Literature DB >> 23873035

Interpretation of low-vision rehabilitation outcome measures.

Robert W Massof1, Joan A Stelmack.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: This article presents a theoretical interpretation of patient-reported outcomes of low-vision rehabilitation (LVR) using rating scale questionnaires and uses previously published results of LVR outcome studies to illustrate theoretical points and validate assumptions. THEORY: Patients' judgments of the difficulty they have performing tasks are interpreted as magnitude estimates of their functional reserve for each task, which is the difference between their visual ability and the visual ability demanded by the task. We assume that improvements in functional reserve can occur by increasing the patient's visual ability with medical, surgical, or refractive interventions or decreasing the visual ability demanded by the item with activity-specific vision assistive equipment, adaptations, and environmental modifications. Activity-specific interventions cause differential item functioning (intervention-related DIF). Intervention-related DIF makes the measured size of the treatment effect dependent on the item content and the mix of responsive and unresponsive items to intervention.
CONCLUSIONS: Because intervention-related DIF depends on the choice of items, the outcome measure selected should be appropriate to the aims of the intervention and the impairment level of the sample to demonstrate the full effects of an intervention. Items that are given extreme positive ratings at preintervention baseline (e.g., "not difficult") have no room for improvement. These items must also be filtered out because they will dilute the measured effect of the activity-specific interventions of LVR.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23873035      PMCID: PMC6166876          DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000000011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Optom Vis Sci        ISSN: 1040-5488            Impact factor:   1.973


  32 in total

1.  Outcomes of low-vision services using optometric and multidisciplinary approaches: a non-randomized comparison.

Authors:  Michiel R de Boer; Jos Twisk; Annette C Moll; Hennie J M Völker-Dieben; Henrica C W de Vet; Ger H M B van Rens
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 3.117

2.  Evaluating the effectiveness of a vision rehabilitation intervention using an objective and subjective measure of functional performance.

Authors:  P McCabe; F Nason; P Demers Turco; D Friedman; J M Seddon
Journal:  Ophthalmic Epidemiol       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 1.648

3.  Psychometric properties of the Veterans Affairs Low-Vision Visual Functioning Questionnaire.

Authors:  Joan A Stelmack; Janet P Szlyk; Thomas R Stelmack; Paulette Demers-Turco; R Tracy Williams; D'Anna Moran; Robert W Massof
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 4.799

4.  The effectiveness of low-vision rehabilitation on participation in daily living and quality of life.

Authors:  Ecosse L Lamoureux; Julie F Pallant; Konrad Pesudovs; Gwyn Rees; Jennifer B Hassell; Jill E Keeffe
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 4.799

5.  Quality of life of low-vision patients and the impact of low-vision services.

Authors:  I U Scott; W E Smiddy; J Schiffman; W J Feuer; C J Pappas
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 5.258

6.  A comparison of standard scoring versus Rasch scoring of the visual function index-14 in patients with cataracts.

Authors:  Carlota Las Hayas; Amaia Bilbao; Jose M Quintana; Susana Garcia; Iratxe Lafuente
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2011-07-01       Impact factor: 4.799

7.  Enhanced low vision rehabilitation for people with age related macular degeneration: a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  B C Reeves; R A Harper; W B Russell
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 4.638

8.  Outcomes of the Veterans Affairs Low Vision Intervention Trial (LOVIT).

Authors:  Joan A Stelmack; X Charlene Tang; Domenic J Reda; Stephen Rinne; Rickilyn M Mancil; Robert W Massof
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  2008-05

9.  The Activity Inventory: an adaptive visual function questionnaire.

Authors:  Robert W Massof; Lohrasb Ahmadian; Lori L Grover; James T Deremeik; Judith E Goldstein; Carol Rainey; Cathy Epstein; G David Barnett
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 1.973

10.  Impact of an interdisciplinary low vision service on the quality of life of low vision patients.

Authors:  A Hinds; A Sinclair; J Park; A Suttie; H Paterson; M Macdonald
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 4.638

View more
  9 in total

1.  Content generation for patient-reported outcome measures for retinal degeneration therapeutic trials.

Authors:  Gabrielle D Lacy; Maria Fernanda Abalem; Lilia T Popova; Erin P Santos; Gina Yu; Hanan Y Rakine; Julie M Rosenthal; Joshua R Ehrlich; David C Musch; K Thiran Jayasundera
Journal:  Ophthalmic Genet       Date:  2020-06-22       Impact factor: 1.803

2.  Responsiveness of the Revised Low Vision Independence Measure (LVIM-R).

Authors:  Theresa M Smith; Ickpyo Hong; Timothy A Reistetter
Journal:  Am J Occup Ther       Date:  2020 Sep/Oct

Review 3.  Patient-Centered Outcome Measures to Assess Functioning in Randomized Controlled Trials of Low-Vision Rehabilitation: A Review.

Authors:  Joshua R Ehrlich; George L Spaeth; Noelle E Carlozzi; Paul P Lee
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 3.883

4.  Low vision depression prevention trial in age-related macular degeneration: a randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Barry W Rovner; Robin J Casten; Mark T Hegel; Robert W Massof; Benjamin E Leiby; Allen C Ho; William S Tasman
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2014-07-09       Impact factor: 12.079

Review 5.  Patient-Reported Outcomes Research in Neuro-Ophthalmology.

Authors:  Lindsey B De Lott; Joshua R Ehrlich
Journal:  J Neuroophthalmol       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 4.415

6.  Functional Outcomes of the Low Vision Depression Prevention Trial in Age-Related Macular Degeneration.

Authors:  Ashley D Deemer; Robert W Massof; Barry W Rovner; Robin J Casten; Catherine V Piersol
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 4.799

7.  Calibrating the Impact of Vision Impairment (IVI): Creation of a Sample-Independent Visual Function Measure for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research.

Authors:  Judith E Goldstein; Eva Fenwick; Robert P Finger; Vijaya Gothwal; Mary Lou Jackson; Ecosse Lamoureux; Gwyneth Rees; Robert Massof
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2018-12-28       Impact factor: 3.283

8.  Vision-related quality of life in adults with severe peripheral vision loss: a qualitative interview study.

Authors:  Ryan Lange; Abigail Kumagai; Sara Weiss; Katherine B Zaffke; Sherry Day; Donna Wicker; Ashley Howson; K Thiran Jayasundera; Lori Smolinski; Christina Hedlich; Paul P Lee; Robert W Massof; Joan A Stelmack; Noelle E Carlozzi; Joshua R Ehrlich
Journal:  J Patient Rep Outcomes       Date:  2021-01-13

9.  Calibration of the Activity Inventory Item Bank: A Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Instrument for Low Vision Rehabilitation.

Authors:  Micaela Gobeille; Chris Bradley; Judith E Goldstein; Robert Massof
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2021-05-03       Impact factor: 3.283

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.