ArticleOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2025
Development and initial validation of DESCAQ: A Rasch-based computer-adaptive questionnaire for assessing digital eye strain.
Article in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association between information overload, asthenopia, and depressive and anxiety symptoms in patients with lung cancer: A computer-simulated network analysis.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2026Article
- 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
- 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) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe purpose of this study was to develop the Digital Eye Strain Computer Adaptive Questionnaire (DESCAQ), a quick, easy-to-administer test for measuring digital eye strain in 8- to 65-year-old Spanish- and English-speaking individuals. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe Spanish DESCAQ was cross-culturally adapted to English using standardised methods. The English version was administered online to digital device users from the United Kingdom and the United States, and the responses were analysed using the partial credit model. In a simulation study, calibration parameters were employed for the purpose of optimising the configuration of the item bank. Test-retest repeatability was calculated by administering DESCAQ twice within weeks. The first administration's results were compared with Computer Vision Symptom Scale (CVSS)17 scores to assess convergent validity.
resultsThirty-six items fitting the Rasch model were included in the final English version (38 items in the Spanish version). The reliability index was 0.95, sufficient to distinguish statistically up to eight levels of severity along the DES continuum. DESCAQ used 12.20 ± 2.15 items to complete the measure and provided the final score in 120.35 ± 69.18 s. The repeatability limit was 13.35 points and the two-way, single measure Intraclass Correlation Coefficient for test-retest reliability was 0.884 (95% CI, 0.852-0.910). Spearman's correlation between DESCAQ and CVSS17 scores was 0.87 (p < 0.001).
conclusionsThe DESCAQ is a quick, easy-to-interpret tool developed for researchers and clinicians. This web-based tool provides a valid, precise and reliable Digital Eye Strain score, categorised across eight severity levels.
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.