Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31707693›Full record

ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2020

Optimizing measurement of vision-related quality of life: a computerized adaptive test for the impact of vision impairment questionnaire (IVI-CAT).

Eva K Fenwick, Bao Sheng Loe, Jyoti Khadka, Ryan E K Man, Gwyn Rees, 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, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Development and initial validation of DESCAQ: A Rasch-based computer-adaptive questionnaire for assessing digital eye strain.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0417-2048
Bao Sheng LoeSchool of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Jyoti KhadkaUniversity of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
Ryan E K ManSingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, The Academia, 20 College Road, Level 6, Singapore, 169856, Singapore.
Gwyn ReesCentre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Ecosse L LamoureuxCentre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. ecosse.lamoureux@seri.com.sg.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8674-5705

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council (#1045280National Health and Medical Research Council (#1061801
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo 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.

methodsUsing 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).

resultsFor 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.

conclusionCompared 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.

Indexed as

ComputersFemaleHumansMaleMental HealthMiddle AgedPsychometricsQuality of LifeReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesVision, LowYoung AdultComputerized adaptive testingImpact of Vision Impairment questionnaireItem bankVision impairmentVision-related quality of life

Identifiers

PMID31707693

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.