Multiplicative rating scales do not enable measurement of vision‐related quality of life

REFERENCES

• Fayers PM. Applying item response theory and computer adaptive testing: the challenges for health outcomes assessment. Qual Life Res 2007; 16 (Suppl 1): 187–194.
   Google Scholar
• Lin JH, Wang WC, Sheu CF, Lo SK, Hsueh IP, Hsieh CL. A Rasch analysis of a self‐perceived change in quality of life scale in patients with mild stroke. Qual Life Res 2005; 14: 2259–2263.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Revicki DA, Cella DF. Health status assessment for the twenty‐first century: item response theory, item banking and computer adaptive testing. Qual Life Res 1997; 6: 595–600.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Massof RW, Rubin GS. Visual function assessment questionnaires. Surv Ophthalmol 2001; 45: 531–548.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams LS, Weinberger M, Harris LE, Clark DO, Biller J. Development of a stroke‐specific quality of life scale. Stroke 1999; 30: 1362–1369.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright JG, Young NL. The patient‐specific index: asking patients what they want. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1997; 79: 974–983.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cella D. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy‐Anemia (FACT‐An) Scale: a new tool for the assessment of outcomes in cancer anemia and fatigue. Semin Hematol 1997; 34: 13–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang CH, Cella D, Clarke S, Heinemann AW, Von roenn JH, Harvey R. Should symptoms be scaled for intensity, frequency, or both? Palliat Support Care 2003; 1: 51–60.
   Google Scholar
• Haymes SA, Johnston AW, Heyes AD. A weighted version of the Melbourne Low‐Vision ADL Index: a measure of disability impact. Optom Vis Sci 2001; 78: 565–579.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marella M, Gothwal VK, Pesudovs K, Lamoureux E. Validation of the visual disability questionnaire (VDQ) in India. Optom Vis Sci 2009; 86: E826–E835.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Massof RW, Ahmadian L, Grover LL, Deremeik JT, Goldstein JE, Rainey C, Epstein C et al. The Activity Inventory: an adaptive visual function questionnaire. Optom Vis Sci 2007; 84: 763–774.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Massof RW, Hsu CT, Baker FH, Barnett GD, Park WL, Deremeik JT, Rainey C et al. Visual disability variables. I: the importance and difficulty of activity goals for a sample of low‐vision patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005; 86: 946–953.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prager TC, Chuang AZ, Slater CH, Glasser JH, Ruiz RS. The Houston Vision Assessment Test (HVAT): an assessment of validity. The Cataract Outcome Study Group. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2000; 7: 87–102.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Novich MR. The axioms and principal results of classical test theory. J Math Psychol 1966; 3: 1–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen MJ. Introduction to Measurement Theory. California: Brooks/Cole, 1979.
   Google Scholar
• Crocker L, Algina J. Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory. Forth Worth, Texas: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1986.
   Google Scholar
• Massof RW. The measurement of vision disability. Optom Vis Sci 2002; 79: 516–552.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hambleton RK, Swaminathan H, Rogers HJ. Fundamentals of Item Response Theory. Newbury Park: Sage, 1991.
   Google Scholar
• Towensend JT, Ashby FG. Measurement scales and statistics: the misconceptions misconceived. Psychol Bull 1984; 96: 394–401.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright BD, Linacre JM. Observations are always ordinal; measurements, however, must be interval. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1989; 70: 857–860.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pesudovs K, Noble BA. Improving subjective scaling of pain using Rasch analysis. J Pain 2005; 6: 630–636.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pesudovs K, Burr JM, Elliott DB. The development, assessment and selection of questionnaires. Optom Vis Sci 2007; 84: 664–675.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conrad KJ, Smith EV Jr. International conference on objective measurement: applications of Rasch analysis in health care. Med Care 2004; 42: I1–I6.
   Google Scholar
• Linacre JM. Investigating rating scale category utility. J Outcome Meas 1999; 3: 103–122.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kirkwood BJ, Pesudovs K, Latimer P, Coster DJ. The efficacy of a nurse‐led preoperative cataract assessment and postoperative care clinic. Med J Aust 2006; 184: 278–281.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubin GS, Bandeen‐roche K, Huang GH, Munoz B, Schein OD, Fried LP, West SK. The association of multiple visual impairments with self‐reported visual disability: SEE project. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2001; 42: 64–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elliott DB, Hurst MA, Weatherill J. Comparing clinical tests of visual function in cataract with the patient's perceived visual disability. Eye (Lond) 1990; 4: 712–717.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rasch G. Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests. Copenhagen, Denmark: Institute of Educational Research, 1960.
   Google Scholar
• Andrich DA. A rating scale formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika 1978; 43: 561–573.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linacre JM. WINSTEPS Rasch measurement computer program. Available at winsteps.com, 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Gothwal VK, Wright T, Lamoureux EL, Pesudovs K. Psychometric properties of visual functioning index using Rasch analysis. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2009, June 26. [Epub ahead of print.
   Google Scholar
• Gothwal VK, Wright TA, Lamoureux EL, Pesudovs K. Rasch analysis of the quality of life and vision function questionnaire. Optom Vis Sci 2009; 86: E836–E844.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haley SM, Ni P, Hambleton RK, Slavin MD, Jette AM. Computer adaptive testing improved accuracy and precision of scores over random item selection in a physical functioning item bank. J Clin Epidemiol 2006; 59: 1174–1182.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright BD, Stone MH. Best Test Design. Chicago, IL: MESA Press, 1979.
