Quality of Life Research

, Volume 22, Issue 9, pp 2477–2487 | Cite as

Development of a vision-targeted health-related quality of life item measure

  • Sylvia H. Paz
  • Jerry Slotkin
  • Roberta McKean-Cowdin
  • Paul Lee
  • Cynthia Owsley
  • Susan Vitale
  • Rohit Varma
  • Richard Gershon
  • Ron D. Hays
Article

Abstract

Purpose

To develop a vision-targeted health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measure for the NIH Toolbox for the Assessment of Neurological and Behavioral Function.

Methods

We conducted a review of existing vision-targeted HRQOL surveys and identified color vision, low luminance vision, distance vision, general vision, near vision, ocular symptoms, psychosocial well-being, and role performance domains. Items in existing survey instruments were sorted into these domains. We selected non-redundant items and revised them to improve clarity and to limit the number of different response options. We conducted 10 cognitive interviews to evaluate the items. Finally, we revised the items and administered them to 819 individuals to calibrate the items and estimate the measure’s reliability and validity.

Results

The field test provided support for the 53-item vision-targeted HRQOL measure encompassing 6 domains: color vision, distance vision, near vision, ocular symptoms, psychosocial well-being, and role performance. The domain scores had high levels of reliability (coefficient alphas ranged from 0.848 to 0.940). Validity was supported by high correlations between National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire scales and the new-vision-targeted scales (highest values were 0.771 between psychosocial well-being and mental health, and 0.729 between role performance and role difficulties), and by lower mean scores in those groups self-reporting eye disease (F statistic with p < 0.01 for all comparisons except cataract with ocular symptoms, psychosocial well-being, and role performance scales).

Conclusions

This vision-targeted HRQOL measure provides a basis for comprehensive assessment of the impact of eye diseases and treatments on daily functioning and well-being in adults.

Keywords

Vision-related quality of life NIH Toolbox Instrument development Instrument psychometric evaluation and calibration 

