Eva K Fenwick1,2,3, Bao Sheng Loe4, Jyoti Khadka5,6,7, Ryan E K Man2,3, Gwyn Rees1, Ecosse L Lamoureux8,9,10,11. 1. Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 2. Singapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, The Academia, 20 College Road, Level 6, Singapore, 169856, Singapore. 3. Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore. 4. School of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. 5. University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia. 6. Registry of Older South Australians, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, Australia. 7. College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia. 8. Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. ecosse.lamoureux@seri.com.sg. 9. Singapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, The Academia, 20 College Road, Level 6, Singapore, 169856, Singapore. ecosse.lamoureux@seri.com.sg. 10. Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore. ecosse.lamoureux@seri.com.sg. 11. Department of Ophthalmology, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. ecosse.lamoureux@seri.com.sg.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the results from a simulated computerized adaptive test (CAT) for the 28-item Impact of Vision Impairment (IVI) questionnaire and the original paper-pencil version in terms of efficiency (main outcome), defined as percentage item reduction. METHODS: Using paper-pencil IVI data from 832 participants across the spectrum of vision impairment, item calibrations of the 28-item IVI instrument and its associated 20-item vision-specific functioning (VSF) and 8-item emotional well-being (EWB) subscales were generated with Rasch analysis. Based on these calibrations, CAT simulations were conducted on 1000 cases, with 'high' and 'moderate' precision stopping rules (standard error of measurement [SEM] 0.387 and 0.521, respectively). We examined the average number of items needed to satisfy the stopping rules and the corresponding percentage item reduction, level of agreement between person measures estimated from the full IVI item bank and from the CAT simulations, and item exposure rates (IER). RESULTS: For the overall IVI-CAT, 5 or 9.7 items were required, on average, to obtain moderate or high precision estimates of vision-related quality of life, corresponding to 82.1 and 65.4% item reductions compared to the paper-pencil IVI. Agreement was high between the person measures generated from the full IVI item bank and the IVI-CAT for both the high precision simulation (mean bias, - 0.004 logits; 95% LOA - 0.594 to 0.587) and moderate precision simulation (mean bias, 0.014 logits; 95% LOA - 0.828 to 0.855). The IER for the IVI-CAT in the moderate precision simulation was skewed, with six EWB items used > 40% of the time. CONCLUSION: Compared to the paper-pencil IVI instrument, the IVI-CATs required fewer items without loss of measurement precision, making them potentially attractive outcome instruments for implementation into clinical trials, healthcare, and research. Final versions of the IVI-CATs are available.
PURPOSE: To compare the results from a simulated computerized adaptive test (CAT) for the 28-item Impact of Vision Impairment (IVI) questionnaire and the original paper-pencil version in terms of efficiency (main outcome), defined as percentage item reduction. METHODS: Using paper-pencil IVI data from 832 participants across the spectrum of vision impairment, item calibrations of the 28-item IVI instrument and its associated 20-item vision-specific functioning (VSF) and 8-item emotional well-being (EWB) subscales were generated with Rasch analysis. Based on these calibrations, CAT simulations were conducted on 1000 cases, with 'high' and 'moderate' precision stopping rules (standard error of measurement [SEM] 0.387 and 0.521, respectively). We examined the average number of items needed to satisfy the stopping rules and the corresponding percentage item reduction, level of agreement between person measures estimated from the full IVI item bank and from the CAT simulations, and item exposure rates (IER). RESULTS: For the overall IVI-CAT, 5 or 9.7 items were required, on average, to obtain moderate or high precision estimates of vision-related quality of life, corresponding to 82.1 and 65.4% item reductions compared to the paper-pencil IVI. Agreement was high between the person measures generated from the full IVI item bank and the IVI-CAT for both the high precision simulation (mean bias, - 0.004 logits; 95% LOA - 0.594 to 0.587) and moderate precision simulation (mean bias, 0.014 logits; 95% LOA - 0.828 to 0.855). The IER for the IVI-CAT in the moderate precision simulation was skewed, with six EWB items used > 40% of the time. CONCLUSION: Compared to the paper-pencil IVI instrument, the IVI-CATs required fewer items without loss of measurement precision, making them potentially attractive outcome instruments for implementation into clinical trials, healthcare, and research. Final versions of the IVI-CATs are available.
Entities:
Keywords:
Computerized adaptive testing; Impact of Vision Impairment questionnaire; Item bank; Vision impairment; Vision-related quality of life
Authors: Claire F Snyder; Neil K Aaronson; Ali K Choucair; Thomas E Elliott; Joanne Greenhalgh; Michele Y Halyard; Rachel Hess; Deborah M Miller; Bryce B Reeve; Maria Santana Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2011-11-03 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Gwyneth Rees; Jing Xie; Edith E Holloway; Bonnie A Sturrock; Eva K Fenwick; Jill E Keeffe; Ecosse Lamoureux Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2013-11-13 Impact factor: 4.799
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
Authors: Eva K Fenwick; Ryan E K Man; Chui Ming Gemmy Cheung; Charumathi Sabanayagam; Ching-Yu Cheng; Kumari Neelam; Jacqueline Chua; Alfred T L Gan; Paul Mitchell; Tien Y Wong; Ecosse L Lamoureux Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Robert D Gibbons; David J Weiss; David J Kupfer; Ellen Frank; Andrea Fagiolini; Victoria J Grochocinski; Dulal K Bhaumik; Angela Stover; R Darrell Bock; Jason C Immekus Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: T Petra Rausch-Koster; Michiel A J Luijten; F D Verbraak; Ger H M B van Rens; Ruth M A van Nispen Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Eva K Fenwick; Belicia Lim; Ryan E K Man; Mani Baskaran; Monisha E Nongpiur; Chelvin C A Sng; Jayant V Iyer; Rahat Husain; Shamira A Perera; Tina T Wong; Jin Rong Low; Olivia Huang Shimin; Katherine Lun; Tin Aung; Ecosse L Lamoureux Journal: J Patient Rep Outcomes Date: 2022-10-11