Subjective Assessments of Lighting Quality: A Measurement Review

Figures & data

Table 1. Characteristics of existing lighting quality surveys.^a

						Lighting characteristics
Survey	Number of questions	Other areas?	Response type	Time frame	Scale properties reported?	Comfort	Performance	Glare	Artificial light	Natural light	Windows	Brightness	Reflections	Distribution	Flicker	Control	Task lighting	Color	Shading	View	Overall satisfaction
Office Lighting Survey (Eklund and Boyce 1996)	10	No	Agree/disagree three-point rating scale	LT	Selected	x		P				x	x	x	x			x			x
Lighting Conditions Survey (IEA 1999)	37	Yes	Mixed (rating scales, multiple choice, free-text)	LT	No			F	x	x	x	x	x	x			x	x		x	x
National Research Council (NRC) Canada Lighting Quality Scale (Veitch and Newsham 2000)	10	No	Five-point rating scale	CC	Yes		x	P, L, S					x								x
IEA retrofit monitoring user assessment survey (IEA 2016)	36	Yes	Mixed, (rating scale and free-text)	LT & CC	No			F	x	x	x	x			x	x		x	x	x
Satisfaction with Environmental Features Veitch et al. (2007)	18	Yes	Seven-point rating scale	CC	Yes			S				x	x							x

^aP = presence, L = location, S = severity, LT = long-term, CC = current conditions.

Table 2. Items used to assess glare severity in experimental settings.

Source	Question details	Examples of subsequent use
De Boer (1967)	Nine-point rating scale, cues at odd numbers: 1 = unbearable, 3 = disturbing, 5 = just acceptable, 7 = satisfactory, 9 = just noticeable	Bullough et al. (2008); Balk and Tyrrell (2011)
Osterhaus and Bailey (1992)	Exact question wording not always reported 4-point rating scale: imperceptible, noticeable, disturbing, intolerable Definitions quantifying the amount of time individuals could work with glare present often provided	Christoffersen and Wienold (2004); Wienold and Christoffersen (2006); Jakubiec and Reinhart (2015); Karlsen et al. (2015); Rodriguez et al. (2015)
Iwata et al. (1992)	Exact question wording not always reported Four-point response scale: just perceptible, just acceptable, just uncomfortable, just intolerable	Kent,  Altomonte et al. (2017); Tuaycharoen and Tregenza (2007; with additional scale points); Velds (2002; with behavioural definitions and a “no glare” response)
Van Den Wymelenberg and Iancini (2014)	Visual comfort measured using the question: “This is a visually comfortable environment for the intended work” Seven-point rating scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree)	Van Den Wymelenberg and Inanici (2016); Mahić et al. (2017)

Eklund NH, Boyce PR 1996. The development of a reliable, valid, and simple office lighting survey. J. Illum. Eng. Soc. 25:25

 Google Scholar

International Energy Agency. 1999. Post occupancy evaluation of daylight in buildings. Galve (Sweden): Centre for Built Environment.

 Google Scholar

Veitch JA, Newsham GR. 2000. Exercised control, lighting choices, and energy use: an office simulation experiment. J Environ Psychol. 20:219–37.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

International Energy Agency. 2016. Monitoring protocol for lighting and daylighting retrofits. Stuttgart (Germany): Fraunhofer-Institut für Bauphysik.

 Google Scholar

Veitch JA, Charles KE, Farley KMJ, Newsham GR. 2007. A model of satisfaction with open-plan office conditions: COPE field findings. J Environ Psychol. 27:177–89. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.04.002

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

De Boer JB. 1967. Visual perception in road traffic and the field of vision of the motorist. In Public Lighting.  Edited by JB de Boer. Eindhoven (The Netherlands): Philips Technical Library.

 Google Scholar

Bullough JD, Brons JA, Qi R, Rea MS. 2008. Predicting discomfort glare from outdoor lighting installations. Light Res Technol. 40:225–42.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Balk S, Tyrrell R. 2011. The Accuracy of Drivers’ Judgments of the Effects of Headlight Glare: Are We Really Blinded by the Light?. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design, June 27-30, Olympic Valley — Lake Tahoe, California. Iowa City, IA: Public Policy Center, University of Iowa, 2011:510–517.

 Google Scholar

Osterhaus W, Bailey IL 1992. Large area glare sources and their effect on discomfort and visual performance at computer work stations. In: Proceedings of the 1992 IEEE Industry Applications Society Annual Meeting, 4-9 October. Houston, Texas.

 Google Scholar

Christoffersen J, Wienold J 2004. ECCO-build Report ECCO-DBUR-0303-01 Monitoring Procedure for assessment of user reaction to glare. October:1–70.

 Google Scholar

Wienold J, Christoffersen J. 2006. Evaluation methods and development of a new glare prediction model for daylight environments with the use of CCD cameras. Energy Build. 38:743–57. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2006.03.017

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jakubiec JA, Reinhart CF. 2015. A concept for predicting occupants’ long-term visual comfort within daylit spaces. Leukos. 2724:1–18. doi:10.1080/15502724.2015.1090880

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Karlsen L, Heiselberg P, Bryn I, Johra H. 2015. Verification of simple illuminance based measures for indication of discomfort glare from windows. Build Environ. 92:615–26. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.05.040

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rodriguez RG, Garretón JAY, Pattini AE. 2015. Glare and cognitive performance in screen work in the presence of sunlight. Light Res Technol. 1477153515577851. doi:10.1177/1477153515577851

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Iwata T, Shukuya M, Somekawa N, Kimura K. 1992. Experimental study on discomfort glare caused by windows. J Archit Plan Environ Eng. 432:21–33.

 Google Scholar

Kent MG, Fotios S, Altomonte S. 2017. Discomfort glare evaluation: the influence of anchor bias in luminance adjustments. Light Res Technol. 1–16. doi:10.1177/1477153517734280

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tuaycharoen N, Tregenza PR. 2007. View and discomfort glare from windows. Light Res Technol. 39:185–98. doi:10.1177/1365782807077193

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Velds M. 2002. User acceptance studies to evaluate discomfort glare in daylit rooms. Sol Energy. 73:95–103. doi:10.1016/S0038-092X(02)00037-3

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Van Den Wymelenberg K, Inanici M. 2014. A critical investigation of common lighting design metrics for predicting human visual comfort in offices with daylight. Leukos. 10:145–64. doi:10.1080/15502724.2014.881720

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Van Den Wymelenberg K, Inanici M. 2016. Evaluating a new suite of luminance-based design metrics for predicting human visual comfort in offices with daylight. Leukos. 12:113–38. doi:10.1080/15502724.2015.1062392

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mahić A, Galicinao K, Van Den Wymelenberg K. 2017. A pilot daylighting field study: testing the usefulness of laboratory-derived luminance-based metrics for building design and control. Build Environ. 113:78–91. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.11.024

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar