Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Singapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, The Academia, 20 College Road, Level 6, Singapore, 169856, Singapore.
Qual Life Res. 2020 Mar;29(3):765-774. doi: 10.1007/s11136-019-02354-y. Epub 2019 Nov 9.
To compare the results from a simulated computerized adaptive test (CAT) for the 28-item Impact of Vision Impairment (IVI) questionnaire and the original paper-pencil version in terms of efficiency (main outcome), defined as percentage item reduction.
Using paper-pencil IVI data from 832 participants across the spectrum of vision impairment, item calibrations of the 28-item IVI instrument and its associated 20-item vision-specific functioning (VSF) and 8-item emotional well-being (EWB) subscales were generated with Rasch analysis. Based on these calibrations, CAT simulations were conducted on 1000 cases, with 'high' and 'moderate' precision stopping rules (standard error of measurement [SEM] 0.387 and 0.521, respectively). We examined the average number of items needed to satisfy the stopping rules and the corresponding percentage item reduction, level of agreement between person measures estimated from the full IVI item bank and from the CAT simulations, and item exposure rates (IER).
For the overall IVI-CAT, 5 or 9.7 items were required, on average, to obtain moderate or high precision estimates of vision-related quality of life, corresponding to 82.1 and 65.4% item reductions compared to the paper-pencil IVI. Agreement was high between the person measures generated from the full IVI item bank and the IVI-CAT for both the high precision simulation (mean bias, - 0.004 logits; 95% LOA - 0.594 to 0.587) and moderate precision simulation (mean bias, 0.014 logits; 95% LOA - 0.828 to 0.855). The IER for the IVI-CAT in the moderate precision simulation was skewed, with six EWB items used > 40% of the time.
Compared to the paper-pencil IVI instrument, the IVI-CATs required fewer items without loss of measurement precision, making them potentially attractive outcome instruments for implementation into clinical trials, healthcare, and research. Final versions of the IVI-CATs are available.
比较 28 项视觉障碍影响问卷(IVI)模拟计算机自适应测试(CAT)和原始纸笔版的结果,效率(主要结果)定义为项目减少的百分比。
使用 832 名视力障碍患者的纸笔 IVI 数据,使用 Rasch 分析生成 28 项 IVI 仪器及其相关的 20 项视觉特定功能(VSF)和 8 项情绪健康(EWB)分量表的项目校准。基于这些校准,对 1000 例进行 CAT 模拟,使用“高”和“中”精度停止规则(测量标准误差[SEM]分别为 0.387 和 0.521)。我们检查了满足停止规则所需的平均项目数和相应的项目减少百分比、从完整 IVI 项目库和 CAT 模拟中估计的个人测量值之间的一致性,以及项目曝光率(IER)。
对于整体 IVI-CAT,平均需要 5 个或 9.7 个项目,以获得中度或高度精确的视觉相关生活质量估计值,与纸笔 IVI 相比,对应于 82.1%和 65.4%的项目减少。对于高精度模拟(平均偏差,-0.004 对数;95%置信区间为-0.594 至 0.587)和中精度模拟(平均偏差,0.014 对数;95%置信区间为-0.828 至 0.855),从完整 IVI 项目库生成的个人测量值和 IVI-CAT 之间的一致性很高。在中精度模拟中,IVI-CAT 的 IER 呈偏态分布,6 个 EWB 项目的使用时间超过 40%。
与纸笔 IVI 仪器相比,IVI-CAT 所需的项目更少,而不会损失测量精度,使其成为临床试验、医疗保健和研究中潜在的有吸引力的结果工具。IVI-CAT 的最终版本可用。