The development, assessment, and selection of questionnaires

Optometry and Vision Science

Volumn 84, Issue 8, 2007, Pages 663-674

  Pesudovs, Konrad ^a,d   Burr, Jennifer M ^b   Harley, Clare ^c   Elliott, David B ^c  

^a FLINDERS UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BRADFORD   (United Kingdom)

^d FLINDERS MEDICAL CENTRE   (Australia)

Author keywords

Factor analysis; Instrument; Quality assessment; Quality of life; Questionnaire; Rasch analysis; Reliability; Responsiveness; Validity; Visual disability

Indexed keywords

HUMAN REHABILITATION EQUIPMENT; LIVING SYSTEMS STUDIES; PATIENT MONITORING;

FACTOR ANALYSIS; QUALITY ASSESSMENT; RASCH ANALYSIS; VISUAL DISABILITY;

PATIENT REHABILITATION;

EYE REFRACTION; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CENTER; HEALTH STATUS; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; QUESTIONNAIRE; REVIEW; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; VALIDITY; VISION;

FACTOR ANALYSIS, STATISTICAL; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 34547914810     PISSN: 10405488     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e318141fe75     Document Type: Review

References (71)

1. Likert RA. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol 1932;140:1-55.
2. de Boer MR, Moll AC, de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Volker-Dieben HJ, van Rens GH. Psychometric properties of vision-related quality of life questionnaires: a systematic review. Ophthal Physiol Opt 2004;24:257-73.
3. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2007;60:34-42.
4. 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;24:31-7.
5. Jutai J, Day H, Woolrich W, Strong G. The predictability of retention and discontinuation of contact lenses. Optometry 2003;74:299-308.
6. Day HY, Jutai J, Woolrich W, Strong G. The stability of impact of assistive devices. Disabil Rehabil 2001;23:400-4.
7. Day H, Campbell KA. Is telephone assessment a valid tool in rehabilitation research and practice? Disabil Rehabil 2003;25:1126-31.
8. 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;107:1529-39.
9. Schein OD. The measurement of patient-reported outcomes of refractive surgery: the refractive status and vision profile. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 2000;98:439-69.
10. Schein OD, Vitale S, Cassard SD, Steinberg EP. Patient outcomes of refractive surgery. The refractive status and vision profile. J Cataract Refract Surg 2001;27:665-73.
11. 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;46:1375-83.
12. Nichols JJ, Mitchell GL, Saracino M, Zadnik K. Reliability and validity of refractive error-specific quality-of-life instruments. Arch Ophthalmol 2003;121:1289-96.
13. Nichols JJ, Twa MD, Mitchell GL. Sensitivity of the National Eye Institute Refractive Error Quality of Life instrument to refractive surgery outcomes. J Cataract Refract Surg 2005;31:2313-8.
14. McDonnell PJ, Mangione C, Lee P, Lindblad AS, Spritzer KL, Berry S, Hays RD. Responsiveness of the National Eye Institute Refractive Error Quality of Life instrument to surgical correction of refractive error. Ophthalmology 2003;110:2302-9.
15. 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;110:2292-301.
16. McDonnell PJ, Lee P, Spritzer K, Lindblad AS, Hays RD. Associations of presbyopia with vision-targeted health-related quality of life. Arch Ophthalmol 2003;121:1577-81.
17. Pesudovs K, Garamendi E, Elliott DB. The Quality of Life Impact of Refractive Correction (QIRC) Questionnaire: development and validation. Optom Vis Sci 2004;81:769-77.
18. Garamendi E, Pesudovs K, Elliott DB. Changes in quality of life after laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg 2005;31:1537-43.
19. 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.
20. Lamoureux EL, Pallant JF, Pesudovs K, Hassell JB, Keeffe JE. The Impact of Vision Impairment Questionnaire: an evaluation of its measurement properties using Rasch analysis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006;47:4732-41.
