Bradley E Dougherty1, Mark A Bullimore. 1. Ohio State University, College of Optometry, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA. bdougherty@optometry.osu.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate different approaches to scoring the National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire-25 (NEI VFQ-25) in patients with low vision including scoring by the standard method, by Rasch analysis, and by use of an algorithm created by Massof to approximate Rasch person measure. Subscale validity and use of a 7-item short form instrument proposed by Ryan et al. were also investigated. METHODS: NEI VFQ-25 data from 50 patients with low vision were analyzed using the standard method of summing Likert-type scores and calculating an overall average, Rasch analysis using Winsteps software, and the Massof algorithm in Excel. Correlations between scores were calculated. Rasch person separation reliability and other indicators were calculated to determine the validity of the subscales and of the 7-item instrument. RESULTS: Scores calculated using all three methods were highly correlated, but evidence of floor and ceiling effects was found with the standard scoring method. None of the subscales investigated proved valid. The 7-item instrument showed acceptable person separation reliability and good targeting and item performance. CONCLUSIONS: Although standard scores and Rasch scores are highly correlated, Rasch analysis has the advantages of eliminating floor and ceiling effects and producing interval-scaled data. The Massof algorithm for approximation of the Rasch person measure performed well in this group of low-vision patients. The validity of the subscales VFQ-25 should be reconsidered.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate different approaches to scoring the National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire-25 (NEI VFQ-25) in patients with low vision including scoring by the standard method, by Rasch analysis, and by use of an algorithm created by Massof to approximate Rasch person measure. Subscale validity and use of a 7-item short form instrument proposed by Ryan et al. were also investigated. METHODS: NEI VFQ-25 data from 50 patients with low vision were analyzed using the standard method of summing Likert-type scores and calculating an overall average, Rasch analysis using Winsteps software, and the Massof algorithm in Excel. Correlations between scores were calculated. Rasch person separation reliability and other indicators were calculated to determine the validity of the subscales and of the 7-item instrument. RESULTS: Scores calculated using all three methods were highly correlated, but evidence of floor and ceiling effects was found with the standard scoring method. None of the subscales investigated proved valid. The 7-item instrument showed acceptable person separation reliability and good targeting and item performance. CONCLUSIONS: Although standard scores and Rasch scores are highly correlated, Rasch analysis has the advantages of eliminating floor and ceiling effects and producing interval-scaled data. The Massof algorithm for approximation of the Rasch person measure performed well in this group of low-visionpatients. The validity of the subscales VFQ-25 should be reconsidered.
Authors: Päivi H Miskala; Eric B Bass; Neil M Bressler; Ashley L Childs; Barbara S Hawkins; Carol M Mangione; Marta J Marsh Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 12.079
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: Päivi H Miskala; Barbara S Hawkins; Carol M Mangione; Eric B Bass; Neil M Bressler; Li Ming Dong; Marta J Marsh; Lee D McCaffrey Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2003-04
Authors: Sara Ortiz-Toquero; Sofia Perez; Guadalupe Rodriguez; Victoria de Juan; Agustin Mayo-Iscar; Raul Martin Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2015-09-03 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Stefan Nickels; Alexander K Schuster; Susanne Singer; Philipp S Wild; Dagmar Laubert-Reh; Andreas Schulz; Robert P Finger; Matthias Michal; Manfred E Beutel; Thomas Münzel; Karl J Lackner; Norbert Pfeiffer Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2017-08-08 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Alexander K Schuster; Norbert Pfeiffer; Andreas Schulz; Stefan Nickels; René Höhn; Philipp S Wild; Maria Blettner; Thomas Münzel; Manfred E Beutel; Karl J Lackner; Urs Vossmerbaeumer Journal: Aging (Albany NY) Date: 2017-03-28 Impact factor: 5.682
Authors: Francisco M Costela; Konrad Pesudovs; Michael A Sandberg; Carol Weigel-DiFranco; Russell L Woods Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2020-06-22 Impact factor: 3.186