ArticlePloS one2025
English version of the Computer Vision Symptom Scale (CVSS17): Translation and Rasch analysis-based cultural adaptation.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Translation and Preliminary Validation of the Computer Vision Syndrome Scale-17 (CVSS-17) into Arabic: A Pilot Study.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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBecause the CVSS17 was originally developed in Spanish, the objective of this study was to adapt it linguistically and culturally into English while evaluating its psychometric properties.
methodsAfter translating and adapting the CVSS17 to English, 441 participants (aged 18 to 65 years) from a general population, recruited from an on-line panel, completed the English version (CVSS17ENG). To determine the measurement properties of CVSS17ENG, we used the partial credit model. To assess convergent validity, coefficients of correlation between CVSS17ENG and the Ocular Comfort Index or Visual Discomfort Scale were calculated. A subset of 218 subjects was tested for test-retest reliability. In addition, differences between CVSS17ENG and CVSS17 were tested through Differential Item Functioning (a Rasch statistic used to check item bias).
resultsA total of 441 responses to CVSS17ENG (average age, 38.57; age range, 19-65; females, 50.24%) showed good fit to the Rasch model, good precision (person separation index = 2.73), and suboptimal targeting (-1.43). Residual principal component analysis suggested multidimensionality, but this was ruled out by a disattenuated correlation coefficient value of 0.82, and no DIF according to sex or age was found. Pearson correlation for CVSS17ENG-VDS was 0.54 (p < 0.01) and Spearman correlation for CVSS17ENG-Ocular Comfort Index was 0.66 (p < 0.001). For test- retest reliability, the limits of agreement were 9.39 and -8.61. Rasch analysis results were similar for CVSS17 and CVSS17ENG and there was no evidence of item bias based on gender or age.
conclusionThe English version of CVSS17 demonstrates comparable performance to the original, indicating its suitability for clinicians and researchers to reliably assess Digital Eye Strain among English-speaking users of screen-based electronic devices.
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.