   Google Scholar
• Wright BD, Masters GN. Rating Scale Analysis. Chicago: MESA Press, 1982.
   Google Scholar
• Wright BD, Panchapakesan N. A procedure for sample‐free item analysis. Edu Psychol Meas 1969; 29: 23–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawthorne G, Densley K, Pallant JF, Mortimer D, Segal L. Deriving utility scores from the SF‐36 health instrument using Rasch analysis. Qual Life Res 2008; 17: 1183–1193.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrich D, De jong J, Sheridan B. Diagnostic opportunities with the Rasch model for ordered response categories. In: Rost J, Kangehiene R, eds. Application of Latent Trait and Latent Class Models in the Social Sciences, 1997. p 59–70.
   Google Scholar
• Tennant A, Mckenna SP, Hagell P. Application of Rasch analysis in the development and application of quality of life instruments. Value Health 2004; 7 (Suppl 1): S22–S26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bond TG, Fox CM. Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Linacre JM. Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. J Appl Meas 2002; 3: 85–106.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Linacre JM. Categorical misfit statistics. Rasch Meas Trans 1995; 9: 450–451.
   Google Scholar
• Linacre JM. Investigating rating scale category utility. J Outcome Meas 1999; 3: 103–122.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fisher WP. Reliability statistics. Rasch Meas Trans 1992; 6: 238.
   Google Scholar
• Wright BD. Reliability and separation. Rasch Meas Trans 1996; 8: 472.
   Google Scholar
• Pesudovs K, Garamendi E, Keeves JP, Elliott DB. The Activities of Daily Vision Scale for cataract surgery outcomes: re‐evaluating validity with Rasch analysis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003; 44: 2892–2899.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu W. Should total scores from a rating scale be used directly? Res Q Exerc Sport 1996; 67: 363–372.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psycho 1932; 140: 1–55.
   Google Scholar
• Lissitz RW, Green SB. Effect of the number of scale points in reliability: a Monte‐Carlo approach. J Appl Psychol 1975; 60: 10–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jenkins GD Jr, Taber TD. A Monte‐Carlo study of factors affecting three indices of composite scale reliability. J Appl Psychol 1977; 62: 392–398.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goggin M, Pesudovs K. Assessment of surgically induced astigmatism: toward an international standard II. J Cataract Refract Surg 1998; 24: 1552–1553.
   Google Scholar
• Pesudovs K, Coster DJ. Cataract surgery reduces subjective visual disability. Aust N Z J Ophthalmol 1997; 25 (Suppl 1): S3–S5.
   Google Scholar
• Lamoureux EL, Hooper CY, Lim L, Pallant JF, Hunt N, Keeffe JE, Guymer RH. Impact of cataract surgery on quality of life in patients with early age‐related macular degeneration. Optom Vis Sci 2007; 84: 683–688.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gothwal VK, Wright TA, Lamoureux EL, Pesudovs K. Rasch Analysis of Visual Function and Quality of Life Questionnaires. Optom Vis Sci 2009; 86: 1160–1168.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gothwal VK, Wright TA, Lamoureux EL, Pesudovs K. Cataract symptom scale: clarifying measurement. Br J Ophthalmol 2009; 93: 1652–1656.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gothwal VK, Wright T, Lamoureux EL, Pesudovs K. Activities of Daily Vision Scale: What do the subscales measure? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010; 51: 694–700.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gothwal VK, Wright TA, Lamoureux EL, Pesudovs K. Using Rasch analysis to revisit the validity of the Cataract TyPE Spec instrument for measuring cataract surgery outcomes. J Cataract Refract Surg 2009; 35: 1509–1517.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bradley C, Todd C, Gorton T, Symonds E, Martin A, Plowright R. The development of an individualized questionnaire measure of perceived impact of diabetes on quality of life: the ADDQoL. Qual Life Res 1999; 8: 79–91.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brose LS, Bradley C. Psychometric development of the individualized retinopathy‐dependent quality of life questionnaire (RetDQoL). Value Health 2010; 13: 119–127.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell J, Wolffsohn JS, Woodcock A, Anderson SJ, Mcmillan CV, Ffytche T, Rubinstein M et al. Psychometric evaluation of the MacDQoL individualised measure of the impact of macular degeneration on quality of life. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2005; 3: 25.
   Google Scholar
• Lamoureux EL, Pallant JF, Pesudovs K, Hassell JB, Keeffe JE. The Impact of Vision Impairment Questionnaire: an evaluation of its measurement properties using Rasch analysis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006; 47: 4732–4741.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gothwal VK, Lovie‐kitchin JE, Nutheti R. The development of the LV Prasad‐Functional Vision Questionnaire: a measure of functional vision performance of visually impaired children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003; 44: 4131–4139.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pesudovs K, Garamendi E, Elliott DB. The Quality of Life Impact of Refractive Correction (QIRC) Questionnaire: development and validation. Optom Vis Sci 2004; 81: 769–777.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pesudovs K, Garamendi E, Elliott DB. The Contact Lens Impact on Quality of Life (CLIQ) Questionnaire: development and validation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006; 47: 2789–2796.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prieto L, Alonso J, Lamarca R. Classical Test Theory versus Rasch analysis for quality of life questionnaire reduction. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003; 1: 27.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lundstrom M, Pesudovs K. Catquest‐9SF patient outcomes questionnaire: nine‐item short‐form Rasch‐scaled revision of the Catquest questionnaire. J Cataract Refract Surg 2009; 35: 504–513.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar