Application of stochastic measurement models to visual function rating scale questionnaires

Ophthalmic Epidemiology

Volumn 12, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 103-124

  Massof, Robert W ^a,b  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Lions Vision Center   (United States)

Author keywords

ADVS; Item response theory; NEI VFQ; Rasch analysis; Stochastic measurement models; VAQ; VF 14; Visual function rating scales

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; QUESTIONNAIRE; RELIABILITY; STOCHASTIC MODEL; VISION TEST; VISUAL ACUITY; VISUAL DISORDER; VISUAL SYSTEM EXAMINATION; ADULT; AGED; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; MIDDLE AGED; PHYSIOLOGY; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE; STATISTICS;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; QUESTIONNAIRES; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE; STOCHASTIC PROCESSES; VISION, LOW; VISUAL ACUITY;

EID: 23444440130     PISSN: 09286586     EISSN: 17445086     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09286580590932789     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Massof RW, Rubin GS. Visual function assessment questionnaires. Surv Ophthalmol. 2001;45:531-548.
2. Vitale S, Schein OD. Qualitative research in functional vision, Int Ophthalmol Clin. 2003;43:17-30.
3. De Boer MR, Mole AC, De Vet HCW, et al. Psychometric properties of vision-related quality of life questionnaires: a systematic review. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2004;24:257-273.
4. Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol. 1932;140:5-55.
5. Massof RW. Likert and Guttman scaling of visual function rating scale questionnaires. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2004;11:381-399.
6. Massof RW. The measurement of vision disability. Optom Vis Sci. 2002;79:516-552.
7. 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;30:1111-1126.
8. Mangione CM, Lee PP, Gutierrez PR, et al. Development of the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire. Arch Ophthalmol. 2001;119:1050-1059.
9. Sloane ME, Ball K, Owsley C, Bruni JR, Roenker DL. The visual activities questionnaire: developing an instrument for assessing problems in everyday visual tasks. In : Noninvasive assessment of the Visual System. OSA Technical Digest, Vol. 1. Washington, DC: Optical Society of America, 1992:26-29.
10. Brabyn JA, Schneck ME, Haegerstrom-Portnoy G. Measured and self-reported visual function in the elderly. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci (Suppl). 1995;36:s671.
11. Steinberg EP, Tielsch JM, Schein OD, et al. The VF-14: an index of functional impairment in patients with cataract. Arch Ophthalmol. 1994;112:630-638.
12. Guttman L. A basis for scaling quantitative data. Am Sociol Rev. 1944;9:139-150.
13. Lord FM. Applications of Item Response Theory to Practical Testing Problems. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates, 1980.
14. Birnbaum A. Some latent trait models and their use in inferring an examinee's ability. In: Lord FM, Novick MR (eds). Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley, 1968;397-472.
15. Muraki E. Fitting a polytomous item response model to Likert-type data. Appl Psychol Measurement. 1990;14:59-71.
16. Samejima F. Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometric Monogr. 1969;34(2, No. 17).
17. Rasch G. An individualistic approach to item analysis. In: Lazarsfeld PF, Henry NW (eds.). Readings in Mathematical Social Science. Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1966;89-108.
18. Rasch G. Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests. Copenhagen: Danmarks Paedagogiske Institut, 1960.
19. Andersen EB. Sufficient statistics and latent trait models. Psychometrika. 1977;42:69-81.
20. Fisher WP. The Rasch debate: validity and revolution in educational measurement. In: Wilson M (ed). Objective Measurement: Theory into Practice, Vol. 2. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1994;36-72.
21. Andrich D. A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika. 1978;43:561-573.
22. Andrich D. Understanding resistance to the data-model relationship in Rasch's paradigm: a reflection for the next generation. J Appl Measurement. 2002;3:325-359.
23. Krantz DH, Luce RD, Suppes P, Tversky A. Foundations of Measurement, Vol. 1. New York: Academic Press, 1971.
24. Andersen EB. A goodness of fit test for the Rasch model. Psychometrika. 1973;38:123-140.
25. Massof RW, Fletcher DC. Evaluation of the NEI visual functioning questionnaire as an interval measure of visual ability in low vision. Vision Res. 2001;41:397-413.
26. Massof RW, Rubin GS, Tielsch JM, Fletcher DC. Estimation of interval vision disability scales from item responses on visual function questionnaires. In: Vision Science and its Applications. Washington, DC: Optical Society of America, 1999;298-301.
27. Pesudovs K, Garamendi E, Keeves JP, Elliott DB. The Activities of Daily Vision Scale for cataract surgery outcomes: Re-evaluating validity with Rasch analysis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:2892-2899.
28. Turano KA, Geruschat DR, Stahl JW, Massof RW. Perceived visual ability for independent mobility in persons with retinitis pigmentosa. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999;40:865-877.
29. Turano KA, Massof RW, Quigley HA. A self-assessment instrument designed for measuring independent mobility in RP patients: Generalizability to glaucoma patients. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002;43:2874-2881.
30. Haymes SA, Johnston AW, Heyes AD. The development of the Melbourne Low Vision ADL Index: A measure of visual disability. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001;42:1215-1225.
31. Gothwal VK, Lovie-Kitchin JE, Nutheti R. The development of the LV Prasad Functional Vision Questionnaire: A measure of performance of visually impaired children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:4131-4139.
32. Stelmack J, Szlyk J, Stelmack T, et al. Use of Rasch person-item map in exploratory data analysis: A clinical perspective. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2004;41:233-242.
33. Szlyk JP, Stelmack J, Massof RW, et al. Performance of the Veterans Affairs Low Vision Visual Functioning Questionnaire. J Vis Impairm Blindness. 2004;98:261-275.
34. Stelmack J, Szlyk JP, Stelmack TR, et al. Psychometric properties of the Veterans Affairs (VA) Low Vision Visual Functioning Questionnaire (VA LV VFQ-48). Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004;45:3919-3928.
35. McHorney CA, Monahan PO. Postscript: Applications of Rasch analysis in health care. (Editorial). Med Care. 2004;42(1)(Suppl.):l73-l78.
36. Van der Linden WJ, Hambleton RK. Item response theory: brief history, common models and extensions. In: Van der Linden WJ, Hambleton RK (eds). Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory. New York: Springer, 1997;1-28.
37. Muraki E, Bock RD. PARSCALE 3: IRT based test scoring and item analysis for graded items and rating scales. Chicago: Scientific Software International, Inc., 1997.
38. Linacre JM, Wright BD. A User's Guide to Winsteps Rasch-Model Computer Program. Chicago: MESA Press, 2001.
39. Wilson EB, Hilferty MM. The distribution of chi-square. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1931;17:684-688.
40. Bond TG, Fox CM. Applying the Rasch Model. Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum, 2001.
41. Janz NK, Wren PA, Lichter PR, et al. CIGTS Study Group. The Collaborative Initial Glaucoma Treatment Study: interim quality of life findings after initial medical or surgical treatment of glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2001;108:1954-1965.
42. Rubin GS, Bandeen-Roche K, Huang GH, et al. The association of multiple visual impairments with self-reported visual disability: SEE project. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001;42:64-72.
43. Norregaard JC, Bernth-Petersen P, Alonso J, Andersen TF, Anderson GF. Visual functional outcomes of cataract surgery in the United States, Canada, Denmark, and Spain: report of the International Cataract Surgery Outcomes Study. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003;29:2135-2142.
44. Orlando M, RAND. Personal communication.
45. Takane Y, De Leeuw J. On the relationship between item response theory and factor analysis of discretized variables. Psychometrika. 1987;52:393-408.