ArticleFrontiers in ophthalmology2024
Rasch analysis and targeting assessment of the teach-CVI survey tool in a cohort of CVI patients.
Article in Frontiers in ophthalmology, 2024. 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 properties of Rosenberg's self-esteem scale among adolescents: a Rasch model analysis.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Cerebral/Cortical visual impairment (CVI) in Down syndrome: a case series.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Cerebral Visual Impairment (CVI) is the leading cause of pediatric visual impairment. Given the diversity of clinical presentations of CVI, we are interested in whether questionnaires appropriately target the spectrum CVI cases, specifically the Teach-CVI Screening Tool. Rasch analysis is a standard psychometric technique for assessing the targeting of questionnaire items, however this analysis technique has not yet been applied to this questionnaire. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of clinical CVI cases from the NECO Center for Eye Care at Perkins School for the Blind from January 2016 to December 2022. Electronic medical records were reviewed to identify patients with an ICD-9 or ICD-10 code of CVI or other neurological visual impairment. Age, gender, diagnoses, visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, visual fields, ocular alignment, and Teach-CVI responses were collected. We applied the method of successive dichotomizations, a polytomous Rasch model, to estimate item measures and person measures from the survey. Targeting of questionnaire items to the sample population was explored by comparing estimated item measures to person measures. Multiple linear regression was used to determine which factors influence patient visual ability (i.e., Teach-CVI person measure). Results: 119 patient records were included, 54% of which were male. The mean age was 8.9 years (SD = 6.12) with a range of 0 to 33 years of age. Mean visual acuity was 0.46 logMAR (SD = 0.40), or 20/57. The majority of patients in the sample had a co-occurring visual disorder in addition to CVI (84%), the most frequent being strabismus (69.9%) or visual field loss (25.3%). Item measures ranged from -2.67 to 1.77 logits (SD = 0.76), with a mean of 0 logit by convention. Estimated person measures ranged from -2.19 to 3.08 logits (SD = 1.10) with a mean of -0.03 logit. The range of item measures covered 93.3% of the person measures, and all person measures, except one, were within one logit of an item measure. Visual measures were not statistically significantly associated with Teach-CVI person measures. Conclusion: The findings from this study suggest that the Teach-CVI survey is well targeted and an appropriate patient reported outcome measure for CVI.
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.