Psychometric properties of the Portuguese version of the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25


Autoři: Ricardo Y. Abe aff001;  Felipe A. Medeiros aff002;  Milton Agrizzi Davi aff001;  Cecília Gonçalves aff001;  Matheus Bittencourt aff001;  Alicia Buffoni Roque aff001;  Júlia Boccato aff001;  Vital Paulino Costa aff001;  José Paulo Cabral Vasconcellos aff001
Působiště autorů: Department of Ophthalmology, University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil aff001;  Department of Ophthalmology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America aff002
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(12)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226086

Souhrn

Background

To investigate the psychometric properties of the Brazilian Portuguese version of the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25) questionnaire in a group of patients with different eye diseases.

Methods

Cross-sectional study. All subjects completed the Portuguese version of the NEI VFQ-25 questionnaire. Another questionnaire containing a survey about clinical and demographics data was also applied. Rasch analysis was used to evaluate the psychometric properties of the NEI VFQ-25.

Results

The study included 104 patients with cataract, 65 with glaucoma and 83 with age macular degeneration. Mean age was 70.7 ± 9.9 years, with 143 female (56.7%) and 109 male patients (43.2%). Mean visual acuity was 0.47 and 1.17 logMAR in the better and worse eye, respectively. According to Rasch analysis, seven items were found to misfit. Those items belonged to the following subscales: general health, social function, mental health, ocular pain and role limitations. The principal component analysis of the residuals showed that 55.5% of the variance was explained by the principal component. Eight items loaded positively onto the first contrast with a correlation higher than 0.4. These items belonged to the following subscales: near vision, distance vision, mental health and dependency. After excluding those items, we were able to isolate items from the NEI VFQ-25, related only to a visual functioning component. Finally, the principal component analysis from residuals of this revised version of the NEI VFQ-25 (items related to visual function) showed that the principal component explained 61.2% of the variance, showing no evidence of multidimensionality.

Conclusions

The Portuguese version of the NEI VFQ-25 is not a unidimensional instrument. We were able to find items that belong to a different trait, possible related to a socio-emotional component. Thus, in order to obtain psychometrically valid constructs, both the visual functioning and socio-emotional components should be analyzed separately.

Klíčová slova:

Eye diseases – Eyes – Glaucoma – Mental health and psychiatry – principal component analysis – Psychometrics – Vision – Visual acuity


Zdroje

1. The World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment (WHOQOL): position paper from the World Health Organization. Social science & medicine (1982). 1995;41(10):1403–9. Epub 1995/11/01. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(95)00112-k 8560308.

2. Khanna D, Tsevat J. Health-related quality of life—an introduction. The American journal of managed care. 2007;13 Suppl 9:S218–23. Epub 2008/01/12. 18095785.

3. Mangione CM, Lee PP, Pitts J, Gutierrez P, Berry S, Hays RD. Psychometric properties of the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ). NEI-VFQ Field Test Investigators. Arch Ophthalmol. 1998;116(11):1496–504. Epub 1998/11/21. doi: 10.1001/archopht.116.11.1496 9823352.

4. Suzukamo Y, Oshika T, Yuzawa M, Tokuda Y, Tomidokoro A, Oki K, et al. Psychometric properties of the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25), Japanese version. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2005;3:65–. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-3-65 PMC1283746. 16248900

5. Romero M, Vivas-Consuelo D, Alvis-Guzman N. Is Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) a valid indicator for health systems evaluation? SpringerPlus. 2013;2(1):664. doi: 10.1186/2193-1801-2-664 PMC3866375. 24353981

6. Karimi M, Brazier J. Health, Health-Related Quality of Life, and Quality of Life: What is the Difference? PharmacoEconomics. 2016;34(7):645–9. Epub 2016/02/20. doi: 10.1007/s40273-016-0389-9 26892973.

7. Mangione CM, Lee PP, Gutierrez PR, Spritzer K, Berry S, Hays RD, et al. Development of the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire. Arch Ophthalmol. 2001;119(7):1050–8. doi: 10.1001/archopht.119.7.1050 11448327.

8. Medeiros FA, Gracitelli CP, Boer ER, Weinreb RN, Zangwill LM, Rosen PN. Longitudinal changes in quality of life and rates of progressive visual field loss in glaucoma patients. Ophthalmology. 2015;122(2):293–301. Epub 2014/12/03. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.08.014 25444345; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4306625.

9. Gracitelli CP, Abe RY, Tatham AJ, Rosen PN, Zangwill LM, Boer ER, et al. Association Between Progressive Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Loss and Longitudinal Change in Quality of Life in Glaucoma. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015. Epub 2015/01/09. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2014.5319 25569808.

10. Diniz-Filho A, Abe RY, Cho HJ, Baig S, Gracitelli CP, Medeiros FA. Fast Visual Field Progression Is Associated with Depressive Symptoms in Patients with Glaucoma. Ophthalmology. 2016;123(4):754–9. Epub 2016/02/28. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.12.014 26920097.

11. Massof RW, Fletcher DC. Evaluation of the NEI visual functioning questionnaire as an interval measure of visual ability in low vision. Vision Res. 2001;41(3):397–413. doi: 10.1016/s0042-6989(00)00249-2 11164454.

