September 2016
Volume 57, Issue 12
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   September 2016
Comparing the item measures of an Ultra-low vision (ULV) questionnaire with those of a ULV assessment toolkit.
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Olukemi Adeyemo
    Ophthalmology, Johns Hopkins Wilmer Eye Institute, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
  • Pamela E Jeter
    Ophthalmology, Johns Hopkins Wilmer Eye Institute, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
  • Duane Geruschat
    Ophthalmology, Johns Hopkins Wilmer Eye Institute, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
  • Gislin Dagnelie
    Ophthalmology, Johns Hopkins Wilmer Eye Institute, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Olukemi Adeyemo, None; Pamela Jeter, None; Duane Geruschat, None; Gislin Dagnelie, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  R01 EY01220
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science September 2016, Vol.57, 1979. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to Subscribers Only
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Olukemi Adeyemo, Pamela E Jeter, Duane Geruschat, Gislin Dagnelie; Comparing the item measures of an Ultra-low vision (ULV) questionnaire with those of a ULV assessment toolkit.. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2016;57(12):1979.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : To compare the order and distribution of the item measures in an ultra-low vision (ULV) questionnaire with those of the corresponding tasks in a ULV assessment toolkit.

Methods : The item measures of a 23-item ULV questionnaire (ULV-23) measured in an 80-subject sample were calculated using Winsteps©. The item measures for the 17-item ULV assessment toolkit (ULV-ADL) measured in a separate 24-subject sample were calculated from the percent correct scores of the activities. The order and the item-measure distribution of the 17 items common to both instruments were compared. Some of the tasks on the ULV-ADL were modified to allow more replicable scenarios to be generated, this is expected to be reflected in minor shifts in item ranking.

Results : The item-measure distribution of the ULV questionnaire items ranged from -2.50 (less difficult to complete) to +2.01(more difficult to complete). The item measures for the ULV assessment toolkit ranged from -2.26 to +1.81. Both distribution have good centering of the measures. 23.5% of the ULV-ADL items were ranked less difficult than the corresponding ULV-23 items, while 53% of the items were ranked as more difficult. The correlation of the two item measure distributions is 0.78. Expected slight shifts in ranking of items were observed but the distribution of item measures of the ULV-ADL were still within the same range as that of the ULV-23; showing the overall rank order of items in both instruments are comparable.

Conclusions : Despite being collected in different ULV subject samples, and despite necessary modifications of the ULV-23 items to create the corresponding ULV-ADL tasks, the distributions are highly correlated. This confirms that the ULV-23 may act as a proxy to the ULV-ADL, and vice versa. This may be particularly useful in low vision clinics and clinical trials with ULV participants, where time constraints may not allow administration of both instruments.

This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2016 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Seattle, Wash., May 1-5, 2016.

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×