PURPOSE: To estimate the misclassification rate of self-reported visual disabilities in a hospital-based population with known visual impairment. METHODS: Subjects (N=570) were recruited among patients aged 50 years and more and classified to three categories of visual impairment level. The questionnaire was administered to consenting patients through a telephone interview. Data collected from questionnaires and medical records were compared regarding severity of visual impairment. Sensitivity and specificity were determined for each question. Predictive ability and misclassification rates were computed for various prevalences. RESULTS: Questions related to near and far distance visual acuity with glasses have both a good sensitivity (82.6% and 81.8%) and a good specificity (85.6% and 88.9%) for the presence of severe visual impairment. CONCLUSION: The findings allow the determination of the misclassification rate and predictive ability. This could be useful to estimate the prevalence of visual impairment from health surveys.
PURPOSE: To estimate the misclassification rate of self-reported visual disabilities in a hospital-based population with known visual impairment. METHODS: Subjects (N=570) were recruited among patients aged 50 years and more and classified to three categories of visual impairment level. The questionnaire was administered to consenting patients through a telephone interview. Data collected from questionnaires and medical records were compared regarding severity of visual impairment. Sensitivity and specificity were determined for each question. Predictive ability and misclassification rates were computed for various prevalences. RESULTS: Questions related to near and far distance visual acuity with glasses have both a good sensitivity (82.6% and 81.8%) and a good specificity (85.6% and 88.9%) for the presence of severe visual impairment. CONCLUSION: The findings allow the determination of the misclassification rate and predictive ability. This could be useful to estimate the prevalence of visual impairment from health surveys.
Authors: Stacey M Meeker; Audrey Seamons; Piper M Treuting; Jisun Paik; Thea Brabb; Charlie C Hsu; William M Grady; Lillian Maggio-Price Journal: Comp Med Date: 2020-02-03 Impact factor: 0.982
Authors: Byron L Lam; David J Lee; D Diane Zheng; Evelyn P Davila; Sharon L Christ; Kristopher L Arheart Journal: Ophthalmic Epidemiol Date: 2009 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.648