4.1 Article Proceedings Paper

Validity and reliability of the revised convergence insufficiency symptom survey in children aged 9 to 18 years

Journal

OPTOMETRY AND VISION SCIENCE
Volume 80, Issue 12, Pages 832-838

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00006324-200312000-00014

Keywords

convergence insufficiency; symptom survey; reliability; validity; children

Categories

Funding

  1. NEI NIH HHS [EY13164] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose. To assess the validity and reliability of the Convergence Insufficiency Symptom Survey (CISS) in children aged 9 to 18 years. The CISS is the primary outcome measure for a pilot study evaluating two different treatments for convergence insufficiency (CI). Methods. Children with Cl were given the CISS twice to assess reliability. CISS scores for the first administration were also compared with scores from children with normal binocular vision to assess the validity of the CISS. Results. Forty-seven children with Cl and 56 children with normal binocular vision participated in the study. Reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation and 95% limits of agreement for the children with Cl. For children with Cl, the intraclass correlation was 0.77 (95% confidence interval, 0.613 to 0.873), and the 95% limits of agreement were -10.2 to +12.1. The mean (+/-SD) CISS score was 30.8 +/- 8.4 for the children with Cl and 8.4 +/- 6.4 for the children with normal binocular vision. These means were significantly different (p < 0.0001). Good discrimination (sensitivity, 96%; specificity, 88%) was obtained using a score of greater than or equal to16. Conclusions. Children with Cl showed a significantly higher CISS symptom score than children with normal binocular vision. The results of the study indicate that the CISS is a valid and reliable instrument to use as an outcome measure for children aged 9 to 18 who are enrolled in clinical research concerning CI.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available