 佳能306 佳能308（HP5949） 佳能309（HP7516） 佳能310 佳能313（HP436A） 佳能315(HP7553) 佳能319(HP505) 佳能320 佳能326 佳能328/278 佳能912 佳能925 松下T-UG3313

单片低成本低能耗RF收发芯片应用z极低功率UHF无线收发器z315/433/868和915MHz ISM/SRD波段系统z AMR-自动仪表读数z电子消费产品z RKE-两路远程无键登录z低功率遥感勘测z住宅和建筑自动控制z无线警报和安全系统z工业监测和控制z无线传感器网络产品介绍CC1100是一种低成本真正单片的UHF收发器，为低功耗无线应用而设计。

电路主要设定为在315、433、868和915MHz的ISM（工业，科学和医学）和SRD（短距离设备）频率波段，也可以容易地设置为300-348 MHz、400-464 MHz和800-928 MHz的其他频率。

RF收发器集成了一个高度可配置的调制解调器。

这个调制解调器支持不同的调制格式，其数据传输率可达500kbps。

通过开启集成在调制解调器上的前向误差校正选项，能使性能得到提升。

CC1100为数据包处理、数据缓冲、突发数据传输、清晰信道评估、连接质量指示和电磁波激发提供广泛的硬件支持。

CC1100的主要操作参数和64位传输/接收FIFO（先进先出堆栈）可通过SPI接口控制。

在一个典型系统里，CC1150和一个微控制器及若干被动元件一起使用。

CC1100基于0.18微米CMOS晶体的Chipcon的SmartRF 04技术。

主要特性z体积小（QLP 4×4mm封装，20脚）z真正的单片UHF RF收发器z频率波段：300-348 MHz、400-464 MHz 和800-928 MHzz高灵敏度（1.2kbps下-110dBm，1％数据包误差率）z可编程控制的数据传输率，可达500kbpsz较低的电流消耗（RX中15.6mA，2.4kbps，433MHz）z可编程控制的输出功率，对所有的支持频率可达+10dBm z优秀的接收器选择性和模块化性能z极少的外部元件：芯片内频率合成器，不需要外部滤波器或RF转换z可编程控制的基带调制解调器z理想的多路操作特性z可控的数据包处理硬件z快速频率变动合成器带来的合适的频率跳跃系统z可选的带交错的前向误差校正z单独的64字节RX和TX数据FIFOz高效的SPI接口：所有的寄存器能用一个“突发”转换器控制长沙云宝电子科技有限公司z 数字RSSI 输出z 与遵照EN 300 220(欧洲)和FCCCFR47 Part 15 (美国)标准的系统相配 z 自动低功率RX 拉电路的电磁波激活功能z 许多强大的数字特征，使得使用廉价的微控制器就能得到高性能的RF 系统 z 集成模拟温度传感器z 自由引导的“绿色”数据包 z 对数据包导向系统的灵活支持：对同步词汇侦测的芯片支持，地址检查，灵活的数据包长度及自动CRC 处理 z 可编程信道滤波带宽 z OOK 和灵活的ASK 整型支持 z 2-FSK ，GFSK 和MSK 支持z 自动频率补偿可用来调整频率合成器到接收中间频率z 对数据的可选自动白化处理z 对现存通信协议的向后兼容的异步透明接收/传输模式的支持 z 可编程的载波感应指示器z 可编程前导质量指示器及在随机噪声下改进的针对同步词汇侦测的保护 z 支持传输前自动清理信道访问（CCA ），即载波侦听系统z 支持每个数据包连接质量指示z1 缩写词资料中用到的缩写词如下： 2-FSK 2进制频率转换按键 ADC 模数转换器 AFC 自动频率补偿 AGC 自动增益控制 AMR 自动仪表读取 ASK 振幅转换按键 BER 位误差率CCA 清理信道评估 CRC 循环冗余检查EIRP 等价等方性的辐射功率 ESR 等价串联阻抗 FEC 前向误差校正 FIFO 先进先出堆栈 FSK 频移键控GFSK 高斯整形频率转换键控 IF 中间频率LBT 发送之前侦测 LNA 低噪声放大器 