BJO

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
[Advanced]

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Add article to my folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lawrence, D J
Right arrow Articles by Stewart-Brown, S
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lawrence, D J
Right arrow Articles by Stewart-Brown, S
Br J Ophthalmol 1999;83:66-70 ( January )

Measuring the effectiveness of cataract surgery: the reliability and validity of a visual function outcomes instrument

D J Lawrence,a C Brogan,b L Benjamin,c D Pickard,a S Stewart-Brownd

a Department of Public Health, Buckinghamshire Health Authority, Aylesbury, HP19 3ET, b Directorate of Public Health, Anglia and Oxford Regional Office, NHS Executive, Milton Keynes MK14 6QP, c Department of Ophthalmology, Stoke Mandeville Hospital, Aylesbury, HP21 8AL, d Health Services Research Unit, University of Oxford, Institute of Health Sciences, Oxford OX3 7LF

Correspondence to: David Lawrence, Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow Health Authority, 1 Armstrong Way, Southall, London UB2 4SA.

Accepted for publication 31 July 1998

AIMS---To assess test-retest reliability and validity of the "TyPE" patient self assessed visual function questionnaire, as part of a study in two hospitals measuring the effectiveness of cataract surgery. The American TyPE questionnaire had minor adaptations made for use in Britain.
METHODS---Test-retest reliability was assessed on 63 out of 378 adult cataract surgery patients in the study, using Spearman correlation coefficients and kappa coefficients of agreement. "Construct" validity was evaluated by comparing the association between changes in visual function questionnaire scores after surgery, with patients' perception of change in visual function obtained by independent interview of 24 patients.
RESULTS---The TyPE questionnaire items showed very good test-retest reliability. Average Spearman and kappa coefficients for 39 patients from hospital 1 were 0.93 and 0.84 respectively. Spearman and kappa coefficients of 0.9 and 0.81 were obtained for those nine patients in hospital 2 where both the test and retest questionnaires were filled in by the same people. However, for the 15 patients from hospital 2, where the questionnaire was filled in by different people in the retest, reliability was less good: the Spearman coefficients were still high, average 0.72, but the kappa coefficients were poor, 0.27. Good construct validity was exhibited, with a correlation of 0.79 between change in distance vision score from the questionnaires and the independent interview.
CONCLUSIONS---The adapted TyPE questionnaire is both very reliable and has good construct validity. The kappa coefficient should be used wherever possible to evaluate reliability. The test-retest reliability and validity and practicability of other visual function questionnaires have not been assessed adequately, and further development should be carried out of all such questionnaires, so that they may be introduced into routine clinical care.

Keywords: reliability; validity; cataract outcomes; visual function; questionnaire


© 1999 by British Journal of Ophthalmology



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci.Home page
G. S. Zubenko, W. N. Zubenko, B. S. Maher, and N. S. Wolf
Reduced Age-Related Cataracts Among Elderly Persons Who Reach Age 90 With Preserved Cognition: A Biomarker of Successful Aging?
J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci., May 1, 2007; 62(5): 500 - 506.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
Terms and conditions relating to subscriptions purchased online  ¦  Website terms and conditions  ¦  Privacy policy
Copyright © 1999 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.