OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the validity and reliability of the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) questionnaire. METHODS: Participants (109 patients with dry eye and 30 normal controls) completed the OSDI, the National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25), the McMonnies Dry Eye Questionnaire, the Short Form-12 (SF-12) Health Status Questionnaire, and an ophthalmic examination including Schirmer tests, tear breakup time, and fluorescein and lissamine green staining. RESULTS: Factor analysis identified 3 subscales of the OSDI: vision-related function, ocular symptoms, and environmental triggers. Reliability (measured by Cronbach alpha) ranged from good to excellent for the overall instrument and each subscale, and test-retest reliability was good to excellent. The OSDI was valid, effectively discriminating between normal, mild to moderate, and severe dry eye disease as defined by both physician's assessment and a composite disease severity score. The OSDI also correlated significantly with the McMonnies questionnaire, the National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire, the physical component summary score of the Short Form-12, patient perception of symptoms, and artificial tear usage. CONCLUSIONS: The OSDI is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring the severity of dry eye disease, and it possesses the necessary psychometric properties to be used as an end point in clinical trials.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the validity and reliability of the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) questionnaire. METHODS:Participants (109 patients with dry eye and 30 normal controls) completed the OSDI, the National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25), the McMonnies Dry Eye Questionnaire, the Short Form-12 (SF-12) Health Status Questionnaire, and an ophthalmic examination including Schirmer tests, tear breakup time, and fluorescein and lissamine green staining. RESULTS: Factor analysis identified 3 subscales of the OSDI: vision-related function, ocular symptoms, and environmental triggers. Reliability (measured by Cronbach alpha) ranged from good to excellent for the overall instrument and each subscale, and test-retest reliability was good to excellent. The OSDI was valid, effectively discriminating between normal, mild to moderate, and severe dry eye disease as defined by both physician's assessment and a composite disease severity score. The OSDI also correlated significantly with the McMonnies questionnaire, the National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire, the physical component summary score of the Short Form-12, patient perception of symptoms, and artificial tear usage. CONCLUSIONS: The OSDI is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring the severity of dry eye disease, and it possesses the necessary psychometric properties to be used as an end point in clinical trials.
Authors: Xiaofen Zheng; Cintia S De Paiva; Kavita Rao; De-Quan Li; William J Farley; Michael Stern; Stephen C Pflugfelder Journal: Cornea Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 2.651
Authors: Jason J Nichols; P Ewen King-Smith; Erich A Hinel; Miru Thangavelu; Kelly K Nichols Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2012-08-20 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Anny M S Cheng; Dandan Zhao; Rendian Chen; Han Y Yin; Sean Tighe; Hosam Sheha; Victoria Casas; Scheffer C G Tseng Journal: Ocul Surf Date: 2015-09-24 Impact factor: 5.033