, Volume 20, Issue 12, pp 791–812 | Cite as

Vision-Specific Instruments for the Assessment of Health-Related Quality of Life and Visual Functioning

A Literature Review
  • Mary Kay Margolis
  • Karin Coyne
  • Tessa Kennedy-Martin
  • Timothy Baker
  • Oliver Schein
  • Dennis A. Revicki
Review Article


Clinically objective measures such as visual acuity or visual field provide an assessment of a patient’s visual status. However such measures may not reflect the degree of visual impairment the patient experiences in his or her daily activities. Visual impairment has been shown to have negative effects on health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) and a significant impact on daily functioning, including social activities. As such, there is a growing recognition of the importance of patient-reported outcomes of visual functioning.

This review examines the development and psychometric properties of 22 vision-specific instruments assessing visual functioning and/or the impact of visual impairment on HR-QOL or daily activities. Issues relevant to assessing vision-specific subjective outcomes are reviewed, with specific application of the reviewed instruments.

Three instruments, the Activities of Daily Vision Scale, National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire, and Visual Function Index have been well validated and widely used, but others also show promise. To fully capture the benefits of a new ophthalmology treatment (or new treatment for eye disease) a valid and reliable visual instrument, in which the psychometric performance has been demonstrated in the particular ocular condition being treated, should be utilised.



Funding provided by Lilly Research Centre. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this manuscript.


