The activities of daily vision scale for cataract surgery outcomes: Re-evaluating validity with Rasch analysis
The activities of daily vision scale for cataract surgery outcomes: Re-evaluating validity with Rasch analysis
复制标题
DOI：
10.1167/iovs.02-1075
复制
发表时间：
2003-07-01
影响因子：
4.4
通讯作者：
Elliott, DB
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Pesudovs, K;Garamendi, E;Elliott, DB
目的。日常视力活动量表 (ADVS) 已通过传统方法得到广泛验证。本研究采用Rasch分析进一步探讨ADVS的有效性并确定是否可以进行改进。方法。 43 名白内障患者接受了视力 (VA) 和对比敏感度 (CS) 测试并完成了 ADVS。对数据进行 Rasch 分析，并探索响应量表和项目减少的价值。通过确定与 VA 和 CS.RESULTS 的相关性，测试了缩短版本和原始 ADVS 的标准有效性。 ADVS 数据包含正态分布的项目以及具有天花板效应和空响应类别的项目。因此，项目受益于缩短响应范围，最佳长度是三个响应。项目难度对患者能力的针对性较差，因为许多白内障患者的能力足以使他们对许多活动没有困难。如果任务太简单或不符合 Rasch 模型确定的视觉障碍的整体概念，则项目将被删除。建立了一个简化的 ADVS 版本，该版本具有足够的精度、等效的标准有效性和改进的针对患者能力的项目难度的目标，但该版本仍然不理想。结论。尽管进行了仔细的传统验证，ADVS 数据仍然存在 Rasch 分析所暴露的不足之处。通过 Rasch 标度，特别是通过降低反应标度，ADVS 可以得到改善，但似乎需要额外的问题来适应能力更强的人，包括接受第二眼白内障手术的患者。仍然需要开发用于眼科结果研究的拉希量表视力障碍测量方法。 （投资眼科可见科学。2003 年；44：2892-2899）DOI：10.1167/iovs.02-1075。
PURPOSE. The Activities of Daily Vision Scale (ADVS) has been extensively validated by traditional methodology. In the current study, Rasch analysis was used to explore further the validity of the ADVS and to determine whether improvements could be made.METHODS. Forty-three patients with cataract underwent visual acuity (VA) and contrast sensitivity (CS) testing and completed the ADVS. The data were Rasch analyzed and the value of response scale and item reduction explored. A shortened version and the original ADVS were tested for criterion validity by determining correlations with VA and CS.RESULTS. The ADVS data contained normormally distributed items and items with ceiling effects and empty response categories. Therefore, items benefited from shortening the response scale, the optimum length being three responses. There was poor targeting of item difficulty to patient ability, because many patients with cataract were sufficiently able that they had no difficulty with many activities. Items were eliminated if the task was too easy or did not fit with the overall concept of visual disability determined by the Rasch model. A reduced ADVS version was established that had adequate precision, equivalent criterion validity, and improved targeting, of item difficulty to patient ability, but this version was still not ideal.CONCLUSIONS. Despite careful traditional validation, the ADVS data contained inadequacies exposed by Rasch analysis. Through Rasch scaling, particularly with response scale reduction, the ADVS can be improved, but additional questions seem to be needed to suit the more able, including patients undergoing second eye cataract surgery. There remains a need to develop Rasch-scaled measures of visual disability for use in ophthalmic outcomes research. (Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:2892-2899) DOI:10.1167/iovs.02-1075.