12. Marella M, Pesudovs K, Keeffe JE, O'Connor PM, Rees G, Lamoureux EL. The psychometric validity of the NEI VFQ-25 for use in a low-vision population. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010;51(6):2878–84. doi: 10.1167/iovs.09-4494 20089878.

13. Pesudovs K, Gothwal VK, Wright T, Lamoureux EL. Remediating serious flaws in the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010;36(5):718–32. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.11.019 20457362.

14. Andrich D. Rating scales and Rasch measurement. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;11(5):571–85. doi: 10.1586/erp.11.59 21958102.

15. Dougherty BE, Bullimore MA. Comparison of scoring approaches for the NEI VFQ-25 in low vision. Optom Vis Sci. 2010;87(8):543–8. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e3181e61bd8 20526224; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2924616.

16. Simao LM, Lana-Peixoto MA, Araujo CR, Moreira MA, Teixeira AL. The Brazilian version of the 25-Item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire: translation, reliability and validity. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2008;71(4):540–6. Epub 2008/09/18. doi: 10.1590/s0004-27492008000400014 18797665.

17. Bradley C, Massof RW. Validating Translations of Rating Scale Questionnaires Using Rasch Analysis. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2017;24(1):1–2. Epub 2017/01/14. doi: 10.1080/09286586.2016.1246667 28085560.

18. Chylack LT Jr., Wolfe JK, Singer DM, Leske MC, Bullimore MA, Bailey IL, et al. The Lens Opacities Classification System III. The Longitudinal Study of Cataract Study Group. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993;111(6):831–6. Epub 1993/06/01. doi: 10.1001/archopht.1993.01090060119035 8512486.

19. Seddon JM, Sharma S, Adelman RA. Evaluation of the clinical age-related maculopathy staging system. Ophthalmology. 2006;113(2):260–6. Epub 2006/02/07. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2005.11.001 16458093.

20. Coleman HR, Chan CC, Ferris FL 3rd, Chew EY. Age-related macular degeneration. Lancet. 2008;372(9652):1835–45. Epub 2008/11/26. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61759-6 19027484; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2603424.

21. Boone W. Understanding Person Measures. In: Boone W, Staver J, Yeale M, editors. Rasch Analysis in the Human Sciences. New York: Springer; 2014. p. 69–92.

22. Bond TG, Fox CM. Applying the Rasch Model. Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences. 2nd Edition ed2007. 29–48 p.

23. Peters D, Heijl A, Brenner L, Bengtsson B. Visual impairment and vision-related quality of life in the Early Manifest Glaucoma Trial after 20 years of follow-up. Acta Ophthalmol. 2015;93(8):745–52. Epub 2015/09/19. doi: 10.1111/aos.12839 26382936; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5014208.

24. Wright BD LJ, Gustafson JE, Martin-Lof P. Reasonable mean-square fit values. 1994;8(3):370.

25. Smith EVJ. Detecting and evaluating the impact of multidimensionality using item fit statistics and principal component analysis of residuals. J Appl Meas. 2002;3:205–31. 12011501

26. Wright BD, Douglas GA. Best test design and selftailored testing. Research Memorandum. Chicago: Statistical Laboratory, Department of Education, University of Chicago1975.

27. Globe DR, Varma R, Torres M, Wu J, Klein R, Azen SP. Self-reported comorbidities and visual function in a population-based study: the Los Angeles Latino Eye Study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123(6):815–21. Epub 2005/06/16. doi: 10.1001/archopht.123.6.815 15955983.

28. Schulze-Bonsel K, Feltgen N, Burau H, Hansen L, Bach M. Visual acuities "hand motion" and "counting fingers" can be quantified with the freiburg visual acuity test. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47(3):1236–40. Epub 2006/03/01. doi: 10.1167/iovs.05-0981 16505064.

29. Smith AB, Wright EP, Rush R, Stark DP, Velikova G, Selby PJ. Rasch analysis of the dimensional structure of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Psycho-oncology. 2006;15(9):817–27. Epub 2005/12/15. doi: 10.1002/pon.1015 16353288.

30. Chien T-W, Wang W-C, Wang H-Y, Lin H-J. Online assessment of patients' views on hospital performances using Rasch model's KIDMAP diagram. BMC Health Services Research. 2009;9:135–. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-9-135 PMC2727503. 19646267

31. Prieto L, Alonso J, Lamarca R. Classical test theory versus Rasch analysis for quality of life questionnaire reduction. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2003;1:27–. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-1-27 PMC194220. 12952544

32. Hirneiss C. The impact of a better-seeing eye and a worse-seeing eye on vision-related quality of life. Clin Ophthalmol. 2014;8:1703–9. Epub 2014/09/13. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S64200 25214763; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4159393.

33. Ross CE, Van Willigen M. Education and the Subjective Quality of Life. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 1997;38(3):275–97. doi: 10.2307/2955371 9343965

34. Gorter R, Fox J-P, Twisk JWR. Why item response theory should be used for longitudinal questionnaire data analysis in medical research. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2015;15:55. doi: 10.1186/s12874-015-0050-x PMC4520067. 26224012


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2019 Číslo 12