Psychometric Properties of the Keratoconus Outcomes Research Questionnaire: A Save Sight Keratoconus Registry Study.
Journal
Cornea
ISSN: 1536-4798
Titre abrégé: Cornea
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8216186
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2020
Mar 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
22
10
2019
medline:
19
12
2020
entrez:
22
10
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Keratoconus Outcomes Research Questionnaire (KORQ) in patients enrolled in the Save Sight Keratoconus Registry. A cross-sectional study was conducted utilizing prospectively collected web-based registry data. The psychometric properties of the KORQ were assessed using both classical test theory and Rasch analysis. Andrich group rating scale variant of the Rasch analysis was conducted using Winsteps software, Version 3.92.1. The KORQ was completed by 189 patients with keratoconus (men, 67.7%; white, 69.8%; median age 29 years; better eye median values: visual acuity, 75 LogMAR letters; Kmax, 51.3 D; K2, 46.5 D; thinnest pachymetry, 485 μm). Cronbach's α for the "Activity Limitation" and "Symptoms" scales were 0.95 and 0.91, respectively, with both scales free from floor or ceiling effects. On Rasch analysis, the category thresholds were ordered and well-spaced for both scales. The Activity Limitation scale had excellent psychometric properties including person separation index (3.6), unidimensionality (variance explained, 65.4%), fit statistics (<1.3 MnSq), and measurement range (3.6 logits). Similarly, the Symptoms scale had satisfactory psychometric properties including person separation index (2.5), unidimensionality (variance explained, 54.3%), fit statistics (<1.30 MnSq except for 1 item), and measurement range (2.0 logits). Both scales were well targeted to the population and free of differential item functioning. The KORQ is a psychometrically robust patient-reported outcome measure for evaluating quality of life parameters in keratoconus. It enables routine collection and monitoring of meaningful patient-reported outcome data in clinical settings, including registries.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31634230
doi: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000002169
pii: 00003226-202003000-00006
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
303-310Références
Rabinowitz YS. Keratoconus. Surv Ophthalmol. 1998;42:297–319.
Tan JC, Nguyen V, Fenwick E, et al. Vision-related quality-of-life in keratoconus: a save sight keratoconus registry study. Cornea. 2019;38:600–605.
Downie LE, Lindsay RG. Contact lens management of keratoconus. Clin Exp Optom. 2015;98:299–311.
Kandel H, Khadka J, Goggin M, et al. Impact of refractive error on quality of life: a qualitative study. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2017;45:677–688.
Kandel H, Khadka J, Shrestha M, et al. Uncorrected and corrected refractive error experiences of Nepalese adults: a qualitative study. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2018;25:147–161.
Khadka J, Schoneveld PG, Pesudovs K. Development of a keratoconus-specific questionnaire using Rasch analysis. Optom Vis Sci. 2017;94:395–403.
Pesudovs K, Burr JM, Harley C, et al. The development, assessment, and selection of questionnaires. Optom Vis Sci. 2007;84:663–674.
Khadka J, McAlinden C, Pesudovs K. Quality assessment of ophthalmic questionnaires: review and recommendations. Optom Vis Sci. 2013;90:720–744.
Ahern S, Ruseckaite R, Ackerman IN. Collecting patient-reported outcome measures. Intern Med J. 2017;47:1454–1457.
Lamoureux E, Pesudovs K. Vision-specific quality-of-life research: a need to improve the quality. Am J Ophthalmol. 2011;151:195–197.e2.
Rasch G. Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests. Copenhagen: Danmarks Paedagogiske Institut; 1960.
Bond T, Fox CM. Basic principles of the Rasch model. In: Bond T, Fox CM, eds. Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge; 2015:36–59.
Linacre JM. Rasch model estimation: further topics. J Appl Meas. 2004;5:95–110.
Grimby G, Tennant A, Tesio L. The use of raw scores from ordinal scales: time to end malpractice? J Rehabil Med. 2012;44:97–98.
Bond T, Fox CM. Rasch modeling applied: rating scale design. In: Bond T, Fox CM, eds. Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge; 2015:245–264.
Latham K, Baranian M, Timmis MA, et al. Relative difficulties of daily living tasks with retinitis pigmentosa. Optom Vis Sci. 2017;94:317–328.
Bond T, Fox CM. Measurement using Likert scales. In: Bond T, Fox CM, eds. Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge; 2015:112–139.
Yan Z, Stone G, Betltyukova S. Making measures, setting standards, and Rasch regression. In: Bond T, Fox CM, eds. Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge; 2015:187–225.
Zanon C, Hutz CS, Yoo HH, et al. An application of item response theory to psychological test development. Psicol Reflex Crit. 2016;29:18.
Khadka J, Fenwick EK, Lamoureux EL, et al. Item banking enables stand-alone measurement of driving ability. Optom Vis Sci. 2016;93:1502–1512.
Fenwick EK, Khadka J, Pesudovs K, et al. Diabetic retinopathy and macular edema quality-of-life item banks: development and initial evaluation using computerized adaptive testing. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2017;58:6379–6387.
Bond T, Fox CM. Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge; 2015.
Pesudovs K, Wright TA, Gothwal VK. Visual disability assessment: valid measurement of activity limitation and mobility in cataract patients. Br J Ophthalmol. 2010;94:777–781.
Bond T, Fox CM. Rasch model requirements: model fit and unidimensionality. In: Bond T, Fox CM, eds. Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge; 2015:265–295.
Linacre J. Winsteps® (Version 3.92.0) Rasch Measurement Computer Program User's Guide. Beaverton, Oregon: Winsteps.com; 2016.
Khadka J, McAlinden C, Gothwal VK, et al. The importance of rating scale design in the measurement of patient-reported outcomes using questionnaires or item banks. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53:4042–4054.
Latham K, Baranian M, Timmis M, et al. Emotional health of people with visual impairment caused by retinitis pigmentosa. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0145866.
Pesudovs K, Schoneveld P, Coster D. The keratoconus outcomes research questionnaire (KORQ). Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48:1841.
Rotenstein LS, Huckman RS, Wagle NW. Making patients and doctors happier—the potential of patient-reported outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:1309–1312.
Kandel H, Khadka J, Goggin M, et al. Patient-reported outcomes for assessment of quality-of-life in refractive error: a systematic review. Optom Vis Sci. 2017;94:1102–1119.
Kandel H, Khadka J, Lundström M, et al. Questionnaires for measuring refractive surgery outcomes. J Refract Surg. 2017;33:416–424.
Kandel H, Khadka J, Pesudovs K. Intensive blood-pressure treatment and patient-reported outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:2096–2097.
Lamoureux EL, Pallant JF, Pesudovs K, et al. The impact of vision impairment questionnaire: an evaluation of its measurement properties using Rasch analysis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47:4732–4741.