April 2014
Volume 55, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   April 2014
Comparison of Rasch Methods for Responsiveness Analysis of the Adult Strabismus 20 Questionnaire
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • David A Leske
    Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
  • Sarah R Hatt
    Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
  • Laura Liebermann
    Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
  • Jonathan M Holmes
    Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships David Leske, None; Sarah Hatt, None; Laura Liebermann, None; Jonathan Holmes, None
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science April 2014, Vol.55, 4088. doi:https://doi.org/
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      David A Leske, Sarah R Hatt, Laura Liebermann, Jonathan M Holmes; Comparison of Rasch Methods for Responsiveness Analysis of the Adult Strabismus 20 Questionnaire. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2014;55(13):4088. doi: https://doi.org/.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: The Adult Strabismus 20 (AS-20) Questionnaire is a validated strabismus-specific health-related quality of life (HRQOL) instrument. Rasch analysis provides a linear measure of HRQOL, and for ease of use in the ophthalmic community, we have previously provided Rasch lookup tables online. We compared responsiveness of the AS-20 to surgical intervention when raw scores are converted to a Rasch measure using the lookup table vs a more rigorous method of performing a de novo stacked Rasch analysis.

Methods: 147 adult strabismus patients completed the AS-20 before surgery and again at their 6-week postoperative visit (median 7 weeks, range 4-21 weeks). AS-20 scores were analyzed using 2 methods 1) using Rasch lookup tables 2) using a de novo stacked Rasch analysis. Pre- and postoperative scores were compared for each of the 4 AS-20 domains (Self-Perception, Interactions, Reading Function, and General Function) by comparing distributions (signed-rank), effect sizes, and the proportion of subjects exceeding 95% limits of agreement (LOA) derived from a previous test-retest study (McNemar’s).

Results: Significant improvement was observed for all 4 AS-20 domains using lookup methods and stacked analysis (P<0.0001 for all comparisons). Effect sizes were comparable whether obtained using lookup tables or stacked analysis for all 4 AS-20 domains (0.60 vs 0.60 respectively for Self-Perception, 0.46 vs 0.51 for Interactions, 0.66 vs 0.72 for Reading Function, and 0.93 vs 0.88 for General Function). A higher proportion of subjects exceeded 95% LOAs using the lookup table vs stacked analysis for Interaction (30% vs 22%, P=0.02), Reading Function (39% vs 25%, P<0.0001), and General Function domains (39% vs 33%, P=0.04).

Conclusions: Similar effect sizes with each method supports using lookup tables to represent patient domain scores. An advantage of using lookup tables is the ability to quantify true change of a single patient using LOAs, which we found problematic when using a stacked analysis due to the open-ended nature of the logit scale. Using the AS-20 Rasch lookup table is a reasonable approach to analyzing response of the AS-20 to an intervention for adult strabismus and may avoid the need to perform a more rigorous de novo stacked Rasch analysis for every study, under the assumption that the population doesn’t markedly differ from that used to create the lookup table.

Keywords: 669 quality of life • 722 strabismus • 515 esotropia and exotropia  
×
×

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.

×