  1. 1.
    Rahmani B, Tielsch JM, Katz J, et al. The cause-specific prevalence of visual impairment in an urban population. The Baltimore Eye Survey. Ophthalmology 1996; 103: 1721–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cheng CY, Liu JH, Chen SJ, et al. Population-based study on prevalence and risk factors of age-related cataracts in Peitou, Taiwan. Chin Med J 2000; 63: 641–8Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    National Eye Institute [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2002 May 2]
  4. 4.
    Sasaki H, Jonasson F, Kojima M, et al. The Reykjavik Eye Study: prevalence of lens opacification with reference to identical Japanese studies. Ophthalmologica 2000; 214: 412–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    World Health Organization [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2001 Jun 1]
  6. 6.
    McKay R, McCarty CA, Taylor HR. Diabetic retinopathy in Victoria, Australia: The Visual Impairment Project. Br J Ophthalmol 2000; 84: 865–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Morgan CL, Currie CJ, Stott NC, et al. The prevalence of multiple diabetes-related complications. Diabet Med 2000; 17: 146–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ramachandran A, Snehalatha C, Sasikala R, et al. Vascular complications in young Asian Indian patients with Type I diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2000; 48: 51–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mangione CM, Phillips RS, Lawrence MG, et al. Improved visual function and attenuation of declines in health-related quality of life after cataract extraction. Arch Ophthalmol 1994; 112: 1419–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    West SK, Munoz B, Rubin GS, et al. Function and visual impairment in a population-based study of older adults. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1997; 38: 72–82PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lee PP, Spritzer K, Hays RD. The impact of blurred vision on functioning and well-being. Ophthalmology 1997; 104: 390–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Genensky SM. Acuity measurements: do they indicate how well a partially sighted person functions or could function? Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1976; 53: 809–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cullinan TR. The epidemiology of visual disability: studies of visually disabled people in the community. Research report 28. Canterbury, England: Health Services Research Unit, University of Kent, 1977Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Elliott DB, Patla AE, Furniss M, et al. Improvements in clinical and functional vision and quality of life after second eye cataract surgery. Optom Vis Sci 2000; 77: 13–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chang-Godinich A, Ou RJ, Koch DD. Functional improvement after phacoemulsification cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 1999; 25: 1226–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Crabtree HL, Hildreth AJ, O’Connell JE, et al. Measuring visual symptoms in British cataract patients: the cataract symptom scale. Br J Ophthalmol 1999; 83: 519–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lundstrom M, Roos P, Jensen S, et al. Catquest questionnaire for use in cataract surgery care: description, validity, and reliability. J Cataract Refract Surg 1997; 23: 1226–36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lundstrom M, Stenevi U, Thorburn W, et al. Catquest questionnaire for use in cataract surgery care: assessment of surgical outcomes. J Cataract Refract Surg 1998; 24: 968–74PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lundstrom M, Brege KG, Floren I, et al. Impaired visual function after cataract surgery assessed using the catquest questionnaire. J Cataract Refract Surg 2000; 26: 101–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lundstrom M, Stenevi U, Thorburn W. Cataract surgery in the very elderly. J Cataract Refract Surg 2000; 26: 408–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hart PM, Chakravarthy U, Stevenson MR, et al. A vision specific functional index for use in patients with age related macular degeneration. Br J Ophthalmol 1999; 83: 1115–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McClure ME, Hart PM, Jackson AJ, et al. Macular degeneration: do conventional measurements of impaired visual function equate with visual disability? Br J Ophthalmol 2000; 84: 244–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Terwee CB, Gerding MN, Dekker FW, et al. Development of a disease specific quality of life questionnaire for patients with Graves’ Ophthalmopathy: the GO-QOL. Br J Ophthalmol 1998; 82: 773–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Prager TC, Chuang AZ, Glasser JH, et al. The Houston vision assessment test (HVAT): an assessment of validity. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2000; 7: 87–102PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Keeffe JE, McCarty CA, Hassell JB, et al. Description and measurement of handicap caused by vision impairment. Aust N Z J Ophthalmol 1999; 28: 184–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Weih LM, Hassell JB, Keeffe JE. Assessment of the impact of vision impairment. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. In pressGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fletcher AE, Ellwein LB, Salvaray S, et al. Measurements of vision function and quality of life in patients with cataracts in southern India: report of instrument development. Arch Ophthalmol 1997; 115: 767–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Miedziak AI, Perski T, Andrews PP, et al. Stargardt’s Macular Dystrophy: a patient’s perspective. Optometry 2000; 71: 165–76PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Foss AJ, Hungerford J, Lamping DL, et al. Development and validation of a patient based measure of outcome in ocular melanoma. Br J Ophthalmol 2000; 84: 347–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mangione CM, Berry S, Spritzer K, et al. Identifying the content area for the 51-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire. Arch Ophthalmol 1998; 116: 227–33PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mangione CM, Lee PP, Pitts J, et al. Psychometric properties of the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ). Arch Ophthalmol 1998; 116: 1496–504PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mangione CM. NEI VFQ-25 scoring algorithum. Bethesda (MD): National Eye Institute, 1997Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mangione CM. NEI VFQ-25 scoring algorithm. Bethesda (MD): National Eye Institute, 2000Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gutierrez P, Wilson MR, Johnson C, et al. Influence of glaucomatous visual field loss on health-related quality of life. Arch Ophthalmol 1997; 115: 777–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Parrish RK, Gedde SJ, Scott IU, et al. Visual function and quality of life among patients with glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 1997; 115: 1447–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cruickshanks KJ, Fryback DG, Nondahl DM, et al. Treatment choice and quality of life in patients with choroidal melanoma. Arch Ophthalmol 1999; 117: 461–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Scott IU, Smiddy WE, Schiffman J, et al. Quality of life of low-vision patients and the impact of low-vision services. Am J Ophthalmol 1999; 128: 54–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Cole SR, Beck RW, Moke PS, et al. The National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire: experience of the ONTT. