Psychometric properties of vision‐related quality of life questionnaires: a systematic review

Boer, Michiel R. de; Moll, Annette C.; Vet, Henrica C.W. de; Terwee, Caroline B.; Völker-Dieben, H. J. M.; Rens, Ger H. M. B. van

doi:10.1111/j.1475-1313.2004.00187.x

Cited by 233 publications

(191 citation statements)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

182

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There was no agreement among the reviews regarding which property was most important. Some considered content validity as most important [33][34][35], while others considered construct validity [36], responsiveness [29,36] or validity and reliability [37] as the most important measurement properties.…”

Section: Description Of Synthesizing Methodsological Quality and Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the methodological quality of systematic reviews of health status measurement instruments

et al. 2009

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A systematic review of measurement properties of health-status instruments is a tool for evaluating the quality of instruments. Our aim was to appraise the quality of the review process, to describe how authors assess the methodological quality of primary studies of measurement properties, and to describe how authors evaluate results of the studies. Literature searches were performed in three databases. One hundred and forty-eight reviews were included. The purpose of included reviews was to identify health status instruments used in an evaluative application and to report on the measurement properties of these instruments. Two independent reviewers selected the articles and extracted the data. Reviews were often of low quality: 22% of the reviews used one database, the search strategy was often poorly described, and in many cases it was not reported whether article selection (75%) and data extraction (71%) was done by two independent reviewers. In 11 reviews the methodological quality of the primary studies was evaluated for all measurement properties, and of these 11 reviews only 7 evaluated the results. Methods to evaluate the quality of the primary studies and the results differed widely. The poor quality of reviews hampers evidence-based selection of instruments. Guidelines for conducting and reporting systematic reviews of measurement properties should be developed.

show abstract

Section: Description Of Synthesizing Methodsological Quality and Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the methodological quality of systematic reviews of health status measurement instruments

et al. 2009

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this way IRT can contribute to the development of highly focused questionnaires that measure a single latent trait. Outcome measurement is also improved because IRT generates scores on an interval scale, unlike the classic Likert scales, 42 and it has been suggested to provide a more robust approach to the interpretation of rating scales. 134 The choice of items in any self-rated outcome measure is also of great importance -a positive effect will only be found if the items included are responsive to the treatment.…”

Section: B Future Research Agendamentioning

confidence: 99%

How Effective is Low Vision Service Provision? A Systematic Review

Binns

Bunce

Dickinson

et al. 2012

Survey of Ophthalmology

202

209

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the unspecified version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link Abstract.Visual impairment is a large and growing socioeconomic problem. Good evidence on rehabilitation outcomes is required to guide service development and improve the lives of people with sight loss.Of the 478 potentially relevant articles identified, only 58 studies met our liberal inclusion criteria, and of these only 7 were randomized controlled trials. Although the literature is sufficient to confirm that rehabilitation services result in improved clinical and functional ability outcomes, the effects on mood, vision-related quality of life (QoL) and health-related QoL are less clear. There are some good data on the performance of particular types of intervention, but almost no useful data about outcomes in children, those of working age and other minority groups. There were no reports on cost effectiveness. Overall, the number of well designed and adequately reported studies is pitifully small; visual rehabilitation research needs higher quality research. We highlight study design and reporting considerations and suggest a future research agenda.

show abstract

“…[1,51,[54][55]74] Do the items included in the test cover the entirety of those relevant to assessing a particular skill outcome measure? [44,63,89] Yes -face, logical and/or content validity results reported NR Construct…”

Section: Contentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tests Examining Skill Outcomes in Sport: A Systematic Review of Measurement Properties and Feasibility

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: A high level of participant skill is influential in determining the outcome of many sports. Thus, tests assessing skill outcomes in sport are commonly used by coaches and researchers to estimate an athlete's ability level, evaluate the effectiveness of interventions or for the purpose of talent identification.Objective: The objective of this systematic review was to examine the methodological quality, measurement properties and feasibility characteristics of sporting skill outcome tests reported in the peer-reviewed literature.Data Sources: A search of both SPORTDiscus and MEDLINE databases was undertaken.Study Selection: Studies that examined tests of sporting skill outcomes were reviewed. Only studies that investigated measurement properties of the test (reliability or validity) were included. A total of 22 studies met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods:A customised checklist of assessment criteria, based on previous research, was utilised for the purpose of this review.Results: A range of sports were the subject of the 22 studies included in this review, with considerations relating to methodological quality being generally well-addressed by authors.A range of methods and statistical procedures were used by researchers to determine the measurement properties of their skill outcome tests. The majority (95%) of the reviewed studies investigated test-retest reliability, and where relevant, inter and intra-rater reliability was also determined. Content validity was examined in 68% of the studies, with most tests investigating multiple skill domains relevant to the sport. Only 18% of studies assessed all three reviewed forms of validity (content, construct and criterion) with just 14% investigating iii Tests examining skill outcomes in sport the predictive validity of the test. Test responsiveness was reported in only 9% of studies, whilst feasibility received varying levels of attention. Limitations:In organised sport, further tests may exist which have not been investigated in this review. This could be due to such tests firstly, not being published in the peer-review literature and secondly, not having their measurement properties (i.e. reliability or validity) examined formally. Conclusions:Of the 22 studies included in this review, items relating to test methodological quality were on the whole, well addressed. Test-retest reliability was determined in all but one of the reviewed studies, whilst most studies investigated at least two aspects of validity (i.e. content, construct or criterion-related validity). Few studies examined predictive validity or responsiveness. While feasibility was addressed in over half of the studies, practicality and test limitations were rarely addressed. Consideration of study quality, measurement properties and feasibility components assessed in this review can assist future researchers when developing or modifying tests of sporting skill outcomes.

show abstract

Psychometric properties of vision‐related quality of life questionnaires: a systematic review

Cited by 233 publications

References 69 publications

Evaluation of the methodological quality of systematic reviews of health status measurement instruments

Evaluation of the methodological quality of systematic reviews of health status measurement instruments

How Effective is Low Vision Service Provision? A Systematic Review

Tests Examining Skill Outcomes in Sport: A Systematic Review of Measurement Properties and Feasibility

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About