ArticleOptometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry2016
Reliability and Validity of the Visual, Musculoskeletal, and Balance Complaints Questionnaire.
Article in Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nonstrabismic binocular dysfunctions and cervical complaints: The possibility of a cross-dysfunction.PloS one · 2019Article
- Visual, Musculoskeletal, and Balance Complaints in AMD: A Follow-Up Study.Journal of ophthalmology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the reliability and validity of the 15-item Visual, Musculoskeletal, and Balance Complaints Questionnaire (VMB) for people with visual impairments, using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and with Rasch analysis for use as an outcome measure.
methodsTwo studies evaluated the VMB. In Study 1, VMB data were collected from 1249 out of 3063 individuals between 18 and 104 years old who were registered at a low vision center. CFA evaluated VMB factor structure and Rasch analysis evaluated VMB scale properties. In Study 2, a subsample of 52 individuals between 27 and 67 years old with visual impairments underwent further measurements. Visual clinical assessments, neck/scapular pain, and balance assessments were collected to evaluate the convergent validity of the VMB (i.e. the domain relationship with other, theoretically predicted measures).
resultsCFA supported the a priori three-factor structure of the VMB. The factor loadings of the items on their respective domains were all statistically significant. Rasch analysis indicated disordered categories and the original 10-point scale was subsequently replaced with a 5-point scale. Each VMB domain fitted the Rasch model, showing good metric properties, including unidimensionality (explained variances ≥66% and eigenvalues <1.9), person separation (1.86 to 2.29), reliability (0.87 to 0.94), item fit (infit MnSq's >0.72 and outfit MnSq's <1.47), targeting (0.30 to 0.50 logits), and insignificant differential item functioning (all DIFs but one <0.50 logits) from gender, age, and visual status. The three VMB domains correlated significantly with relevant visual, musculoskeletal, and balance assessments, demonstrating adequate convergent validity of the VMB.
conclusionsThe VMB is a simple, inexpensive, and quick yet reliable and valid way to screen and evaluate concurrent visual, musculoskeletal, and balance complaints, with contribution to epidemiological and intervention research and potential clinical implications for the field of health services and low vision rehabilitation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.