Quality Assessment of Ophthalmic Questionnaires

Jyoti Khadka · Colm McAlinden · Konrad Pesudovs

226 citations0/0 files storedOptometry and Vision Science

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Psychometric Methodologies and Testing Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies Health Education and Validation

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this article was to systematically review all the available ophthalmic patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments (questionnaires) that demonstrated interval measurement properties to identify the instruments with the highest psychometric quality for use in different eye diseases and conditions. METHODS: An extensive literature review was carried out to identify all existing ophthalmic PRO instruments. Instruments were then excluded if they did not have demonstrable interval measurement properties; the remaining instruments were reviewed. The quality of the following psychometric properties was assessed: content development (initial item development process), performance of the response scale, dimensionality (whether the instrument measures a single construct), measurement precision, validity (convergent, concurrent, discriminant, and known groups), reliability (test-retest), targeting (whether the items are appropriate [e.g., difficulty level] for the population), differential item functioning (whether subgroups of people respond differently to an item), and responsiveness. RESULTS: The search identified 48 PRO instruments that demonstrated interval measurement properties, and these were relevant to nine applications: glaucoma, dry eye, refractive errors, cataract, amblyopia and strabismus, macular diseases, adult low vision, children low vision, and others. These instruments were evaluated against the psychometric property quality criteria and were rated for quality based on the number of criteria met. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides a descriptive catalog of ophthalmic PRO instruments to inform researchers and clinicians on the choice of the highest-quality PRO instrument suitable for their purpose.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 226 citations exist upstream.

References

2010The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study 2010The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: A clarification of its content 2007The Development, Assessment, and Selection of Questionnaires 2011How Item Banks and Their Application Can Influence Measurement Practice in Rehabilitation Medicine: A PROMIS Fatigue Item Bank Example 2001GUIDELINES TO STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF DATA FROM RATING SCALES AND QUESTIONNAIRES 2006The Impact of Vision Impairment Questionnaire: An Evaluation of Its Measurement Properties using Rasch Analysis

Cited by

2019The use of patient-reported outcome research in modern ophthalmology: impact on clinical trials and routine clinical practice 2014The Computer-Vision Symptom Scale (CVSS17): Development and Initial Validation 2015The quality of systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments 2016Methods to Develop the Eye‐tem Bank to Measure Ophthalmic Quality of Life 2014Translation, Cultural Adaptation, and Rasch Analysis of the Visual Function (VF-14) Questionnaire

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.