Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2006
Evaluation of cross-sectional and longitudinal construct validity of two vision-related quality of life questionnaires: the LVQOL and VCM1.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАВалидационное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
de Boer M R, Terwee C B, de Vet H C W, Moll A C, Völker-Dieben H J M, van Rens G H M B
Аннотация
The Low Vision Quality of Life (LVQOL) questionnaire and the Vision-related Quality of Life Core Measure (VCM1) are two of the many vision-related quality of life (QOL) questionnaires that have been developed in recent years. Although psychometric properties of the LVQOL and VCM1 compare well with other vision-related QOL questionnaires, construct and longitudinal validity have not been assessed (adequately). The purpose of this study was to examine the cross-sectional and longitudinal construct validity of these questionnaires by testing specific pre-specified hypotheses about the relations of these questionnaires with other measures. The percentage of hypotheses regarding the cross-sectional construct validity that were refuted for the LVQOL was 22% for the basic aspects of vision subscale, 50% for the mobility subscale, 39% for the adjustment subscale and 17% for the reading and fine work subscale. For the VCM1 this percentage was 57%. For the longitudinal construct validity the percentage of hypotheses that were refuted ranged from 33 to 75% for the LVQOL subscales and was 50% for the VCM1. In conclusion, cross-sectional construct validity was satisfactory for the LVQOL subscales, but seemed poor for the VCM1. In addition, the longitudinal validity of these scales was poor to moderate.