PURPOSE: To identify the questionnaires used to assess refractive surgery outcomes, assess the available questionnaires in regard to their psychometric properties, validity, and reliability, and evaluate the performance of the available questionnaires in measuring refractive surgery outcomes. METHODS: An extensive literature search was done on PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases to identify articles that described or used at least one questionnaire to assess refractive surgery outcomes. The information on content quality, validity, reliability, responsiveness, and psychometric properties was extracted and analyzed based on an extensive set of quality criteria. RESULTS: Eighty-one articles describing 27 questionnaires (12 refractive error-specific, including 4 refractive surgery-specific, 7 vision-but-non-refractive, and 8 generic) were included in the review. Most articles (56, 69.1%) described refractive error-specific questionnaires. The Quality of Life Impact of Refractive Correction (QIRC), the Quality of Vision (QoV), and the Near Activity Visual Questionnaire (NAVQ) were originally constructed using Rasch analysis; others were developed using the Classical Test Theory. The National Eye Institute Refractive Quality of Life questionnaire was the most frequently used questionnaire, but it does not provide a valid measurement. The QoV, QIRC, and NAVQ are the three best existing questionnaires to assess visual symptoms, quality of life, and activity limitations, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This review identified three superior quality questionnaires for measuring different aspects of quality of life in refractive surgery. Clinicians and researchers should choose a questionnaire based on the concept being measured with superior psychometric properties. [J Refract Surg. 2017;33(6):416-424.]. Copyright 2017, SLACK Incorporated.
PURPOSE: To identify the questionnaires used to assess refractive surgery outcomes, assess the available questionnaires in regard to their psychometric properties, validity, and reliability, and evaluate the performance of the available questionnaires in measuring refractive surgery outcomes. METHODS: An extensive literature search was done on PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases to identify articles that described or used at least one questionnaire to assess refractive surgery outcomes. The information on content quality, validity, reliability, responsiveness, and psychometric properties was extracted and analyzed based on an extensive set of quality criteria. RESULTS: Eighty-one articles describing 27 questionnaires (12 refractive error-specific, including 4 refractive surgery-specific, 7 vision-but-non-refractive, and 8 generic) were included in the review. Most articles (56, 69.1%) described refractive error-specific questionnaires. The Quality of Life Impact of Refractive Correction (QIRC), the Quality of Vision (QoV), and the Near Activity Visual Questionnaire (NAVQ) were originally constructed using Rasch analysis; others were developed using the Classical Test Theory. The National Eye Institute Refractive Quality of Life questionnaire was the most frequently used questionnaire, but it does not provide a valid measurement. The QoV, QIRC, and NAVQ are the three best existing questionnaires to assess visual symptoms, quality of life, and activity limitations, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This review identified three superior quality questionnaires for measuring different aspects of quality of life in refractive surgery. Clinicians and researchers should choose a questionnaire based on the concept being measured with superior psychometric properties. [J Refract Surg. 2017;33(6):416-424.]. Copyright 2017, SLACK Incorporated.
Authors: K C Gokul; Himal Kandel; Luis Valiño; Raju Kaiti; Prosun Roy; Muhammad Sohail; Dil Bahadur Gurung Journal: Lasers Med Sci Date: 2021-09-26 Impact factor: 3.161
Authors: Soraya M R Jonker; Tos T J M Berendschot; Isabelle E Y Saelens; Noël J C Bauer; Rudy M M A Nuijts Journal: Indian J Ophthalmol Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 1.848