LO 局部振荡器LQI 链接质量指示器MCU 微控制器单元 MSK 最小化转换按键 PA 功率放大器 PCB 印制电路板 PD 功率降低PQI 前导质量指示器 PQT 前导质量门限 RCOSC RC 振荡器 RF 电磁波频率RSSI 接收信号长度指示器 RX 接收，接收模式 SAW 接口水波 SNR 信噪比SPI 连续外围接口 TBD 待定义TX 发送，发送模式 VCO 电压控制振荡器WOR 电磁波激活，低功率拉电路 XOSC 石英晶体振荡器 XTAL 石英晶体目录1 缩写词 (2)2 工作条件 (6)3 电气规范 (6)4 常规特性 (7)5 RF接收环节 (8)6 RF传输环节 (9)7 石英晶体振荡器 (9)8 低功率RC振荡器 (10)9 频率合成器特性 (10)10 模拟温度传感器 (11)11 直流特性 (11)12 重启功率 (11)13 引脚结构 (12)14 电路描述 (13)15 应用电路 (14)16 结构配置概述 (15)17 配置软件 (16)18 4线串行配置和数据接口 (17)18.1 芯片状态位 (17)18.2 寄存器访问 (18)18.3 命令滤波 (18)18.4 FIFO访问 (18)18.5 PATABLE访问 (19)19 微控制器接口和引脚结构 (20)19.1 配置接口 (20)19.2 常规控制和状态引脚 (20)19.3 可选通信控制特性 (21)20 数据率设计 (21)21 接收信道滤波带宽 (21)22 解调器，符号同步装置和数据决定 (22)22.1 频率便宜补偿 (22)22.2 位同步 (22)22.3 字节同步 (22)23 数据包处理和硬件支持 (23)23.1 数据白化 (23)23.2 数据包格式化 (23)23.3 接收模式下的数据包滤波 (25)23.4 传输模式下的数据包处理 (25)23.5接收模式下的数据包处理 (25)24 调制格式化 (26)24.1 频率转换按键 (26)24.2 相位转换按键 (26)24.3 振幅调制 (26)25 已接收信号质量和连接质量信息 (26)25.1 前导质量门限（PQT） (26)25.2 RSSI (26)25.3 载波感应（CS） (27)25.4 清理信道访问（CCA） (27)25.5 连接质量指示(LQI) (27)26 交错前向误差校正 (27)26.1 前向误差校正（FEC） (27)26.2 交错 (28)27 通信控制 (29)27.1 开启顺序功率 (29)27.2 晶体控制 (30)27.3 电压调节控制 (30)27.4 主动模式 (30)27.5 电磁波激活(WOR) (31)27.5.1 RC振荡器和定时 (31)27.6 定时 (32)27.7 RX终止定时器 (32)28 数据FIFO (33)29 频率控制 (34)30 VCO (34)30.1 VCO和PLL自校准 (34)31 电压调节 (34)32 输出功率调节 (35)33 晶体振荡器 (36)34 天线接口 (36)35 常规用途/测试输出控制引脚 (37)36 异步和同步连续操作 (38)36.1 异步操作 (38)36.2 同步连续操作 (39)37 配置寄存器 (39)37.1配置寄存器详情－休眠状态下带保存值的寄存器 (43)37.2配置寄存器详情－休眠状态下失去控制的寄存器 (53)37.3状态寄存器详情 (54)38 安装描述（QLP20） (56)38.1 推荐安装PCB设计（QLP20） (57)38.2 安装发热特性 (57)38.3 焊接信息 (57)38.4 盘规格 (57)38.5 载波带和轴规范 (57)39 分类信息 (58)40 总体信息 (58)40.1 文件历史 (58)40.2 产品状况定义 (58)40.3 不予承诺的内容 (58)40.4 商标 (58)40.5生命支持政策 (59)41 地址信息 (60)1 绝对最大等级任何条件下都不可违反表1给出的绝对最大等级。