OBJECTIVES: For survivors of traumatic injury, critical care services are often required, followed by long-term recovery as patients overcome or adapt to the effects of their injury on physical function (Holtslag, 2006). Recently, increased attention has been focused on the use of patient reported outcome (PRO) assessments to evaluate functional outcomes in this population. In order to appraise current validation evidence for the use of a simple-to-administer PRO (Physical Function (PF) Scale of the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form (SF-36) health survey), a literature review was completed. METHODS: Comprehensive literature review (including a review of articles identified from previous work with trauma patient populations and with the SF-36 as well as a comprehensive search of PUBMED & EMBASE, 2000–2006 for articles that used PRO measures to assess recovery in trauma patients); 92 articles were reviewed. RESULTS: Ten studies presented psychometric data for the SF-36 in trauma patients (number of trauma patients included in these studies ranged from 64-1197). PF Scale properties were as follows: Internal consistency reliability: Alpha=0.93 (multiple trauma patients; Statz, 2002). Discriminant validity: The PF Scale discriminated between patients with different injury types (Michaels, 2001). Trauma patients had significantly lower PF scores (p<.001) than control patients with no disability (Findler, 2001) and US norms at various time points (up to 27 months) post-trauma (Brennenman, 1995; Holtslag, 2006; Hoogendoorn, 2001). Concurrent validity: PF scores were significantly related to those on the Sickness Impact Profile (Holtslag, 2006), neurocognitive functioning (COG scale) (Mackenzie, 2002), and Beck Depression Inventory (Findler, 2001). CONCLUSION: There is evidence to suggest that the PF Scale of the SF-36 is reliable, as measured by internal consistency, and valid, as measured by discriminant and concurrent validity.