21. Lamoureux EL, Ferraro JG, Pallant JF, Pesudovs K, Rees G, Keeffe JE. Are standard instruments valid for the assessment of quality of life and symptoms in glaucoma? Optom Vis Sci 2007;84:789-96.
22. Trochim WMK. The Research Methods Knowledge Base, 2nd ed. Cincinnati, OH: Atomic Dog Publishing; 2000.
23. Guion RM. Content validity: the source of my discontent. App Psychol Meas 1977;1:1-10.
24. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003.
25. Seiler LH. The 22-item scale used in field studies of mental illness: a question of method, a question of substance, and a question of theory. J Health Soc Behav 1973;14:252-64.
26. McDowell I, Newell C. Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires. New York: Oxford University Press; 1987.
27. World Health Organization. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001.
28. Downing SM, Haladyna TM. Validity threats: overcoming interference with proposed interpretations of assessment data. Med Educ 2004;38:327-33.
29. La Grow S. Predicting perceived quality of life scores from the NEIVFQ-25. Optom Vis Sci 2007;84:785-8.
30. Valderas JM, Alonso J, Prieto L, Espallargues M, Castells X. Contentbased interpretation aids for health-related quality of life measures in clinical practice. An example for the visual function index (VF-14). Qual Life Res 2004;13:35-44.
31. Uusitalo RJ, Brans T, Pessi T, Tarkkanen A. Evaluating cataract surgery gains by assessing patients' quality of life using the VF-7. J Cataract Refract Surg 1999;25:989-94.
32. Steinberg EP, Tielsch JM, Schein OD, Javitt JC, Sharkey P, Cassard SD, Legro MW, Diener-West M, Bass EB, Damiano AM, Steinwachs DM, Sommer A. The VF-14. An index of functional impairment in patients with cataract. Arch Ophthalmol 1994;112:630-8.
33. Krueger RA. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1994.
34. Caudle LE, Williams KA, Pesudovs K. The Eye Sensation Scale: an ophthalmic pain severity measure. Optom Vis Sci 2007;84:752-62.
35. Tennant A, McKenna SP, Hagell P. Application of Rasch analysis in the development and application of quality of life instruments. Value Health 2004;7 (Suppl 1):S22-6.
36. Mallinson T. Why measurement matters for measuring patient vision outcome. Optom Vis Sci 2007;84:675-82.
37. Wright BD Fundamental Measurement for Psychology. In: Embretson SE, Hershberger SL, eds. The New Rules of Measurement: What Every Psychologist and Educator Should Know. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum;1999:65-104.
38. Massof RW. The measurement of vision disability. Optom Vis Sci 2002;79:516-52.
39. Lamoureux EL, Pallant JF, Pesudovs K, Rees G, Hassell JB, Keeffe JE. The impact of vision impairment questionnaire: an assessment of its domain structure using confirmatory factor analysis and Rasch analysis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2007;48:1001-6.
40. Linacre JM. Structure in Rasch residuals: why principal components analysis? Rasch Meas Trans 1998;12:636. Available at: http://www.rasch.org/rmt/ rmt122m.htm. Accessed June 8, 2007.
41. Massof RW, Ahmadian L, Grover LL, Deremeik JT, Goldstein JE, Rainey C, Epstein C, Barnett GD. The Activity Inventory (AI): An adaptive visual function questionnaire. Optom Vis Sci 2007;84:763-74.
42. Massof RW, Hsu CT, Baker FH, Barnett GD, Park WL, Deremeik JT, Rainey C, Epstein C. Visual disability variables. II. The difficulty of tasks for a sample of low-vision patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005;86:954-67.
43. Massof RW, Hsu CT, Baker FH, Barnett GD, Park WL, Deremeik JT, Rainey C, Epstein C. Visual disability variables. I: the importance and difficulty of activity goals for a sample of low-vision patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005;86:946-53.
44. Stelmack J, Massof RW. Using the VA LV VFQ-48 in low vision rehabilitation. Optom Vis Sci 2007;84:705-9.
