ArticleJournal of optometry
Validation of the Spanish version of the Low Vision Quality of Life Questionnaire.
Article in Journal of optometry. 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.
- Psychometric Validation of a Short-Form Spanish Low Vision Quality of Life Questionnaire (SF-SLVQOL) Using Rasch Analysis: From 25 to 6 Items.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
- The Refractive Cataract Surgery Survey (RCSS): A Validated Questionnaire for Quick Clinical Use.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo validate the Spanish Low Vision Qualify of Life (SLVQOL) questionnaire, a quality of life instrument specifically designed for patients with visual impairment, and evaluate its psychometric properties.
methodsThe study included 170 visually impaired patients and 195 healthy subjects. Participants were administered the SLVQOL, the NEI VFQ-25, and the EQ 5D-5L questionnaires. Reliability, test-retest reproducibility, feasibility, and construct validity of the SLVQOL were assessed. The Generalized Partial Credit Model was used to fit the data and the performance of each item was characterized using category response curves and item information.
resultsThe reliability of the SLVQOL was 0.981 (95% CI: 0.978-0.985). Test-retest reproducibility was good (ρ=0.864, P<.001). A cut-off point of 105 or 106 was optimal to detect visual impairment, with a sensitivity of 95.4% and a specificity of 91.8%. Construct validity was shown by the corresponding convergence or divergence correlations between the score of the SLVQOL and its dimensions and the overall and partial scores of the NEI VFQ-25 and the EQ 5D-5L. Item response theory analysis showed discrimination and information parameters ranging from 0.539 to 3.063 and from -1.894 to 1.074, respectively.
conclusionThe SLVQOL was able to quantitatively assess and identify differences in the quality of life among patients with visual impairment and normal subjects. The evaluated psychometric properties suggest that this tool has excellent validity, internal consistency, and reproducibility, but may benefit from a reduction of the number of items.
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.