Craig A Woods1, Brad Cumming. 1. Centre for Contact Lens Research, School of Optometry, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada. cawoods@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Visual analog scales are frequently used as a means of allowing participants to rate symptoms during clinical trials. The accuracy and reproducibility of these scales play an important role in determining the experimental value of the data they provide. This study was initiated to compare the data collected using paper- and computer-based (Tablet PC) analog scales to better understand the variability in data provided by a visual analog scale. METHODS: Thirty participants rated ocular comfort, redness, and clarity of vision (right and left eyes) on a nondemarcated horizontal line on both paper and a Tablet PC. Measurements were taken in the morning between the hours of 8:30 and 10:30 am and again the same day between 2:30 and 4:30 pm. RESULTS: The mean difference between the measures recorded in the morning for the 2 media was 2.6 +/- 0.9 (confidence intervals, 2 standard errors of the differences) units on a 100 unit scale, with the Tablet PC having the higher mean measure. The limits of agreement (2 standard deviations of the differences) was 9.4 units. Comparing the difference of the differences (1.0 +/- 1.3) between the 2 methods of measure (morning vs. afternoon) the visual analog scales on the Tablet PC seemed to have good reproducibility of agreement in comparison with the paper version. CONCLUSIONS: Discrepancy analysis yielded no significant difference and slight bias between paper- and computer-based analog scales. Repeatability of measures using the Tablet PC was also demonstrated. These results suggest that the choice of medium does not significantly influence the outcome for subjective analog scales.
OBJECTIVES: Visual analog scales are frequently used as a means of allowing participants to rate symptoms during clinical trials. The accuracy and reproducibility of these scales play an important role in determining the experimental value of the data they provide. This study was initiated to compare the data collected using paper- and computer-based (Tablet PC) analog scales to better understand the variability in data provided by a visual analog scale. METHODS: Thirty participants rated ocular comfort, redness, and clarity of vision (right and left eyes) on a nondemarcated horizontal line on both paper and a Tablet PC. Measurements were taken in the morning between the hours of 8:30 and 10:30 am and again the same day between 2:30 and 4:30 pm. RESULTS: The mean difference between the measures recorded in the morning for the 2 media was 2.6 +/- 0.9 (confidence intervals, 2 standard errors of the differences) units on a 100 unit scale, with the Tablet PC having the higher mean measure. The limits of agreement (2 standard deviations of the differences) was 9.4 units. Comparing the difference of the differences (1.0 +/- 1.3) between the 2 methods of measure (morning vs. afternoon) the visual analog scales on the Tablet PC seemed to have good reproducibility of agreement in comparison with the paper version. CONCLUSIONS: Discrepancy analysis yielded no significant difference and slight bias between paper- and computer-based analog scales. Repeatability of measures using the Tablet PC was also demonstrated. These results suggest that the choice of medium does not significantly influence the outcome for subjective analog scales.