Supplementary material

11136_2013_365_MOESM1_ESM.doc (98 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 97 kb)
11136_2013_365_MOESM2_ESM.doc (153 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOC 153 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Ader, D. N. (2007). Developing the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS). Medical Care, 45, S1–S2. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000260537.45076.74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    Gershon, R. C., Cella, D., Fox, N. A., et al. (2010). Assessment of neurological and behavioural function: The NIH Toolbox. Lancet Neurology, 9(2), 138–139. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(09)70335-7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hays, R. D., Morales, L. S., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st Century. Medical Care, 38(9 Suppl), II28–II42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Terwee, C. B., Gerding, M. N., Dekker, F. W., et al. (1998). Development of a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire for patients with Graves’ ophthalmopathy: The GO-QOL. British Journal of Ophthalmology, 82, 773–779.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Terwee, C. B., Gerding, M. N., Dekker, F. W., et al. (1999). Test-retest reliability of the GO-QOL: A disease-specific quality of life questionnaire for patients with Graves’ ophthalmopathy. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 52, 875–884.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Terwee, C. B., Dekker, F. W., Mourits, M. P., et al. (2001). Interpretation and validity of changes in scores on the Graves’ Ophthalmopathy quality of life questionnaire (GO-QOL) after different treatments. Clinical Endocrinology, 54, 391–398.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lamoureux, E. L., Pallant, J. F., Pesudovs, K., et al. (2007). The impact of vision impairment questionnaire: An assessment of its domain structure using confirmatory factor analysis and Rasch analysis. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 48, 1001–1006.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weih, L. M., Hassell, J. B., & Keeffe, J. E. (2002). Assessment of the impact of vision impairment. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 43, 927–935.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lamoureux, E. L., Hassell, J. B., & Keeffe, J. E. (2004). The determinants of participation in activities of daily living in people with impaired vision. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 137, 265–270.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lamoureux, E. L., Hassell, J. B., & Keeffe, J. E. (2004). The impact of diabetic retinopathy on participation in daily living. Archives of Ophthalmology, 122, 84–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hassell, J. B., Lamoureux, E. L., & Keeffe, J. E. (2006). Impact of age-related macular degeneration on quality of life. British Journal of Ophthalmology, 90, 593–596.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wolffsohn, J. S., & Cochrane, A. L. (2000). Design of the low vision quality of life questionnaire (LVQOL) and measuring the outcome of low-vision rehabilitation. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 130(6), 793–802.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    De Boer, M. R., de Vet, H. C. W., et al. (2005). Changes to the subscales of two vision-related quality of life questionnaires are proposed. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58, 1260–1268.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hays, R., Mangione, C., Ellwein, L., NEW-RQL Research Group, et al. (2003). Psychomeric properties of the National Eye Institute—refractive error quality of life instrument. Ophthalmology, 110, 2292–2301.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mangione, C. M., Berry, S., Spritzer, K., et al. (1998). Identifying the content area for the 51-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire: Results from focus groups with visually impaired persons. Archives of Ophthalmology, 116, 227–233.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mangione, C. M., Lee, P. P., Gutierrez, P. R., et al. (2001). Development of the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire. Archives of Ophthalmology, 119, 1050–1058.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mangione, C. M., Lee, P. P., Pitts, J., et al. (1998). Psychometric properties of the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ). NEI-VFQ Field Test Investigators. Archives of Ophthalmology, 116, 1496–1504.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Carta, A., Braccio, L., Belpoliti, M., et al. (1998). Self-assessment of the quality of vision: Association of questionnaire score with objective clinical tests. Current Eye Research, 17, 506–511.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gothwal, V. K., Wright, T. A., Lamoureux, E. L., et al. (2009). Rasch analysis of the quality of life and vision function questionnaire. Optometry and Vision Science, 86, E836–E844.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vitale, S., Schein, O. D., Meinert, C., et al. (2000). The refractive status and vision profile: A questionnaire to measure vision-related quality of life in persons with refractive error. Ophthalmology, 107(8), 1529–1539.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schein, O. D., Vitale, S., Cassard, S. D., et al. (2001). Patient outcomes of refractive surgery. The refractive status and vision profile. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, 27, 665–673.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Steinberg, E. P., Tielsch, J. M., Schein, O. D., et al. (1994). The VF-14: An index of functional impairment in patients with cataract. Archives of Ophthalmology, 112, 630–638.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Linder, M., Chang, T. S., Scott, I. U., et al. (1999). Validity of the visual function index (VF-14) in patients with retinal disease. Archives of Ophthalmology, 117, 1611–1616.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fairchild, C. J., Chalmers, R. L., & Begley, C. G. (2008). Clinically important difference in dry eye: Change in IDEEL-symptom bother. Optometry and Vision Science, 85(8), E699–E707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rajagopalan, K., Abetz, L., Mertzanis, P., et al. (2005). Comparing the discriminative validity of two generic and one disease-specific health-related quality of life measures in a sample of patients with dry eye. Value Health, 8, 168–174.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Abetz, L., Venkataraman, K., Mertzanis, P, et al. (2003). The development, reliability and validity of a questionnaire to assess the impact of dry eyes on everyday life (IDEEL). Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 44: 2477 (E-Abstract).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mangione, C. M., Phillips, R. S., Seddon, J. M., et al. (1992). Development of the ‘Activities of Daily Vision Scale’. A measure of visual functional status. Medical Care, 30, 1111–1126.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pesudovs, K., Garamendi, E., Keeves, P., et al. (2003). The activities of daily vision scale for cataract surgery outcomes: Re-evaluating validity with Rasch analysis. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 44(7).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sloane, M. E., Ball, K., Owsley, C., et al. (1992). The visual activities questionnaire: Developing an instrument for assessing problems in everyday visual tasks. Technical Digest, Noninvasive Assessment of the Visual System, 1, 26–29.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gothwal, V. K., Wright, T. A., Lamoureux, E. L., & Pesudos, K. (2009). Visual activities questionnaire: Assessment of subscale validity for cataract surgery outcomes. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, 35(11), 1961–1969.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Owsley, C., Mcgwin, G., Scilley, K., et al. (2006). Development of a questionnaire to assess vision problems under low luminance in age-related maculopathy. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 47, 528–535.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
  35. 35.
    DeWalt, D., Rothrock, N., Yount, S., PROMIS Cooperative Group, et al. (2007). Evaluation of item candidates: The PROMIS qualitative item review. Medical Care, 45, S12–S21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cella, D., Riley, W., Stone, A., et al. (2010). the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63, 1179–1194.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
  38. 38.
    Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    MPlus: Muthen & Muthen. www.statmodel.com/.
  40. 40.
    Morales, L. S., Flowers, C., Gutierrez, P., et al. (2006). Item and scale differential functioning of the mini-mental state exam assessed using the differential item and test functioning (DFIT) framework. Medical Care, 44, S143–S151.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Du Toit, M. (2003). IRT from Scientific Software International. SSI, Inc.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Paz, S. H. (2012). Vision and eye care. Encyclopedia of Immigrant Health. Berlin: Springer Science + Business Media, LLC.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sylvia H. Paz
    • 1
  • Jerry Slotkin
    • 2
  • Roberta McKean-Cowdin
    • 3
  • Paul Lee
    • 4
  • Cynthia Owsley
    • 5
  • Susan Vitale
    • 6
  • Rohit Varma
    • 3
  • Richard Gershon
    • 2
  • Ron D. Hays
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, Department of MedicineUCLA School of MedicineLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Department of Medical Social SciencesSchool of Medicine, Northwestern University FeinbergChicagoUSA
  3. 3.Department of Ophthalmology, Doheny Eye InstituteKeck School of Medicine, University of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  4. 4.Department of OphthalmologyDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  5. 5.Department of OphthalmologySchool of Medicine, University of Alabama at BirminghamBirminghamUSA
  6. 6.Division of Epidemiology and Clinical ApplicationsNational Eye Institute, National Institutes of HealthBethesdaUSA

Personalised recommendations