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000; 41: 1017–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Vitale S, Schein OD, Meinert CL, et al. The refractive status and vision profile: a questionnaire to measure vision-related quality of life in persons with refractive error. Ophthalmology 2000; 107: 1529–39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Schein OD, Vitale S, Cassard SD, et al. Patient outcomes of refractive surgery: the refractive status and vision profile. J Cataract Refract Surg 2001; 27: 665–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Scott IU, Schein OD, West S, et al. Functional status and quality of life measurement among ophthalmic patients. Arch Ophthalmol 1994; 112: 329–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Desai P, Reidy A, Minassian DC, et al. Gains from cataract surgery: visual function and quality of life. Br J Ophthalmol 1996; 80: 868–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Turano KA, Geruschat DR, Massof RW. Perceived visual ability for independent mobility in persons with retinitis pigmentosa. Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999; 40: 865–77Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    van Dijk K, Lewallen S, Chirambo M, et al. Creation and testing of a practical visual function assesment for use in Africa: correlation with visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and near vision in Malawian adults. Ophthalmology 1999; 83: 792–5Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Mills RP. Correlation of quality of life with clinical symptoms and signs at the time of glaucoma diagnosis. Tr Am Ophth Soc 1998; XCVI: 753–812Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Pesudovs K, Coster DJ. An instrument for assessment of subjective visual disability in cataract patients. Br J Ophthalmol 1998; 82: 617–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Nelson P, Aspinall P, O’Brien C. Patients’ perception of visual impairment in glaucoma: a pilot study. Br J Ophthalmol 1999; 83: 546–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Steinberg EP, Tielsch JM, Schein OD, et al. The VF-14: an index of functional impairment in patients with cataract. Arch Ophthalmol 1994; 112: 630–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Tielsch JM, Steinberg EP, Cassard SD, et al. Preoperative functional expectations and postoperative outcomes among patients undergoing first eye cataract surgery. Arch Ophthalmol 1995; 113: 1312–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Cassard SD, Patrick DL, Damiano AM. Reproducibility and responsiveness of the VF-14. Arch Ophthalmol 1995; 113: 1508–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Alonso J, Espallargues M, Andersen TF, et al. International applicability of the VF-14: an index of visual function in patients with cataracts. Ophthalmology 1997; 104: 799–807PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Musch DC, Farjo AA, Meyer RF, et al. Assessment of health-related quality of life after corneal transplantation. Am J Ophthalmol 1997; 124: 1–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Uusitalo RJ, Tarkkanen A. Outcomes of small incision cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 1998; 24: 212–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Boisjoly H, Gresset J, Fontaine N, et al. The VF-14 index of functional visual impairment in candidates for a corneal graft. Am J Ophthalmol 1999; 128: 38–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Linder M, Chang TS, Scott IU, et al. Validity of the visual function index (VF-14) in patients with retinal disease. Arch Ophthalmol 1999; 117: 1611–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Uusitalo RJ, Brans T, Cand M, et al. Evaluating cataract surgery gains by assessing patient’s quality of life using VF-7. J Cataract Refract Surg 1999; 25: 989–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Castells X, Alonso J, Ribo C, et al. Comparison of the results of first and second cataract eye surgery. Ophthalmology 1999; 106: 676–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Frost NA, Sparrow JM, Durant JS, et al. Development of a questionnaire for measurement of vision-related quality of life. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 1998; 5: 185–210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Hazel CA, Petre KL, Armstrong RA, et al. Visual function and subjective quality of life compared in subjects with acquired macular disease. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000; 41: 1309–15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Leidy NK, Revicki DA, Geneste B. Recommendations for evaluating the validity of quality of life claims for labeling and promotion. Value Health 1999; 2: 113–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Mangione CM, Phillips RS, Seddon JM, et al. Development of the activities of daily vision scale: a measure of visual functional status. Med Care 1992; 30: 1111–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Mangione CM, Orav EJ, Lawrence MG, et al. Prediction of visual function after cataract surgery: a prospectively validated model. Arch Ophthalmol 1995; 113: 1305–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Mangione CM, Gutierrez PR, Lowe G, et al. Influence of age-related maculopathy on visual functioning and health-related quality of life. Am J Ophthalmol 1999; 128: 45–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Superstein R, Boyaner D, Overbury O. Functional complaints, visual acuity, spatial contrast sensitivity, and glare disability in preoperative and postoperative cataract patients. J Cataract Refract Surg 1999; 25: 575–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Valbuena M, Bandeen-Roche K, Rubin GS, et al. Self-reported assessment of visual function in a population-based study: The SEE Project. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1999; 40: 280–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Revicki DA, Rothman M, Luce B. Health-related quality of life assessment and the pharmaceutical industry. Pharmacoeconomics 1992; 1 (6): 394–408PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951; 16 (3): 297–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Hays R, Anderson R, Revicki DA. Assessing reliability and validity of measurement in clinical trials. In: Staquet MJ, Hays RD, Fayers PM, editors. Quality of life assessment in clinical trials. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Klein R, Moss SE, Klein BEK, et al. The NEI-VFQ-25 in people with long-term type 1 diabetes mellitus. Arch Ophthalmol 2001; 119: 733–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Mangione CM, Lee PP, Hays RD. Measurement of visual functioning and health-related quality of life in eye disease and cataract surgery. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott-Raven Publishers; 1996: 1045–51Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Weinberger M, Oddone EZ, Samsa GP, et al. Are health-related quality of life measures affected by the mode of administration? J Clin Epidemiol 1996; 49: 135–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Juniper E, et al. Interviewer vs self-administered questionnaires in developing a disease-specific, health-related quality of life instrument for asthma. J Clin Epidemiol 1993; 46: 529–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mary Kay Margolis
    • 1
  • Karin Coyne
    • 1
  • Tessa Kennedy-Martin
    • 2
  • Timothy Baker
    • 1
  • Oliver Schein
    • 3
  • Dennis A. Revicki
    • 1
  1. 1.MEDTAP International, IncBethesdaUSA
  2. 2.LillyWindleshamUK
  3. 3.Dana Center for Preventive Ophthalmology, Wilmer Ophthalmological InstituteJohns Hopkins University School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations