Gabrielle D Lacy1, Maria Fernanda Abalem2, Chris A Andrews1, Lilia T Popova1, Erin P Santos1, Gina Yu1, Hanan Y Rakine1, Natasha Baig1, Joshua R Ehrlich1, Abigail T Fahim1, Kari H Branham1, Joan A Stelmack3, Bonnielin K Swenor4, Gislin Dagnelie4, David C Musch5, K Thiran Jayasundera6. 1. Kellogg Eye Center, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 2. Kellogg Eye Center, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA; Department of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology, University of Sao Paulo Medical School, São Paulo, Brazil. 3. Department of Low Vision Service, Illinois Eye and Ear Infirmary, University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 4. Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 5. Kellogg Eye Center, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA; Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 6. Kellogg Eye Center, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. Electronic address: thiran@umich.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To create a psychometrically validated patient-reported outcome measure for inherited retinal degenerations. DESIGN: Qualitative and quantitative patient-reported outcome (PROs) questionnaire development using item response theory validation. METHODS: One hundred twenty-eight patients with a diagnosis of an inherited retinal degeneration at the Kellogg Eye Center (University of Michigan) were recruited and administered a 166-item questionnaire comprising 7 expert-defined domains. The questionnaire was re-administered 4-16 days later to a subset of 25 participants to assess test-retest variability. Graded response models were fit by Cai's Metropolis-Hastings Robbins-Monro algorithm using the R (version 3.6.3) package mirt. Model data were fit to assess questionnaire dimensionality, to estimate item information, and to score participants. Poorly functioning items were removed, and the model was refit to create the final questionnaire. RESULTS: The psychometrically validated PROs measure was reduced to a 59-item questionnaire measuring 7 unidimesnional domains: central vision, color vision, contrast sensitivity, scotopic function, photopic peripheral vision, mesopic peripheral vision, and photosensitivity. A total of 39 items were removed because of poor factor loading, low item information, poor person-ability differentiation, or high item-level interdependence. This novel questionnaire produces a reliable domain score for person ability that does not show significant test-retest variability across repeated administration. CONCLUSIONS: The final PRO questionnaire, known as the Michigan Retinal Degeneration Questionnaire, is psychometrically validated and available for use in the evaluation of patients with inherited retinal degenerations.
PURPOSE: To create a psychometrically validated patient-reported outcome measure for inherited retinal degenerations. DESIGN: Qualitative and quantitative patient-reported outcome (PROs) questionnaire development using item response theory validation. METHODS: One hundred twenty-eight patients with a diagnosis of an inherited retinal degeneration at the Kellogg Eye Center (University of Michigan) were recruited and administered a 166-item questionnaire comprising 7 expert-defined domains. The questionnaire was re-administered 4-16 days later to a subset of 25 participants to assess test-retest variability. Graded response models were fit by Cai's Metropolis-Hastings Robbins-Monro algorithm using the R (version 3.6.3) package mirt. Model data were fit to assess questionnaire dimensionality, to estimate item information, and to score participants. Poorly functioning items were removed, and the model was refit to create the final questionnaire. RESULTS: The psychometrically validated PROs measure was reduced to a 59-item questionnaire measuring 7 unidimesnional domains: central vision, color vision, contrast sensitivity, scotopic function, photopic peripheral vision, mesopic peripheral vision, and photosensitivity. A total of 39 items were removed because of poor factor loading, low item information, poor person-ability differentiation, or high item-level interdependence. This novel questionnaire produces a reliable domain score for person ability that does not show significant test-retest variability across repeated administration. CONCLUSIONS: The final PRO questionnaire, known as the Michigan Retinal Degeneration Questionnaire, is psychometrically validated and available for use in the evaluation of patients with inherited retinal degenerations.
Authors: Mallika Prem Senthil; Jyoti Khadka; John De Roach; Tina Lamey; Terri McLaren; Isabella Campbell; Eva K Fenwick; Ecosse L Lamoureux; Konrad Pesudovs Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 1.973
Authors: Gabrielle D Lacy; Maria Fernanda Abalem; David C Musch; Kanishka T Jayasundera Journal: Ophthalmic Genet Date: 2020-02-26 Impact factor: 1.803
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
Authors: Debra A Thompson; Robin R Ali; Eyal Banin; Kari E Branham; John G Flannery; David M Gamm; William W Hauswirth; John R Heckenlively; Alessandro Iannaccone; K Thiran Jayasundera; Naheed W Khan; Robert S Molday; Mark E Pennesi; Thomas A Reh; Richard G Weleber; David N Zacks Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2015-02-09 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: K Thiran Jayasundera; Rebhi O Abuzaitoun; Gabrielle D Lacy; Maria Fernanda Abalem; Gregory M Saltzman; Thomas A Ciulla; Mark W Johnson Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2021-08-22 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Melanie P Napier; Kavin Selvan; Robin Z Hayeems; Cheryl Shuman; David Chitayat; Joanne E Sutherland; Megan A Day; Elise Héon Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2021-09-16 Impact factor: 4.456
Authors: Gabrielle D Lacy; Maria Fernanda Abalem; Chris A Andrews; Rebhi Abuzaitoun; Lilia T Popova; Erin P Santos; Gina Yu; Hanan Y Rakine; Natasha Baig; Joshua R Ehrlich; Abigail T Fahim; Kari H Branham; Bonnielin K Swenor; Paul R Lichter; Gislin Dagnelie; Joan A Stelmack; David C Musch; K Thiran Jayasundera Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2020-12-09 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Myra B McGuinness; Alexis Ceecee Britten-Jones; Lauren N Ayton; Robert P Finger; Fred K Chen; John Grigg; Heather G Mack Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 3.283