Display options
Share it on

Int J Ophthalmol. 2014 Feb 18;7(1):77-85. doi: 10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2014.01.14. eCollection 2014.

An enhanced functional ability questionnaire (faVIQ) to measure the impact of rehabilitation services on the visually impaired.

International journal of ophthalmology

James Stuart Wolffsohn, Jonathan Jackson, Olivia Anne Hunt, Charles Cottriall, Jennifer Lindsay, Richard Gilmour, Anne Sinclair, Robert Harper

Affiliations

  1. Aston University, Life and Health Sciences, Ophthalmic Research Group, Birmingham, B4 7ET, UK.
  2. Australian College of Optometry, Melbourne 3053, Australia ; Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast BT12 6BA, UK.
  3. Oxford Eye Hospital, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK.
  4. Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast BT12 6BA, UK.
  5. Altnagelvin Area Hospital, Londonderry BT47 6SB, UK.
  6. Low Vision Clinic, Fife Low Vision Centre for the Blind, Fife KY2 5EF, UK.
  7. Manchester Royal Eye Hospital and Manchester Academic and Health Science Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Greater Manchester M13 9WL, UK.

PMID: 24634868 PMCID: PMC3949463 DOI: 10.3980/j.issn.2222-3959.2014.01.14

Abstract

AIM: To develop a short, enhanced functional ability Quality of Vision (faVIQ) instrument based on previous questionnaires employing comprehensive modern statistical techniques to ensure the use of an appropriate response scale, items and scoring of the visual related difficulties experienced by patients with visual impairment.

METHODS: Items in current quality-of-life questionnaires for the visually impaired were refined by a multi-professional group and visually impaired focus groups. The resulting 76 items were completed by 293 visually impaired patients with stable vision on two occasions separated by a month. The faVIQ scores of 75 patients with no ocular pathology were compared to 75 age and gender matched patients with visual impairment.

RESULTS: Rasch analysis reduced the faVIQ items to 27. Correlation to standard visual metrics was moderate (r=0.32-0.46) and to the NEI-VFQ was 0.48. The faVIQ was able to clearly discriminate between age and gender matched populations with no ocular pathology and visual impairment with an index of 0.983 and 95% sensitivity and 95% specificity using a cut off of 29.

CONCLUSION: The faVIQ allows sensitive assessment of quality-of-life in the visually impaired and should support studies which evaluate the effectiveness of low vision rehabilitation services.

Keywords: functional ability; low vision; quality of life; sensitivity; specificity; visual impairment

References

  1. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2001 Feb;8(1):1-11 - PubMed
  2. Surv Ophthalmol. 2012 Jan-Feb;57(1):34-65 - PubMed
  3. Br J Ophthalmol. 2000 Apr;84(4):347-51 - PubMed
  4. Br J Ophthalmol. 1999 May;83(5):519-23 - PubMed
  5. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999 Sep;52(9):875-84 - PubMed
  6. Optom Vis Sci. 1998 May;75(5):349-73 - PubMed
  7. Optom Vis Sci. 2007 Aug;84(8):763-74 - PubMed
  8. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008 Sep;146(3):447-454 - PubMed
  9. Br J Ophthalmol. 1999 Jan;83(1):66-70 - PubMed
  10. Med Care. 1992 Dec;30(12):1111-26 - PubMed
  11. Med Care. 1992 Jun;30(6):473-83 - PubMed
  12. J Epidemiol. 1996 Dec;6(4):192-7 - PubMed
  13. Br J Ophthalmol. 1999 May;83(5):546-52 - PubMed
  14. Optom Vis Sci. 2008 Feb;85(2):112-21 - PubMed
  15. Br J Ophthalmol. 2011 Feb;95(2):178-84 - PubMed
  16. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2000 Jun;28(3):156-61 - PubMed
  17. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007 May;48(5):1976-82 - PubMed
  18. World Health Forum. 1996;17(4):354-6 - PubMed
  19. Arch Ophthalmol. 1994 May;112(5):630-8 - PubMed
  20. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000 Dec;130(6):793-802 - PubMed
  21. Br J Ophthalmol. 1998 Jun;82(6):617-24 - PubMed
  22. Med Care. 1981 Aug;19(8):787-805 - PubMed
  23. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001 May;42(6):1215-25 - PubMed
  24. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010 May;36(5):718-32 - PubMed
  25. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003 Sep;44(9):4131-9 - PubMed
  26. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002 Sep;43(9):2859-68 - PubMed
  27. Arch Ophthalmol. 2001 Jul;119(7):1050-8 - PubMed
  28. Optom Vis Sci. 1999 Apr;76(4):212-20 - PubMed
  29. Vision Res. 2001 Feb;41(3):397-413 - PubMed
  30. Med Care. 2004 Jan;42(1 Suppl):I17-24 - PubMed
  31. Curr Eye Res. 1998 May;17(5):506-11 - PubMed
  32. Ann Med. 2001 Jul;33(5):337-43 - PubMed
  33. Br J Ophthalmol. 1998 Jul;82(7):773-9 - PubMed
  34. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005 May;86(5):954-67 - PubMed
  35. Int J Rehabil Res. 1985;8(4):415-24 - PubMed
  36. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003 Jul;44(7):2892-9 - PubMed
  37. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 1998 Dec;5(4):185-210 - PubMed
  38. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2004 Jul;24(4):257-73 - PubMed
  39. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007 Mar;48(3):1001-6 - PubMed
  40. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1981 Apr;59(2):198-205 - PubMed
  41. Arch Ophthalmol. 1998 Nov;116(11):1496-504 - PubMed
  42. Optom Vis Sci. 1995 Oct;72(10):725-36 - PubMed
  43. Ophthalmology. 2003 Dec;110(12):2285-91 - PubMed
  44. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1999 Jul;25(7):989-94 - PubMed
  45. J Outcome Meas. 2000-2001;4(3):667-80 - PubMed
  46. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2002 Apr;43(4):927-35 - PubMed
  47. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999 Apr;40(5):865-77 - PubMed
  48. Vision Res. 2006 Apr;46(8-9):1375-83 - PubMed
  49. Ophthalmology. 1997 Apr;104(4):589-99 - PubMed
  50. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004 Nov;45(11):3919-28 - PubMed
  51. Surv Ophthalmol. 2001 May-Jun;45(6):531-48 - PubMed
  52. Br J Ophthalmol. 2000 Sep;84(9):1035-40 - PubMed
  53. Int J Rehabil Res. 1993 Sep;16(3):177-84 - PubMed

Publication Types