Quality of Life Research

, Volume 22, Issue 10, pp 2801–2808 | Cite as

Psychometric evaluation of the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire and Visual Function Questionnaire Utility Index in patients with non-infectious intermediate and posterior uveitis

  • Rupali K. Naik
  • Katharine S. Gries
  • Anne M. Rentz
  • Jonathan W. Kowalski
  • Dennis A. Revicki



To evaluate the psychometric properties of the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25 (NEI VFQ-25) and Visual Function Questionnaire Utility Index (VFQ-UI) in patients with non-infectious intermediate and posterior uveitis.


Secondary analysis of pooled data from a 26-week, multicenter, masked, randomized, sham-controlled Phase 3 clinical trial. Health-related quality of life was assessed using the NEI VFQ-25, the EQ-5D, and SF-36. Internal consistency reliability, reproducibility, convergent validity, and known groups of BCVA and vitreous haze severity were assessed. Clinically significant difference was assessed using anchor-based and distribution-based methods.


The study included 224 subjects with non-infectious intermediate (80.4 %) or posterior uveitis (19.6 %). The NEI VFQ-25 and the VFQ-UI demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha 0.87–0.94) and test–retest reliability (ICCs 0.58–0.88). Spearman’s product–moment rank correlations between the NEI VFQ-25 and VFQ-UI scores and the SF-6D, EQ-5D, and BCVA ranged from small to moderate. There was a significant association between visual functioning and known groups of visual acuity (p < 0.05). Clinical significance, using the anchor-based method (difference between visual acuity groups ≥10–<15 letter better and no change), was 10.2 for change from baseline to week 26 for the NEI VFQ-25 composite score and 0.05 for the VFQ-UI. Using the distribution-based method, the clinical significance was 3.86 for the composite score and 0.04 for the VFQ-UI.


The NEI VFQ-25 and the VFQ-UI are reliable and valid measures of vision-related functioning and preference-based status in patients with non-infectious intermediate and posterior uveitis.


Ocular disease Vision-related functioning NEI VFQ-25 VFQ-UI Uveitis Psychometric evaluation 


  1. 1.
    Durrani, O. M., Meads, C. A., & Murray, P. I. (2004). Uveitis: A potentially blinding disease. Ophthalmologica, 218(4), 223–236.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Markomichelakis, N. N., Halkiadakis, I., Pantelia, E., Peponis, V., Patelis, A., Theodossiadis, P., et al. (2004). Patterns of macular edema in patients with uveitis: Qualitative and quantitative assessment using optical coherence tomography. Ophthalmology, 111(5), 946–953.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schiffman, R. M., Jacobsen, G., & Whitcup, S. M. (2001). Visual functioning and general health status in patients with uveitis. Archives of Ophthalmology, 119(6), 841–849.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mangione, C. M., Lee, P. P., Gutierrez, P. R., Spritzer, K., Berry, S., & Hays, R. D. (2001). Development of the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire. Archives of Ophthalmology, 119(7), 1050–1058.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lowder, C., Belfort, R, Jr, Lightman, S., Foster, C. S., Robinson, M. R., Schiffman, R. M., et al. (2011). Dexamethasone intravitreal implant for noninfectious intermediate or posterior uveitis. Archives of Ophthalmology, 129(5), 545–553.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rentz, A. M., Kowalski, J. W., Walt, J., Hays, R. D., Brazier, J. E., Yu, R., Lee, P., Bressler, N. M., & Revicki, D. A. (submitted.). Developing a preference-based single index for the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25. Arch Opth.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kowalski, J. W., Rentz, A. M., Walt, J., Lloyd, A., Young, D., Chen, W. H., Bressler, N. M., Lee, P., Brazier, J. E., Hays, R. D., & Revicki, D. A. (2011). Development of a classification system for health states from the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25. Quality of life research. August 04, 2011. (Epub ahead of print).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ware, J. E., Kosinski, M., & Keller, S. D. (1994). SF-36 physical and mental health summary scales: A users manual. Boston: The Health Institute.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21(2), 271–292.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Walters, S. J., & Brazier, J. E. (2003). What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 1, 4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fryback, D. G., Dunham, N. C., Palta, M., Hanmer, J., Buechner, J., Cherepanov, D., et al. (2007). US norms for six generic health-related quality-of-life indexes from the National Health Measurement study. Medical Care, 45(12), 1162–1170.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brooks, R., Rabin, R., & de Charro, F. (2003). The measurement and validation of health status suing EQ-5D: A European perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ferris, F. L, 3rd, Kassoff, A., Bresnick, G. H., & Bailey, I. (1982). New visual acuity charts for clinical research. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 94(1), 91–96.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hays, R. D., & Revicki, D. (2005). Reliability and validity (including responsiveness). In P. Fayers & R. D. Hays (Eds.), Assessing quality of life in clinical trials (2nd ed., pp. 25–40). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gritz, D. C., & Wong, I. G. (2004). Incidence and prevalence of uveitis in northern California: The northern California epidemiology of uveitis study. Ophthalmology, 111, 491–500.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kazis, L. E., Anderson, J. J., & Meenan, R. F. (1989). Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Medical Care, 27, S178–S189.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Liang, M. J., Fossel, A. H., & Larson, M. G. (1990). Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Medical Care, 28, 632–642.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Guyatt, G. H., Osoba, D., Wu, A. W., Wyrwich, K. W., & Norman, G. R. (2002). Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 77(4), 371.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Revicki, D., Hays, R. D., Cella, D., & Sloan, J. (2008). Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61(2), 102–109.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chan, C. C., Inrig, T., Molloy, C. B., Stone, M. A., & Derzko-Dzulynsky, L. (2012). Prevalence of inflammatory back pain in a cohort of patients with anterior uveitis. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 153, 1025–1030.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Frick, K. D., Drye, L. T., Kempen, J. H., Dunn, J. P., Holland, G. N., Latkany, P., et al. (2012). Associations among visual acuity and vision- and health-related quality of life among patients in the multicenter uveitis steroid treatment trial. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 53, 1169–1176.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nussenblatt, R. B., & Whitcup, S. M. (2004). Uveitis: Fundamentals and clinical practice (3rd ed.). St. Louis: Mosby.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rupali K. Naik
    • 1
  • Katharine S. Gries
    • 2
  • Anne M. Rentz
    • 2
  • Jonathan W. Kowalski
    • 1
  • Dennis A. Revicki
    • 2
  1. 1.Global Health Outcomes Strategy and Research, Allergan Inc.IrvineUSA
  2. 2.Outcomes Research, United BioSource CorporationBethesdaUSA

Personalised recommendations