HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (5) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Misajon, R. Articles by Keeffe, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Misajon, R. Articles by Keeffe, J.

Vision and Quality of Life: The Development of a Utility Measure

¹From the Department of Ophthalmology, and the ²Vision Cooperative Research Center, University of Melbourne, East Melbourne, Australia; the ³Department of Psychiatry, The Australian Centre for Posttraumatic Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Heidelberg, Australia; and ⁴Centre for Health Economics, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.

PURPOSE. To identify the content for a vision and quality of life–related utility measure (Vision Quality of Life Index [VisQoL]) for the economic evaluation of eye care and rehabilitation programs.

METHODS. Focus groups of the visually impaired elicited key concepts. Based on these and previous research, 33 items were generated. These were administered to visually impaired adults (n = 70) and a representative sample of unimpaired adults (n = 86). The item bank was reduced through examination of item properties, exploratory factor (EFA), item response theory (IRT), and structural equation modeling (SEM) analyses. The resultant model was confirmed through administration to a second sample of participants.

RESULTS. Focus group themes included physical well-being, social well-being, independence, self-actualization, emotional well-being, and planning and organization. Poorly performing items were eliminated on basic psychometric properties, including failure to discriminate. Next, EFA loadings were used to select items. Twelve items survived. To minimize redundancy, IRT analysis and SEM reduced the VisQoL item pool to six items (Cronbach = 0.88). To confirm this model, these items were then administered to an additional 218 participants; 35% with a vision impairment. A pooled SEM analysis showed the model to have very good fit properties (root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.000). A preliminary test of the model against visual acuity showed a significant monotonic relationship.

CONCLUSIONS. The short 6-item VisQoL has excellent psychometric properties as a simple summative instrument. It can be used in its present state as a condition-specific outcome measure for the evaluation of healthcare interventions for the visually impaired. The descriptive model is also suitable for generating utility values for the economic evaluation of vision-related programs and services.