PURPOSE: The Activities of Daily Vision Scale (ADVS) has been extensively validated by traditional methodology. In the current study, Rasch analysis was used to explore further the validity of the ADVS and to determine whether improvements could be made. METHODS: Forty-three patients with cataract underwent visual acuity (VA) and contrast sensitivity (CS) testing and completed the ADVS. The data were Rasch analyzed and the value of response scale and item reduction explored. A shortened version and the original ADVS were tested for criterion validity by determining correlations with VA and CS. RESULTS: The ADVS data contained abnormally distributed items and items with ceiling effects and empty response categories. Therefore, items benefited from shortening the response scale, the optimum length being three responses. There was poor targeting of item difficulty to patient ability, because many patients with cataract were sufficiently able that they had no difficulty with many activities. Items were eliminated if the task was too easy or did not fit with the overall concept of visual disability determined by the Rasch model. A reduced ADVS version was established that had adequate precision, equivalent criterion validity, and improved targeting of item difficulty to patient ability, but this version was still not ideal. CONCLUSIONS: Despite careful traditional validation, the ADVS data contained inadequacies exposed by Rasch analysis. Through Rasch scaling, particularly with response scale reduction, the ADVS can be improved, but additional questions seem to be needed to suit the more able, including patients undergoing second eye cataract surgery. There remains a need to develop Rasch-scaled measures of visual disability for use in ophthalmic outcomes research.
PURPOSE: The Activities of Daily Vision Scale (ADVS) has been extensively validated by traditional methodology. In the current study, Rasch analysis was used to explore further the validity of the ADVS and to determine whether improvements could be made. METHODS: Forty-three patients with cataract underwent visual acuity (VA) and contrast sensitivity (CS) testing and completed the ADVS. The data were Rasch analyzed and the value of response scale and item reduction explored. A shortened version and the original ADVS were tested for criterion validity by determining correlations with VA and CS. RESULTS: The ADVS data contained abnormally distributed items and items with ceiling effects and empty response categories. Therefore, items benefited from shortening the response scale, the optimum length being three responses. There was poor targeting of item difficulty to patient ability, because many patients with cataract were sufficiently able that they had no difficulty with many activities. Items were eliminated if the task was too easy or did not fit with the overall concept of visual disability determined by the Rasch model. A reduced ADVS version was established that had adequate precision, equivalent criterion validity, and improved targeting of item difficulty to patient ability, but this version was still not ideal. CONCLUSIONS: Despite careful traditional validation, the ADVS data contained inadequacies exposed by Rasch analysis. Through Rasch scaling, particularly with response scale reduction, the ADVS can be improved, but additional questions seem to be needed to suit the more able, including patients undergoing second eye cataract surgery. There remains a need to develop Rasch-scaled measures of visual disability for use in ophthalmic outcomes research.
Authors: Alex W Hewitt; V Swetha Jeganathan; Juanita E Kidd; Konrad Pesudovs; Nitin Verma Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2006-01-13 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: James Stuart Wolffsohn; Jonathan Jackson; Olivia Anne Hunt; Charles Cottriall; Jennifer Lindsay; Richard Gilmour; Anne Sinclair; Robert Harper Journal: Int J Ophthalmol Date: 2014-02-18 Impact factor: 1.779
Authors: Eva K Fenwick; Peng Guan Ong; Charumathi Sabanayagam; Gwyn Rees; Jing Xie; Edith Holloway; Ching-Yu Cheng; Tien Y Wong; Blanche Lim; Pok Chien Tan; Ecosse L Lamoureux Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2015-09-29 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Bradley E Dougherty; Scott R Martin; Corey B Kelly; Lisa A Jones; Thomas W Raasch; Mark A Bullimore Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 1.973
Authors: Sylvia H Paz; Jerry Slotkin; Roberta McKean-Cowdin; Paul Lee; Cynthia Owsley; Susan Vitale; Rohit Varma; Richard Gershon; Ron D Hays Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2013-03-09 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: B A Noble; R S K Loh; S MacLennan; K Pesudovs; A Reynolds; L R Bridges; J Burr; O Stewart; S Quereshi Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Ivan Sencanic; Tatjana Gazibara; Jelena Dotlic; Miroslav Stamenkovic; Vesna Jaksic; Marija Bozic; Anita Grgurevic Journal: Int J Ophthalmol Date: 2018-10-18 Impact factor: 1.779
Authors: Jemaima Che Hamzah; Jennifer M Burr; Craig R Ramsay; Augusto Azuara-Blanco; Maria Prior Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2011-01-04 Impact factor: 4.147