We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Validation Studies
Visual Activities Questionnaire: assessment of subscale validity for cataract surgery outcomes.
Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery 2009 November
PURPOSE: To examine the psychometric properties of the Visual Activities Questionnaire (VAQ) and each of its subscales in a modern cataract population using Rasch analysis and if flawed, to revise the VAQ and create a valid measure that maximizes its measurement properties.
SETTING: Flinders Eye Centre, Flinders Medical Centre, Adelaide, Australia.
METHODS: Patients with cataract in 1 or both eyes drawn from the surgical waiting list were mailed the 33-item VAQ for self-administration. The following were examined for the entire questionnaire and each subscale: whether items measured a single construct (unidimensionality), the behavior of response categories, the ability to differentiate between patients' visual abilities (person separation), matching of item difficulty to participant ability (targeting), and whether items function similarly across subgroups of participants (differential item functioning [DIF]).
RESULTS: The VAQ was completed by 561 patients. Response categories were used as intended. The VAQ discriminated the visual ability of the population (person separation, 4.88) but had suboptimum targeting, misfitting items, significant multidimensionality, DIF, and 4 dysfunctional subscales. Elimination of items causing multidimensionality resulted in a reduced 13-item VAQ that met all validity criteria for satisfactory instrument performance. Only 1 valid subscale (peripheral vision) could be preserved in the 13-item VAQ.
CONCLUSIONS: The VAQ in its native form was multidimensional and contained subscales with poor psychometric properties. The revised unidimensional 13-item VAQ was more appropriate for application in cataract outcomes assessment. Ideally, more items should be included to improve the targeting of item difficulty to more able cataract patients.
SETTING: Flinders Eye Centre, Flinders Medical Centre, Adelaide, Australia.
METHODS: Patients with cataract in 1 or both eyes drawn from the surgical waiting list were mailed the 33-item VAQ for self-administration. The following were examined for the entire questionnaire and each subscale: whether items measured a single construct (unidimensionality), the behavior of response categories, the ability to differentiate between patients' visual abilities (person separation), matching of item difficulty to participant ability (targeting), and whether items function similarly across subgroups of participants (differential item functioning [DIF]).
RESULTS: The VAQ was completed by 561 patients. Response categories were used as intended. The VAQ discriminated the visual ability of the population (person separation, 4.88) but had suboptimum targeting, misfitting items, significant multidimensionality, DIF, and 4 dysfunctional subscales. Elimination of items causing multidimensionality resulted in a reduced 13-item VAQ that met all validity criteria for satisfactory instrument performance. Only 1 valid subscale (peripheral vision) could be preserved in the 13-item VAQ.
CONCLUSIONS: The VAQ in its native form was multidimensional and contained subscales with poor psychometric properties. The revised unidimensional 13-item VAQ was more appropriate for application in cataract outcomes assessment. Ideally, more items should be included to improve the targeting of item difficulty to more able cataract patients.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app