ArticlePloS one2025
Reliability assessment of the malay version visual comfort questionnaire for schoolchildren with visual impairment.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lighting adjustments are crucial in vision rehabilitation to enhance visual function and promote visual comfort. However, there is a lack of validated questionnaires to assess lighting needs among schoolchildren with visual impairment. Given the limited knowledge of their specific need for reading and learning activities, a translated and reliable instrument is essential for guiding evidence-based support. This study aims to translate, adapt, and assess face validity, content validity and reliability of the Malay version Visual Comfort Questionnaire (VCQ-M). This is a cross-sectional study that was carried out from November 2022 to January 2023. Forward-backwards translation was used to translate the items in the questionnaire from English into Malay. Face and content validity of the translated questionnaire were determined to ensure comprehensibility and cultural adaptability. Ten normal-sighted adults participated in face validation. Five optometrists were recruited as expert panels to rate the questionnaire items. The inter-rater reliability of the questionnaire was assessed using Fleiss' Kappa and the inter-class correlation coefficient (ICC). To determine the internal consistency of VCQ-M, 42 subjects with visual impairment from a special secondary school were recruited in this study to complete the VCQ-M after reading a paragraph comprised of 50 words under lighting of 125 lux. Internal consistency of VCQ-M was analysed using Cronbach's alpha with composite reliability for confirmation. The face validity showed 91.0% of overall agreement, while the content validity index for the item was above 0.80 at item-level and scale-level. The translated VCQ-M has acceptable Fleiss' Kappa inter-rater reliability for relevance (κ = 0.54) and comprehensibility (κ = 0.44), as well as ICC inter-rater reliability for relevance (ICC(3, 5) = 0.88) and comprehensibility (ICC(3, 5) = 0.73). The Cronbach's alpha (α = 0.92) showed acceptable internal consistency and confirmed with Dijkstra-Henseler's rho (ρA = 0.95) and Jöreskog's rho (ρc = 0.94). The VCQ-M shows an acceptable face validity index, content validity index, inter-rater reliability and internal consistency. This study represents a first-stage validation focused on internal consistency. Construct validity was not assessed, and thus the psychometric evaluation is partial and preliminary. However, the findings support using VCQ-M as a reliable and valid questionnaire to assess visual comfort among Malay-speaking schoolchildren with visual impairment.
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.