The Contact Lens Impact on Quality of Life (CLIQ) questionnaire: Development and validation

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

Volumn 47, Issue 7, 2006, Pages 2789-2796

  Pesudovs, Konrad ^a   Garamendi, Estibaliz ^b   Elliott, David B ^b  

^a FLINDERS MEDICAL CENTRE   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRADFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CONSTRUCT VALIDITY; CONTACT LENS; CONTENT VALIDITY; CONTROLLED STUDY; EYE CARE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RATING SCALE; SCORING SYSTEM; METHODOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PSYCHOMETRY; REPRODUCIBILITY; VALIDATION STUDY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CONTACT LENSES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 33746773193     PISSN: 01460404     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.05-0933     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Bowling A. Measuring Health: A Review of Quality of life Measurement Scales. 2nd ed. Buckingham: Oxford University Press; 1997.
2. Staquet MJ, Hays RD, Fayers PM. Quality of Life Assessment in Clinical Trials: Methods and Practice. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998.
3. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2003.
4. Vitale S, Schein OD, Meinert CL, Steinberg EP. The refractive status and vision profile: a questionnaire to measure vision-related quality of life in persons with refractive error. Ophthalmology. 2000;107:1529-1539.
5. Hays RD, Mangione CM, Ellwein L, Lindblad AS, Spritzer KL, McDonnell PJ. Psychometric properties of the National Eye Institute-Refractive Error Quality of Life instrument. Ophthalmology. 2003;110:2292-2301.
6. Fraenkel G, Comaish F, Lawless MA, et al. Development of a questionnaire to assess subjective vision score in myopes seeking refractive surgery. J Refract Surg. 2004;20:10-19.
7. Erickson DB, Stapleton F, Erickson P, du Toit R, Giannakopoulos E, Holden B. Development and validation of a multidimensional quality-of-life scale for myopia. Optom Vis Sci. 2004;81:70-81.
8. Pesudovs K, Garamendi E, Elliott DB. The Quality of Life Impact of Refractive Correction (QIRC) Questionnaire: development and validation. Optom Vis Sci. 2004;81:769-777.
9. Lee J, Park K, Cho W, Kim JY, Kang HY. Assessing the value of laser in situ keratomileusis by patient-reported outcomes using quality of life assessment. J Refract Surg. 2005;21:59-71.
10. Glasson MJ, Hseuh S, Willcox MD. Preliminary tear film measurements of tolerant and non-tolerant contact lens wearers. Clin Exp Optom. 1999;82:177-181.
11. Walline JJ, Bailey MD, Zadnik K. Vision-specific quality of life and modes of refractive error correction. Optom Vis Sci. 2000;77:648-652.
12. Nichols JJ, Mitchell GL, Zadnik K. The performance of the refractive status and vision profile survey in a contact lens clinical trial. Ophthalmology. 2001;108:1160-1166.
13. Nichols JJ, Mitchell GL, Nichols KK, Chalmers R, Begley C. The performance of the contact lens dry eye questionnaire as a screening survey for contact lens-related dry eye. Cornea. 2002;21:469-475.
14. Begley CG, Caffery B, Chalmers RL, Mitchell GL. DEIDS: use of the dry eye questionnaire to measure symptoms of ocular irritation in patients with aqueous tear deficient dry eye. Cornea. 2002;21:664-670.
15. Jutai J, Day H, Woolrich W, Strong G. The predictability of retention and discontinuation of contact lenses. Optometry. 2003;74:299-308.
16. Lipson MJ, Sugar A, Musch DC. Overnight corneal reshaping versus soft daily wear: a visual quality of life study (interim results). Eye Contact Lens. 2004;30:214-217;discussion 218.
17. Ritchey ER, Barr JT, Mitchell GL. The comparison of overnight lens modalities (COLM) study. Eye Contact Lens. 2005;31:70-75.
18. Seal DV. Acanthamoeba keratitis update-incidence, molecular epidemiology and new drugs for treatment. Eye. 2003;17:893-905.
19. Mela EK, Giannelou IP, Koliopoulos JX, Gartaganis SP. Ulcerative keratitis in contact lens wearers. Eye Contact Lens. 2003;29:207-209.
20. Nomura K, Nakao M, Matsubara K. Subjective symptom of eye dryness and lifestyle factors with corneal neovascularization in contact lens wearers. Eye Contact Lens. 2004;30:95-98.
21. Riley C, Pence N. Forms of vision correction: demographic factors in patient attitudes and perceptions. Eye Contact Lens. 2004;30:138-143.
22. Passaro DJ, Scott M, Dworkin MS. E-mail surveys assist investigation and response: a university conjunctivitis outbreak. Epidemiol Infect. 2004;132:761-764.
23. Glavas IP, Patel S, Donsoff I, Stenson S. Sunglasses-and photochromic lens-wearing patterns in spectacle and/or contact lens-wearing individuals. Eye Contact Lens. 2004;30:81-84.
