ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2026
A Within-Population Comparison of the Psychometric Properties and Clinical Feasibility of Visual Function Questionnaires in Low Vision.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2026. 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
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine which of three visual function questionnaires (VFQs) is most appropriate and practical for low vision (LV) clinical use when administered to the same LV patient sample. Methods: Activity Inventory goals (AI-G), Veterans Affairs Low-Vision Visual Functioning Questionnaire 48 (VA LV VFQ-48), and National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire 25 visual function subscale (NEI VFQ-25c-VF) were administered to 74 patients with LV pre- and 6 months post-LV examination. Rasch analysis estimated person measures, item measures, and infit mean square statistics (infits). Targeting was assessed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test, while Deming regression and Pearson correlation tests compared person measures between VFQs and between pre- and post-LV examination. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test compared administration time per item for a subset (n = 30) of participants. Results: Statistically significant ceiling effects were observed for AI-G and VA LV VFQ-48, but not for NEI VFQ-25c-VF (P = 0.39). However, NEI VFQ-25c-VF had the highest percentage of combined pre- and post-LV person (31.1%) and item (20%) infits beyond a desirable range of 0.5 to 1.5, indicating greater multidimensionality. Person measures were moderately correlated between AI-G and both VA LV VFQ-48 (r = 0.64) and NEI VFQ-25c-VF (r = 0.63), but strongly correlated between NEI VFQ-25c-VF and VA LV VFQ-48 (r = 0.85). Regarding clinical practicality, pre-LV examination administration time per item was significantly faster for VA LV VFQ-48 than for AI-G (P = 0.00016) or NEI VFQ-25c-VF (P = 0.0065). Conclusions: No VFQ was superior in all respects. Although NEI VFQ-25c-VF had the best targeting, its higher multidimensionality supports using VA LV VFQ-48 if patient ability remains below the instrument ceiling. Translational Relevance: Improvements to widely used VFQs are required for use in LV clinics.
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.