45. Stelmack JA, Szlyk JP, Stelmack TR, Demers-Turco P, Williams RT, Moran D, Massof RW. Psychometric properties of the Veterans Affairs Low-Vision Visual Functioning Questionnaire. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2004;45:3919-28.
46. Bond TG, Fox CM. Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences. Mahwah, NJ: L. Earlbaum, 2001.
47. Stelmack J, Szlyk JP, Stelmack T, Babcock-Parziale J, Demers-Turco P, Williams RT, Massof RW. Use of Rasch person-item map in exploratory data analysis: A clinical perspective. J Rehabil Res Dev 2004;41:233-41.
48. Mangione CM, Phillips RS, Seddon JM, Lawrence MG, Cook EF, Dailey R, Goldman L. Development of the 'Activities of Daily Vision Scale'. A measure of visual functional status. Med Care 1992;30:1111-26.
49. 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;44:2892-9.
50. Linacre JM. Size vs. significance: Standardized chi-square fit statistic. Rasch Meas Trans 2003;17:918. Available at: http://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt171n. htm. Accessed May 25, 2007.
51. Norquist JM, Fitzpatrick R, Dawson J, Jenkinson C. Comparing alternative Rasch-based methods vs raw scores in measuring change in health. Med Care 2004;42:I25-36.
52. 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.
53. Massof RW. An interval-scaled scoring algorithm for visual function questionnaires. Optom Vis Sci 2007;84:689-704.
54. Massof RW. Application of stochastic measurement models to visual function rating scale questionnaires. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2005;12:103-24.
55. Thomee R, Grimby G, Wright BD, Linacre JM. Rasch analysis of Visual Analog Scale measurements before and after treatment of Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome in women. Scand J Rehabil Med 1995;27:145-51.
56. Pesudovs K, Noble BA. Improving subjective scaling of pain using Rasch analysis. J Pain 2005;6:630-6.
57. Andrich D. A rating scale formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika 1978;43:561-73.
58. Wright BD, Masters GN. Rating Scale Analysis. Chicago: MESA Press; 1982.
59. Bravo G, Potvin L. Estimating the reliability of continuous measures with Cronbach's alpha or the intraclass correlation coefficient: toward the integration of two traditions. J Clin Epidemiol 1991;44:381-90.
60. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307-10.
61. Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 1999;8:135-60.
62. Bland JM, Altman DG. A note on the use of the intraclass correlation coefficient in the evaluation of agreement between two methods of measurement. Comput Biol Med 1990;20:337-40.
63. Patton N, Aslam T, Murray G. Statistical strategies to assess reliability in ophthalmology. Eye 2006;20:749-54.
64. Chmura Kraemer H, Periyakoil VS, Noda A. Kappa coefficients in medical research. Stat Med 2002;21:2109-29.
65. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159-74.
66. Fleiss JL, Cohen J. The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educ Psychol Meas 1973;33:613-9.
67. Fisher W Jr. Reliability statistics. Rasch Meas Trans 1992;6:238. Available at: http://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt63i.htm. Accessed June 8, 2007.
68. Brozek JL, Guyatt GH, Schunemann HJ. How a well-grounded minimal important difference can enhance transparency of labelling claims and improve interpretation of a patient reported outcome measure. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006;4:69.
69. Eton DT, Cella D, Yost KJ, Yount SE, Peterman AH, Neuberg DS, Sledge GW, Wood WC. A combination of distribution- and anchor-based approaches determined minimally important differences (MIDs) for four endpoints in a breast cancer scale. J Clin Epidemiol 2004;57:898-910.
70. Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD. Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 2000;53:459-68.
71. Pesudovs K. Patient-centred measurement in ophthalmology - a paradigm shift. BMC Ophthalmol 2006;6:25.