Premium
The Impact of Cataract Surgery questionnaire: re‐evaluation using Rasch analysis
Author(s) -
Gothwal Vijaya K.,
Wright Thomas A.,
Lamoureux Ecosse L.,
Pesudovs Konrad
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
acta ophthalmologica
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.534
H-Index - 87
eISSN - 1755-3768
pISSN - 1755-375X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1755-3768.2009.01733.x
Subject(s) - rasch model , cataract surgery , medicine , population , separation (statistics) , construct validity , physical therapy , psychology , optometry , psychometrics , clinical psychology , surgery , statistics , developmental psychology , mathematics , environmental health
. Purpose: The Impact of Cataract Surgery (ICS) questionnaire was designed to assess cataract surgery outcomes. The aim of this study was to describe the psychometric properties of the ICS questionnaire using the Rasch model in a cataract population. Methods: Ninety‐one patients waiting to undergo cataract surgery in the first or second eye at the Flinders Medical Centre, Adelaide, South Australia self‐administered the four‐item ICS questionnaire. Rasch analysis was performed to assess behaviour of response categories, ability to differentiate between participants’ visual abilities (person separation; minimum acceptable 2.0), if items measure a single underlying construct [i.e. unidimensionality assessed by fit statistics and further by principal components analysis (PCA)] and matching of item difficulty to participant ability (targeting; ideal < 0.5 logits). Adequate person separation was defined as basic requirement for a measure, failing which further assessment such as PCA was not performed. Results: The four‐item ICS questionnaire did not meet the required measurement properties (person separation zero). Response categories did not behave as intended, requiring the collapsing of categories for one item (read ordinary newspaper‐size print). One item misfit (estimating distance) indicating that it was not measuring the same construct as other items. However, person separation failed to improve following the deletion of this item. Targeting was −0.46 logits, indicating that the item difficulty was well suited to the visual abilities of the participants. Conclusion: In its present form, the ICS is unsuitable for visual disability assessment in patients awaiting cataract surgery. Other, better visual function questionnaires are available and preferred.