4.6 Article

Validation and Reliability of the VF-14 Questionnaire in a German Population

Journal

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
Volume 52, Issue 12, Pages 8919-8926

Publisher

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.11-7702

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE. To evaluate the validity, reliability, and measurement characteristics of the Visual Function 14 (VF-14) in a German sample using Rasch analysis. METHODS. This was a clinic-based, cross-sectional study with 184 patients with low vision recruited from an outpatient clinic at a German eye hospital. Participants underwent a clinical examination and completed the German VF-14 scale. The validity of the VF-14 scale was assessed using Rasch analysis. The main outcome measure was the overall functional score provided by the VF-14. RESULTS. After collapsing two response categories for items 13 and 14, the VF-14 scale satisfied fundamental criteria to achieve fit to the Rasch model, namely, ordered thresholds, the ability to distinguish between different strata of participant ability, absence of misfitting items, no evidence of unidimensionality, and no significant differential item functioning for key sociodemographic covariates. The VF-14 is able to discriminate between participants with different levels of vision impairment and across different cultural groups. CONCLUSIONS. The VF-14 is a valid, reliable, and unidimensional questionnaire for use in a German population. These findings contribute to the growing evidence base for second generation patient reported outcome measures in ophthalmology, and support the use of the German VF-14 in tertiary eye clinics in Germany to capture the impact of visual impairment on visual function from the patient's perspective and to inform low vision rehabilitation and interventions. (Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52:8919-8926) DOI:10.1167/iovs.11-7702

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available