Location of Repository

The Contact Lens Impact on Quality of Life (CLIQ) questionnaire: development and validation

By Konrad Pesudovs, Estibaliz Garamendi and David B. Elliott

Abstract

NoPURPOSE. To develop and validate a questionnaire for the measurement of the impact of contact lenses on quality of life (QoL): The Contact Lens Impact on Quality of Life (CLIQ) Questionnaire. METHODS. The questionnaire was developed and validated using conventional methods and Rasch analysis to assure content validity, repeatability, construct validity, and low respondent burden. Item identification and selection (647 items) were performed with an extensive literature review, professional advice, and lay focus groups. Item reduction used focus groups and data obtained from 161 subjects completing a 90-item pilot questionnaire. Validity and reliability, from data of 128 additional subjects, were assessed using Rasch analysis, intraclass correlation coefficient, and Bland-Altman limits of agreement. RESULTS. A 28-item CLIQ Questionnaire was developed and shown to have good validity and reliability by Rasch analysis statistics: real person separation, 2.02; model person separation, 2.17; reliability, 0.80; root mean square measurement error, 2.73; mean square ± SD infit, 1.01 ± 0.18; outfit, 1.01 ± 0.19. The items (mean score, 49.8 ± 4.9) were well targeted to the subjects (mean score, 51.2 ± 6.2) with a mean difference of 1.35 (scale range, 0-100) units. Test-retest intraclass correlation coefficient (0.86) and coefficient of repeatability (±8.00 units) demonstrated good repeatability. CONCLUSIONS. Rasch analysis and standard psychometric analyses demonstrated that the 28-item CLIQ Questionnaire is a valid and reliable measure of QoL in contact lens wearers. A scoring algorithm is provided for CLIQ Questionnaire users to convert raw scores into the Rasch analysis-derived linear person measures

Topics: Contact lens, Quality of life, Validation, Ophthalmology, Development, Questionnaire, Human, Instrumentation therapy
Year: 2009
OAI identifier: oai:bradscholars.brad.ac.uk:10454/2733
Provided by: Bradford Scholars

Suggested articles

Preview

Citations

  1. (2004). A comparison of the separation ratio and coefficient alpha in the creation of minimum item sets. Med Care. doi
  2. A model for contingency tables having an ordered response classification. doi
  3. (2006). A quality of life comparison of people wearing spectacles or contact lenses or having undergone refractive surgery. J Refract Surg.
  4. A rating scale formulation for ordered response categories. doi
  5. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. doi
  6. Acanthamoeba keratitis update-incidence, molecular epidemiology and new drugs for treatment. doi
  7. (2000). An optometric population is not the same as the general population. Optometry Pract.
  8. (2005). Application of stochastic measurement models to visual function rating scale questionnaires. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. doi
  9. (2001). Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates;
  10. Assessing the value of laser in situ keratomileusis by patient-reported outcomes using quality of life assessment. doi
  11. (2005). Changes in quality of life after laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg. doi
  12. (1996). Choice of response scale for health measurement: comparison of 4, 5 and 7-point scales and visual analog scale. J Epidemiol. doi
  13. (2002). Contact lens prescribing in the Australian states and territories 2001. Clin Exp Optom. doi
  14. (1997). Defining and applying the concept of quality of life. doi
  15. DEIDS: use of the dry eye questionnaire to measure symptoms of ocular irritation in patients with aqueous tear deficient dry eye. doi
  16. (1999). Designing response scales for crosscultural use in health care: data from the development of the UK WHOQOL. doi
  17. (2004). Development and validation of a multidimensional quality-of-life scale for myopia. Optom Vis Sci. doi
  18. (2004). Development of a questionnaire to assess subjective vision score in myopes seeking refractive surgery. J Refract Surg.
  19. (2002). Development of a scale to measure the psychosocial impact of assistive devices: lessons learned and the road ahead. Disabil Rehabil. doi
  20. (1992). Development of the ‘Activities of Daily Vision Scale’: a measure of visual functional status. Med Care. doi
  21. (2004). E-mail surveys assist investigation and response: a university conjunctivitis outbreak. Epidemiol Infect. doi
  22. Forms of vision correction: demographic factors in patient attitudes and perceptions. Eye Contact Lens. doi
  23. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. doi
  24. (1999). Investigating rating scale category utility.
  25. Measuring Health: A Review of Quality of life Measurement Scales. 2nd ed. Buckingham:
  26. Overnight corneal reshaping versus soft daily wear: a visual quality of life study (interim results). Eye Contact Lens. 2004;30:214–217;discussion 218. doi
  27. (1999). Preliminary tear film measurements of tolerant and non-tolerant contact lens wearers. Clin Exp Optom. doi
  28. (2006). Psychometric properties of vision-related quality of life questionnaires: a systematic review. doi
  29. (1997). Quality of Life and Mental Health Services. doi
  30. (1998). Quality of Life Assessment in Clinical Trials: Methods and Practice. doi
  31. (2006). Quality of life in myopia. Br
  32. (1997). Quality of Life.
  33. (2003). Research Society. Occupation Groupings: A Job Dictionary. London: The Market Research Society;
  34. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. doi
  35. (2004). Subjective symptom of eye dryness and lifestyle factors with corneal neovascularization in contact lens wearers. Eye Contact Lens. doi
  36. (2004). Sunglasses- and photochromic lens-wearing patterns in spectacle and/or contact lens-wearing individuals. Eye Contact Lens. doi
  37. The Activities of Daily Vision Scale for cataract surgery outcomes: re-evaluating validity with Rasch analysis. doi
  38. The comparison of overnight lens modalities (COLM) study. Eye Contact Lens. doi
  39. (2000). The measurement of patient-reported outcomes of refractive surgery: the refractive status and vision profile. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc.
  40. (2002). The measurement of vision disability. Optom Vis Sci.
  41. The performance of the contact lens dry eye questionnaire as a screening survey for contact lens-related dry eye. doi
  42. The performance of the refractive status and vision profile survey in a contact lens clinical trial. doi
  43. The predictability of retention and discontinuation of contact lenses.
  44. (2004). The Quality of Life Impact of Refractive Correction (QIRC) Questionnaire: development and validation. Optom Vis Sci. doi
  45. (1990). The Quality of Life: The Missing Measurement in Health Care. doi
  46. The refractive status and vision profile: a questionnaire to measure vision-related quality of life in persons with refractive error. doi
  47. (2006). The Refractive Status and Vision Profile: evaluation of psychometric properties and comparison of Rasch and summated Likert-scaling. Vision Res. doi
  48. The use of contact lenses to treat visually symptomatic congenital nystagmus. doi
  49. Ulcerative keratitis in contact lens wearers. Eye Contact Lens. doi
  50. (2002). validity, and applicability of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) for adults with multiple sclerosis. Disabil Rehabil. doi
  51. Vision-specific instruments for the assessment of health-related quality of life and visual functioning: a literature review. doi
  52. Vision-specific quality of life and modes of refractive error correction. Optom Vis Sci. doi
  53. (2001). Visual function assessment questionnaires. Surv Ophthalmol. doi
  54. (1995). What things are important in people’s lives?—a survey of the public’s judgements to inform scales of health related quality of life. Soc Sci Med. doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.