ArticleHealth SA = SA Gesondheid2025
Translation of the Children's Visual Function Quality of Life instrument from English to Sepedi.
Article in Health SA = SA Gesondheid, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Children's Visual Function Quality of Life (CVF-QoL) instrument assesses how visual impairment affects the quality of life related to visual function among rural school-going children in South Africa. Currently, there are no validated vision tools for Sepedi-speaking children. Aim: This study aims to translate the CVF-QoL instrument into Sepedi. Setting: Three rural schools in Sekhukhune district, Limpopo, South Africa. Methods: This study utilised a forward-backward-forward translation method. Three independent translators were involved in translating the English versions of the CVF-QoL instrument into Sepedi. The translated Sepedi version was face-validated by learners aged 6-17 years. The final Sepedi versions were administered to children in two groups: version 1.1 for ages 6-9 years and version 2.1 for ages 10-17 years. The same learners completed the questionnaire again 10 days after the initial administration. Results: Face validation indicated that both versions are clear and relevant. Version 1.1, administered to 41 learners aged 10-17, achieved a Cronbach's alpha of 0.930. Version 2.1 was given to 39 learners aged 6-9, scoring 0.762. Test-retest reliability showed scores of 0.927 for version 1.1 and 0.712 for version 2.1 after 10 days. Overall, the Cronbach scores for the Sepedi and English versions of 1.1 were 0.930 and 0.946; for version 2.1, the scores were 0.762 and 0.777. Conclusion: Sepedi version of the CVF-QoL instrument, focused on rural South African children, is novel, valid and reliable. Contribution: The translated tools can be used to evaluate the visual function of Sepedi-speaking children.
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.