Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27558785›Full record

ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2017

Reducing respondent burden: validation of the Brief Impact of Vision Impairment questionnaire.

Eva K Fenwick, Ryan E K Man, Gwyn Rees, Jill Keeffe, Tien Y Wong, Ecosse L Lamoureux

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Optimizing measurement of vision-related quality of life: a computerized adaptive test for the impact of vision impairment questionnaire (IVI-CAT).Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2020
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Eva K FenwickCentre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia.
Ryan E K ManSingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore.
Gwyn ReesCentre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia.
Jill KeeffeCentre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia.
Tien Y WongCentre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia.
Ecosse L LamoureuxCentre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia. ecosse.lamoureux@duke-nus.edu.sg.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo develop a psychometrically sound and valid Brief Impact of Vision Impairment (IVI) questionnaire.

methodsCross-sectional data from four prospective studies (2001-2008) were pooled and randomly divided into development/validation sets (n = 416) each. Items with suboptimal psychometric properties were iteratively removed in the development set to form the Brief IVI. Psychometric properties of the Brief IVI were independently tested in the validation sample. Correlation between person measures from the original and Brief IVI was assessed [Pearson r and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)]. Criterion validity was determined by testing the Brief IVI's ability to discriminate levels of vision impairment (analysis of variance, ANOVA). Responsiveness was tested by comparing the ICC of the original and Brief IVI data obtained pre-/post-intervention.

resultsThe 15-item Brief IVI, and its 9-item Visual Functioning and 6-item Emotional Well-being subscales had ordered thresholds, good precision and targeting, unidimensionality, and minimal item misfit (replicated in the validation sample). Brief and original IVI person measures were highly correlated (r = 0.97 and ICC = 0.98, p < 0.001), indicating the Brief IVI provides statistically similar measurement of vision-related quality of life (VRQoL). Brief IVI mean logit scores declined as vision impairment worsened (p = 0.001) demonstrating criterion validity. ICC of the original versus Brief IVI pre-/post-intervention was excellent (0.98), establishing that the Brief IVI was as responsive to changes in VRQoL as the original.

conclusionsThe Brief 15-item IVI can obtain valid and responsive measurement of VRQoL with half the items in the original and has potential to reduce respondent burden in QoL studies.

Indexed as

Sickness Impact ProfileAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleProspective StudiesPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesVision DisordersBriefQuality of lifeQuestionnaireRasch analysisReductionVision impairment

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.