24. Biousse V, Tusa RJ, Russell B, et al. The use of contact lenses to treat visually symptomatic congenital nystagmus. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2004;75:314-316.
25. Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch of Psychol. 1932;140:1-55.
26. 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.
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. Garamendi E, Pesudovs K, Stevens MJ, Elliott DB. The Refractive Status and Vision Profile: evaluation of psychometric properties and comparison of Rasch and summated Likert-scaling. Vision Res. 2006;46:1375-1383.
29. Pesudovs K, Garamendi E, Elliott DB. A quality of life comparison of people wearing spectacles or contact lenses or having undergone refractive surgery. J Refract Surg. 2006;22:19-27.
30. Garamendi E, Pesudovs K, Elliott DB. Changes in quality of life after laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005;31:1537-1543.
31. Woods CA, Morgan PB. Contact lens prescribing in the Australian states and territories 2001. Clin Exp Optom. 2002;85:279-283.
32. Andrich D. A rating scale formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika. 1978;43:561-573.
33. Linacre JM. Investigating rating scale category utility. J Outcome Meas. 1999;3:103-122.
34. Andrich D. A model for contingency tables having an ordered response classification. Biometrics. 1979;35:403-415.
35. Fallowfield L. The Quality of Life: The Missing Measurement in Health Care. London: Souvenir Press Ltd; 1990.
36. Bowling A. What things are important in people's lives? - a survey of the public's judgements to inform scales of health related quality of life. Soc Sci Med. 1995;41:1447-1462.
37. Felce D. Defining and applying the concept of quality of life. J Intellect Disabil Res. 1997;41:126-135.
38. Seed P, Lloyd G. Quality of Life. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers Ltd; 1997.
39. Oliver J. Quality of Life and Mental Health Services. London: Routledge; 1997.
40. Massof RW, Rubin GS. Visual function assessment questionnaires. Surv Ophthalmol. 2001;45:531-548.
41. Massof RW. The measurement of vision disability. Optom Vis Sci. 2002;79:516-552.
42. Margolis MK, Coyne K, Kennedy-Martin T, Baker T, Schein O, Revicki DA. Vision-specific instruments for the assessment of health-related quality of life and visual functioning: a literature review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2002;20:791-812.
43. Schein OD. The measurement of patient-reported outcomes of refractive surgery: the refractive status and vision profile. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2000;98:439-469.
44. Rose K, Harper R, Tromans C, et al. Quality of life in myopia. Br J Ophthalmol. 2000;84:1031-1034.
45. Schein OD, Vitale S, Cassard SD, Steinberg EP. Patient outcomes of refractive surgery: the refractive status and vision profile. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001;27:665-673.
46. Demers L, Monette M, Lapierre Y, Arnold DL, Wolfson C. Reliability, validity, and applicability of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) for adults with multiple sclerosis. Disabil Rehabil. 2002;24:21-30.
47. Day H, Jutai J, Campbell KA. Development of a scale to measure the psychosocial impact of assistive devices: lessons learned and the road ahead. Disabil Rehabil. 2002;24:31-37.
48. Nagata C, Ido M, Shimizu H, Misao A, Matsuura H. Choice of response scale for health measurement: comparison of 4, 5 and 7-point scales and visual analog scale. J Epidemiol. 1996;6:192-197.
49. Skevington SM, Tucker C. Designing response scales for cross-cultural use in health care: data from the development of the UK WHOQOL. Br J Med Psychol. 1999;72:51-61.
50. Statistics N. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/default.asp. 2001.
51. The Market Research Society. Occupation Groupings: A Job Dictionary. London: The Market Research Society; 2003.
52. Pointer JS. An optometric population is not the same as the general population. Optometry Pract. 2000;1:92-96.
53. Bond TG, Fox CM. Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2001.
54. Mallinson T, Stelmack J, Velozo C. A comparison of the separation ratio and coefficient alpha in the creation of minimum item sets. Med Care. 2004;42:I17-I24.
55. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86:420-428.
56. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307-310.
57. Massof RW. Application of stochastic measurement models to visual function rating scale questionnaires. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2005;12:103-124.
58. de Boer MR, Moll AC, de Vet HC, et al. Psychometric properties of vision-related quality of life questionnaires: a systematic review. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2004;24:257-273.