Literature DB >> 16468079

Evaluation of cross-sectional and longitudinal construct validity of two vision-related quality of life questionnaires: the LVQOL and VCM1.

M R de Boer1, C B Terwee, H C W de Vet, A C Moll, H J M Völker-Dieben, G H M B van Rens.   

Abstract

The Low Vision Quality of Life (LVQOL) questionnaire and the Vision-related Quality of Life Core Measure (VCM1) are two of the many vision-related quality of life (QOL) questionnaires that have been developed in recent years. Although psychometric properties of the LVQOL and VCM1 compare well with other vision-related QOL questionnaires, construct and longitudinal validity have not been assessed (adequately). The purpose of this study was to examine the cross-sectional and longitudinal construct validity of these questionnaires by testing specific pre-specified hypotheses about the relations of these questionnaires with other measures. The percentage of hypotheses regarding the cross-sectional construct validity that were refuted for the LVQOL was 22% for the basic aspects of vision subscale, 50% for the mobility subscale, 39% for the adjustment subscale and 17% for the reading and fine work subscale. For the VCM1 this percentage was 57%. For the longitudinal construct validity the percentage of hypotheses that were refuted ranged from 33 to 75% for the LVQOL subscales and was 50% for the VCM1. In conclusion, cross-sectional construct validity was satisfactory for the LVQOL subscales, but seemed poor for the VCM1. In addition, the longitudinal validity of these scales was poor to moderate.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16468079     DOI: 10.1007/s11136-005-1524-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Life Res        ISSN: 0962-9343            Impact factor:   4.147


  22 in total

Review 1.  Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations.

Authors:  J A Husted; R J Cook; V T Farewell; D D Gladman
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation.

Authors:  C B Terwee; F W Dekker; W M Wiersinga; M F Prummel; P M M Bossuyt
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 3.  EuroQol: the current state of play.

Authors:  R Brooks
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 2.980

4.  Development of the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire.

Authors:  C M Mangione; P P Lee; P R Gutierrez; K Spritzer; S Berry; R D Hays
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  2001-07

5.  Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of general and disease-specific quality of life measures in a clinical trial for cytomegalovirus retinitis.

Authors:  B K Martin; A M Kaplan Gilpin; D A Jabs; A W Wu
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 6.437

6.  Test-retest reliability of health state valuations collected with the EuroQol questionnaire.

Authors:  H M van Agt; M L Essink-Bot; P F Krabbe; G J Bonsel
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 4.634

7.  International applicability of the VF-14. An index of visual function in patients with cataracts.

Authors:  J Alonso; M Espallargues; T F Andersen; S D Cassard; E Dunn; P Bernth-Petersen; J C Norregaard; C Black; E P Steinberg; G F Anderson
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 12.079

8.  The VF-14. An index of functional impairment in patients with cataract.

Authors:  E P Steinberg; J M Tielsch; O D Schein; J C Javitt; P Sharkey; S D Cassard; M W Legro; M Diener-West; E B Bass; A M Damiano
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1994-05

Review 9.  Measuring health-related quality of life.

Authors:  G H Guyatt; D H Feeny; D L Patrick
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1993-04-15       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Self-assessment of the quality of vision: association of questionnaire score with objective clinical tests.

Authors:  A Carta; L Braccio; M Belpoliti; L Soliani; F Sartore; S A Gandolfi; G Maraini
Journal:  Curr Eye Res       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 2.424

View more
  12 in total

Review 1.  Patient-reported outcomes (PRO's) in glaucoma: a systematic review.

Authors:  S Vandenbroeck; S De Geest; T Zeyen; I Stalmans; F Dobbels
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2011-03-18       Impact factor: 3.775

2.  Validity and reliability study of Turkish version on low vision with quality of life questionnaire.

Authors:  Aysun Idil; Mehmet Ozen; Nazli Atak; Atilla Elhan; Selcen Pehlivan
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 1.779

3.  Construct Validity and Responsiveness of Instruments Measuring Depression and Anxiety in Pregnancy: A Comparison of EPDS, HADS-A and CES-D.

Authors:  Hanna Margaretha Heller; Stasja Draisma; Adriaan Honig
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-06-21       Impact factor: 4.614

4.  The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content.

Authors:  Lidwine B Mokkink; Caroline B Terwee; Dirk L Knol; Paul W Stratford; Jordi Alonso; Donald L Patrick; Lex M Bouter; Henrica Cw de Vet
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2010-03-18       Impact factor: 4.615

5.  Additional psychometric information and vision-specific questionnaires are available for age-related macular degeneration.

Authors:  Ruth M A van Nispen; Michiel R de Boer; Ger H M B van Rens
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2008-12-09       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Comparison of Quality of Life Questionnaires in Patients with Low Vision

Authors:  Esra Şahlı; Şefay Aysun İdil
Journal:  Turk J Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-04-29

7.  The new COSMIN guidelines confront traditional concepts of responsiveness.

Authors:  Felix Angst
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2011-11-18       Impact factor: 4.615

8.  Re-evaluating a vision-related quality of life questionnaire with item response theory (IRT) and differential item functioning (DIF) analyses.

Authors:  Ruth M A van Nispen; Dirk L Knol; Maaike Langelaan; Ger H M B van Rens
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2011-09-02       Impact factor: 4.615

9.  Low vision rehabilitation for better quality of life in visually impaired adults.

Authors:  Ruth Ma van Nispen; Gianni Virgili; Mirke Hoeben; Maaike Langelaan; Jeroen Klevering; Jan Ee Keunen; Ger Hmb van Rens
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2020-01-27

10.  Validation of World Health Organization Assessment Schedule 2.0 in specialized somatic rehabilitation services in Norway.

Authors:  Vegard Pihl Moen; Jorunn Drageset; Geir Egil Eide; Mari Klokkerud; Sturla Gjesdal
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2016-08-09       Impact factor: 4.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.