The article by C. A. McHorney and A. R. Tarlov evaluates the suitability of five health status surveys (Functional Status Questionnaire, Dartmouth COOP Poster Charts, Nottingham Health Profile, Duke Health Profile, and SF-36 Health Survey) for individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice. The authors propose six measurement standards for individual-patient applications: practical features, breadth and depth of health measured, precision for cross-sectional and longitudinal assessment, and validity. The review found that all five surveys lack the precision required for individual-patient applications, with wide 95% confidence intervals and poor reliability. There is little evidence of their validity for screening, diagnosing, or monitoring individual patients. The authors conclude that new instruments or adaptations of existing measures are needed to meet the growing demand for routine functional assessment in clinical practice.The article by C. A. McHorney and A. R. Tarlov evaluates the suitability of five health status surveys (Functional Status Questionnaire, Dartmouth COOP Poster Charts, Nottingham Health Profile, Duke Health Profile, and SF-36 Health Survey) for individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice. The authors propose six measurement standards for individual-patient applications: practical features, breadth and depth of health measured, precision for cross-sectional and longitudinal assessment, and validity. The review found that all five surveys lack the precision required for individual-patient applications, with wide 95% confidence intervals and poor reliability. There is little evidence of their validity for screening, diagnosing, or monitoring individual patients. The authors conclude that new instruments or adaptations of existing measures are needed to meet the growing demand for routine functional assessment in clinical practice.