Literature DB >> 15590585

Likert and Guttman scaling of visual function rating scale questionnaires.

Robert W Massof1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To test the assumptions underlying Likert scoring of visual function questionnaires.
METHODS: Questionnaires were administered to 284 low-vision subjects by telephone. Each subject was administered two of four questionnaires: ADVS, NEI VFQ-25 plus supplement, expanded VAQ, and VF-14.
RESULTS: Z-scores for cumulative frequency of using each rating category across subjects are not linear with rating category rank and items are not the same difficulty for any of the questionnaires. Guttmann coefficients of reproducibility ranged from 57% for the ADVS to 51% for the NEI VFQ-25. Cronbach alphas ranged from 0.92 for the VF-14 to 0.96 for the NEI VFQ; however, inter-item consistency coefficients ranged from 0.24 for the VAQ to 0.45 for the NEI VFQ. Likert scores were significantly correlated between instruments, ranging from 0.66 for NEI VFQ vs ADVS to 0.90 for the VF-14 vs. ADVS.
CONCLUSIONS: The rating scales of all four questionnaires fail to satisfy Likert's assumptions. Also, ratings are probabilistic, rather than deterministic, which means that the Likert model is not valid for these questionnaires. However, Likert scores for all four instruments are intercorrelated, suggesting that they are monotonic with the latent subject trait distributed in the low vision sample.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15590585     DOI: 10.1080/09286580490888771

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ophthalmic Epidemiol        ISSN: 0928-6586            Impact factor:   1.648


  12 in total

1.  Reducing respondent burden: validation of the Brief Impact of Vision Impairment questionnaire.

Authors:  Eva K Fenwick; Ryan E K Man; Gwyn Rees; Jill Keeffe; Tien Y Wong; Ecosse L Lamoureux
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2016-08-24       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Is the pediatric quality of life inventory valid for use in preschool children with refractive errors?

Authors:  Ecosse L Lamoureux; Manjula Marella; Benjamin Chang; Mohamed Dirani; Au Eong Kah-Guan; Audrey Chia; Terry L Young; Tien Y Wong; Seang Mei Saw
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 1.973

3.  Psychometric Evaluation of Glaucoma Quality of Life Item Banks (GlauCAT) and Initial Assessment Using Computerized Adaptive Testing.

Authors:  Ryan Eyn Kidd Man; Eva K Fenwick; Jyoti Khadka; ZhiChao Wu; Simon Skalicky; Konrad Pesudovs; Ecosse L Lamoureux
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2022-06-01       Impact factor: 3.048

4.  Harmonization of Outcomes and Vision Endpoints in Vision Restoration Trials: Recommendations from the International HOVER Taskforce.

Authors:  Lauren N Ayton; Joseph F Rizzo; Ian L Bailey; August Colenbrander; Gislin Dagnelie; Duane R Geruschat; Philip C Hessburg; Chris D McCarthy; Matthew A Petoe; Gary S Rubin; Philip R Troyk
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2020-07-16       Impact factor: 3.283

5.  Interpretation of low-vision rehabilitation outcome measures.

Authors:  Robert W Massof; Joan A Stelmack
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 1.973

6.  Is the NEI-VFQ-25 a useful tool in identifying visual impairment in an elderly population?

Authors:  Christopher G Owen; Alicja R Rudnicka; Liam Smeeth; Jennifer R Evans; Richard P L Wormald; Astrid E Fletcher
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2006-06-09       Impact factor: 2.209

7.  Spanish version of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-Sp).

Authors:  Rodrigo Lopez; Vibeke Baelum
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2006-07-07       Impact factor: 2.757

8.  Patient experiences in retinal trials: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Cheryl Pui-Yan Au; Nicole Fardell; Maria Williams; Samantha Fraser-Bell; Anna Campain; Mark Gillies
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2015-07-23       Impact factor: 2.209

9.  Implementing structured functional assessments in general practice for persons with long-term sick leave: a cluster randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Nina Østerås; Pål Gulbrandsen; Jūrate Saltyte Benth; Dag Hofoss; Søren Brage
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2009-05-06       Impact factor: 2.497

10.  The importance of rating scales in measuring patient-reported outcomes.

Authors:  Jyoti Khadka; Vijaya K Gothwal; Colm McAlinden; Ecosse L Lamoureux; Konrad Pesudovs
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2012-07-13       Impact factor: 3.186

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.