Papas E B, Schultz B L
Cornea and Contact Lens Research Unit, School of Optometry, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1997 Nov;17(6):492-8.
The repeatabilities of both the visual analogue scale (VAS) and numerical rating scale (NRS) as methods of assessing visual quality (VQ) were estimated by obtaining three replicated responses from each of a group of nine normal subjects who viewed a standardized scene under conditions of controlled refractive blur. In both cases, repeatability was highest in the absence of blur but fell markedly as increasing amounts of visual decrement were induced. Coefficients of reproducibility ranged from 4.1 to 36.0 for VASs; and from 1.2 to 34.9 for NRSs. Except where VQ was high, both types showed generally poor repeatability. When the data were used to compare the two methods, no consistent bias was found and agreement was good for high VQ levels. The NRS offers a reasonable alternative to the VAS as a method of assessing subjective VQ.
通过让一组九名正常受试者在控制屈光性模糊的条件下观看标准化场景,并从每个受试者获得三次重复反应,来评估视觉模拟量表(VAS)和数字评分量表(NRS)作为评估视觉质量(VQ)方法的重复性。在这两种情况下,无模糊时重复性最高,但随着视觉减退量的增加,重复性显著下降。VAS的再现性系数范围为4.1至36.0;NRS的再现性系数范围为1.2至34.9。除了VQ较高的情况外,两种类型的重复性总体上都较差。当使用这些数据比较这两种方法时,未发现一致的偏差,并且在高VQ水平下一致性良好。NRS作为评估主观VQ的方法,是VAS的合理替代方法。