Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28807029›Full record

ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2017

Development of a new Rasch-based scoring algorithm for the National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire to improve its interpretability.

Jennifer Petrillo, Neil M Bressler, Ecosse Lamoureux, Alberto Ferreira, Stefan Cano

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Restoring vision at the fovea.Current opinion in behavioral sciences · 2019
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Jennifer PetrilloBiogen, Boston, USA.
Neil M BresslerRetina Division, Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Ecosse LamoureuxCentre for Eye Research Australia, the Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Alberto FerreiraNovartis Pharma AG, CH-4002, Basel, Switzerland. alberto.ferreira@novartis.com.
Stefan CanoModus Outcomes, Letchworth Garden City, UK.
Biogen (United States) · USJohns Hopkins University · USNovartis (Switzerland) · CHSingapore Eye Research Institute · SG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe NEI VFQ-25 has undergone psychometric evaluation in patients with varying ocular conditions and the general population. However, important limitations which may affect the interpretation of clinical trial results have been previously identified, such as concerns with reliability and validity. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25) and make recommendations for a revised scoring structure, with a view to improving its psychometric performance and interpretability.

methodsRasch Measurement Theory analyses were conducted in two stages using pooled baseline NEI VFQ-25 data for 2487 participants with retinal diseases enrolled in six clinical trials. In stage 1, we examined: scale-to-sample targeting; thresholds for item response options; item fit statistics; stability; local dependence; and reliability. In stage 2, a post-hoc revision of the scoring structure (VFQ-28R) was created and psychometrically re-evaluated.

resultsIn stage 1, we found that the NEI VFQ-25 was mis-targeted to the sample, and had disordered response thresholds (15/25 items) and mis-fitting items (8/25 items). However, items appeared to be stable (differential item functioning for three items), have minimal item dependency (one pair of items) and good reliability (person-separation index, 0.93). In stage 2, the modified Rasch-scored NEI VFQ-28-R was assessed. It comprised two broad domains: Activity Limitation (19 items) and Socio-Emotional Functioning (nine items). The NEI VFQ-28-R demonstrated improved performance with fewer disordered response thresholds (no items), less item misfit (three items) and improved population targeting (reduced ceiling effect) compared with the NEI VFQ-25.

conclusionsCompared with the original version, the proposed NEI VFQ-28-R, with Rasch-based scoring and a two-domain structure, appears to offer improved psychometric performance and interpretability of the vision-related quality of life scale for the population analysed.

Indexed as

Activities of Daily LivingAlgorithmsNational Eye Institute (U.S.)Quality of LifeAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsRetinal DiseasesSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesVision, OcularNational Eye Institute Visual Functioning QuestionnaireRasch Measurement TheoryVision-related quality of life

Identifiers

PMID28807029
PMCPMC5556345
OpenAlexW2747118012

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.