The Refractive Status and Vision Profile: Evaluation of psychometric properties and comparison of Rasch and summated Likert-scaling

The psychometric properties of the Refractive Status and Vision Profile (RSVP) questionnaire were evaluated using Rasch analysis. Ninety-one myopic patients from a refractive surgery clinic and general optometric practice completed the RSVP. Rasch analysis of the RSVP ordinal data was performed to examine for unidimensionality and item reduction. The traditional Likert-scoring system was compared with a Rasch-scored RSVP and a reduced item Rasch-scored RSVP. Rasch analysis of the original RSVP showed poor targeting of item difficulty to patient quality of life, items with a ceiling effect and underutilized response categories. Combining the underutilized response scales and removal of redundant and misfitting items improved the internal consistency and targeting of the RSVP, and the reduced 20-item Rasch scored RSVP showed greater relative precision over standard Likert scoring in discriminating between the two subject groups. A Rasch scaled quality of life questionnaire is recommended for use in refractive outcomes research.

[1]  D. Streiner,et al.  Health Measurement Scales: A practical guide to thier development and use , 1989 .

[2]  J. M. Cortina,et al.  What Is Coefficient Alpha? An Examination of Theory and Applications , 1993 .

[3]  B. Ambati,et al.  Quality of vision and patient satisfaction after LASIK , 2004, Current opinion in ophthalmology.

[4]  G. Masters,et al.  Rating scale analysis , 1982 .

[5]  C. Terwee,et al.  Psychometric properties of vision‐related quality of life questionnaires: a systematic review , 2004, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[6]  J M Linacre,et al.  Investigating rating scale category utility. , 1999, Journal of outcome measurement.

[7]  Refractive status and vision profile survey in a contact lens trial. , 2002, Ophthalmology.

[8]  C. Mangione,et al.  Development of the National Eye Institute refractive error correction quality of life questionnaire: focus groups. , 2003, Ophthalmology.

[9]  Richard M. Smith.  Person Fit in the Rasch Model , 1986 .

[10]  E F Cook,et al.  Development of the Activities of Daily Vision Scale: A Measure of Visual Functional Status , 1992, Medical care.

[11]  D. Altman,et al.  STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT , 1986, The Lancet.

[12]  A. Beckett,et al.  AKUFO AND IBARAPA. , 1965, Lancet.

[13]  C. Velozo,et al.  A Comparison of the Separation Ratio and Coefficient &agr; in the Creation of Minimum Item Sets , 2004, Medical care.

[14]  Karla Zadnik,et al.  Patient satisfaction and visual symptoms after laser in situ keratomileusis. , 2003, Ophthalmology.

[15]  Konrad Pesudovs,et al.  The Quality of Life Impact of Refractive Correction (QIRC) Questionnaire: Development and Validation , 2004, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[16]  C. McHorney,et al.  Evaluation of the MOS SF-36 Physical Functioning Scale (PF-10): II. Comparison of relative precision using Likert and Rasch scoring methods. , 1997, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[17]  R. Massof.  Likert and Guttman scaling of visual function rating scale questionnaires , 2004, Ophthalmic epidemiology.

[18]  K. Pesudovs,et al.  Changes in quality of life after laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia , 2005, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[19]  G. Mitchell,et al.  Reliability and validity of refractive error-specific quality-of-life instruments. , 2003, Archives of ophthalmology.

[20]  R. Harper,et al.  Quality of life in myopia , 2000, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[21]  Anastasia E. Raczek,et al.  Comparison of Rasch and summated rating scales constructed from SF-36 physical functioning items in seven countries: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. , 1998, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[22]  W. Fisher,et al.  Equating the MOS SF36 and the LSU HSI Physical Functioning Scales. , 1997, Journal of outcome measurement.

[23]  Ron D Hays,et al.  Psychometric properties of the National Eye Institute-Refractive Error Quality of Life instrument. , 2003, Ophthalmology.

[24]  C. Velozo,et al.  The use of Rasch measurement to improve the Oswestry classification scheme. , 2002, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[25]  C. Meinert,et al.  The refractive status and vision profile: a questionnaire to measure vision-related quality of life in persons with refractive error. , 2000, Ophthalmology.

[26]  Jennifer P. Craig,et al.  Functional, psychological, and satisfaction outcomes of laser in situ keratomileusis for high myopia , 2000, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[27]  L. Rajmil.  Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use, 3rd ed , 2005 .

[28]  R. Likert.  “Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes, A” , 2022, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[29]  R. Hays,et al.  Responsiveness of the National Eye Institute Refractive Error Quality of Life instrument to surgical correction of refractive error. , 2003, Ophthalmology.

[30]  B. Spilker,et al.  Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials , 1996 .

[31]  O. Schein.  The measurement of patient-reported outcomes of refractive surgery: the refractive status and vision profile. , 2000, Transactions of the American Ophthalmological Society.

[32]  J. C. Hill.  An informal satisfaction survey of 200 patients after laser in situ keratomileusis. , 2002, Journal of refractive surgery.

[33]  Karen Draney,et al.  Objective measurement : theory into practice , 1992 .

[34]  W. Fisher.  The Rasch Debate: Validity and Revolution in Educational Measurement. , 1991 .

[35]  Ray Fitzpatrick,et al.  Comparing Alternative Rasch-Based Methods vs Raw Scores in Measuring Change in Health , 2004, Medical care.

[36]  K Bandeen-Roche,et al.  Functional status and quality of life measurement among ophthalmic patients. , 1994, Archives of ophthalmology.

[37]  S. Cassard,et al.  Patient outcomes of refractive surgery: The refractive status and vision profile , 2001, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[38]  D. Andrich.  A rating formulation for ordered response categories , 1978 .

[39]  Robert W. Massof,et al.  Evaluation of the NEI visual functioning questionnaire as an interval measure of visual ability in low vision , 2001, Vision Research.

[40]  J M Bland,et al.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement , 1986 .

[41]  Konrad Pesudovs,et al.  The Activities of Daily Vision Scale for cataract surgery outcomes: re-evaluating validity with Rasch analysis. , 2003, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[42]  G. Mitchell,et al.  The performance of the refractive status and vision profile survey in a contact lens clinical trial. , 2001, Ophthalmology.

[43]  B. Wright,et al.  Observations are always ordinal; measurements, however, must be interval. , 1989, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[44]  Robert F. DeVellis,et al.  Scale Development: Theory and Applications. , 1992 .

[45]  J. Fleiss,et al.  Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. , 1979, Psychological bulletin.

[46]  D. W. Murray,et al.  A comparison of Rasch with Likert scoring to discriminate between patients' evaluations of total hip replacement surgery , 2004, Quality of Life Research.

[47]  T Kohnen,et al.  Format for reporting refractive surgical data , 1998, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[48]  Robert W Massof,et al.  The Measurement of Vision Disability , 2002, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.