May 2004
Volume 45, Issue 13
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2004
Assessment of the Reliability of Self–Reported Dry Eye in Contact Lens Wearers: The Contact Lens Dry Eye Questionnaire (CLDEQ) Short–Form
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • J.J. Nichols
    College of Optometry, OSU, Columbus, OH
  • G.L. Mitchell
    College of Optometry, OSU, Columbus, OH
  • K.K. Nichols
    College of Optometry, OSU, Columbus, OH
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  J.J. Nichols, None; G.L. Mitchell, None; K.K. Nichols, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  National Eye Institute (K23 EY00393–03, K23 EY13766–02, and R24 EY014792–01)
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2004, Vol.45, 3453. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      J.J. Nichols, G.L. Mitchell, K.K. Nichols; Assessment of the Reliability of Self–Reported Dry Eye in Contact Lens Wearers: The Contact Lens Dry Eye Questionnaire (CLDEQ) Short–Form . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2004;45(13):3453.

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

Abstract: : Purpose: The CLDEQ short–form demonstrates good accuracy in predicting a doctor’s diagnosis of contact lens–related dry eye (Nichols and coworkers, Cornea 2003;21:469–475). The purpose of this report is to assess the reliability of patient–reported responses to questions on the CLDEQ short–form. Methods: The CLDEQ short–form was administered on two occasions to a sample of contact lens wearers. The survey consists of three main questions predictive of contact lens–related dry eye: dryness, light sensitivity, and a self–perception question. For dryness and light sensitivity, the subject is asked the frequency of the symptom, followed by the intensity of the symptom at three times throughout the day: morning, midday, and evening. The responses to the questions are scored by multiplying the frequency by the average intensity, which are then used in the algorithm from logistic regression: p (contact lens–related dry eye | score = self–diagnosis and dryness) = (1 + e 2.72–1.26(self–perception)– 0.18(dryness) + 0.10(photophobia))–1. The intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland–Altman method of 95% limits of agreement were used to assess the test–retest reliability of the composite scale. Results: One hundred eighteen contact lens wearers were included (median age = 26 years, 64% female). The mean difference between administrations was 39 ± 29 days. The intraclass correlation coefficient for the composite score was 0.69 (95% confidence interval = 0.55 to 0.78). The mean difference in the composite CLDEQ score between visits was –0.01 ± 0.73, which did not statistically differ from zero (t = –0.21, p = 0.83). The 95% limits of agreement were –1.44 to 1.41. Test–retest reliability was not related to the overall score (r = 0.12, p = 0.19), patient age (r = 0.01, p = 0.93), days between administrations (r = 0.11, p = 0.27), or gender (mean difference between genders = 0.19 ± 0.72, t= 1.53, p = 0.13). Conclusions: There is moderate self–reported test–retest reliability in patients with contact lens–related dry eye. The instrument should be administered on more than one occasion before disease classification can be made.

Keywords: contact lens • quality of life • lacrimal gland 

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.