Publication: The Computer-Vision Symptom Scale (CVSS17): Development and Initial Validation
Loading...
Official URL
Full text at PDC
Publication Date
2014-07
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO)
Citations
Exportar
Abstract
Purpose.: To develop a questionnaire (in Spanish) to measure computer-related visual and ocular symptoms (CRVOS).
Methods.: A pilot questionnaire was created by consulting the literature, clinicians, and video display terminal (VDT) workers. The replies of 636 subjects completing the questionnaire were assessed using the Rasch model and conventional statistics to generate a new scale, designated the Computer-Vision Symptom Scale (CVSS17). Validity and reliability were determined by Rasch fit statistics, principal components analysis (PCA), person separation, differential item functioning (DIF), and item–person targeting. To assess construct validity, the CVSS17 was correlated with a Rasch-based visual discomfort scale (VDS) in 163 VDT workers, this group completed the CVSS17 twice in order to assess test-retest reliability (two-way single-measure intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] and their 95% confidence intervals, and the coefficient of repeatability [COR]).
Results.: The CVSS17 contains 17 items exploring 15 different symptoms. These items showed good reliability and internal consistency (mean square infit and outfit 0.88–1.17, eigenvalue for the first residual PCA component 1.37, person separation 2.85, and no DIF). Pearson's correlation with VDS scores was 0.60 (P < 0.001). Intraclass correlation coefficient for test–retest reliability was 0.849 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.800–0.887), and COR was 8.14.
Conclusions.: The Rasch-based linear-scale CVSS17 emerged as a useful tool to quantify CRVOS in computer workers.
PROPÓSITO. Desarrollar una escala para medir los síntomas visuales y oculares (CRVOS) asociados al uso de videoterminales (VDT) en el trabajo: La escala CVSS17. METODOS. Se desarrolló un cuestionario piloto siguiendo el procedimiento recomendado. 636 sujetos lo completaron, y se evaluaron sus respuestas según el modelo de Rasch y estadísticas convencionales para crear el CVSS17. La validez y fiabilidad fueron evaluados mediante el ajuste al modelo de Rasch, el análisis de componentes principales (PCA), el índice de separación para los sujetos, el ‘‘funcionamiento diferencial de los ítems’’ (DIF) y el ajuste entre la dificultad de los ítems y la habilidad de los sujetos. Para evaluar la validez de constructo, el CVSS17 se correlacionó con una escala de molestias visuales [VDS] en 163 usuarios de VDT, este grupo completó dos veces el CVSS17 para calcular la fiabilidad test-retest (coeficiente de correlación intraclase [ICC] con su intervalo de confianza del 95% y coeficiente de repetibilidad [COR]). RESULTADOS. Los 17 ítems del CVSS17 investigan 15 síntomas diferentes, han demostrado buena fiabilidad y consistencia interna (Infit y Outfit en el intervalo [0.88–1.17], el autovalor del primer contraste del análisis PCA de los resultados era 1,37, la separación para los sujetos era 2.85; y no había DIF). El coeficiente de correlación de Pearson con la VDS fue 0.60 (P <0.001). El ICC fue 0.849 (IC al 95%, 0.800–0.887) y el COR 8,14. CONCLUSIÓN . El CVSS17 es un instrumento basado en el modelo Rasch, que proporciona una escala lineal apropiada para medir el nivel de CRVOS en trabajadores usuarios de VDT.
PROPÓSITO. Desarrollar una escala para medir los síntomas visuales y oculares (CRVOS) asociados al uso de videoterminales (VDT) en el trabajo: La escala CVSS17. METODOS. Se desarrolló un cuestionario piloto siguiendo el procedimiento recomendado. 636 sujetos lo completaron, y se evaluaron sus respuestas según el modelo de Rasch y estadísticas convencionales para crear el CVSS17. La validez y fiabilidad fueron evaluados mediante el ajuste al modelo de Rasch, el análisis de componentes principales (PCA), el índice de separación para los sujetos, el ‘‘funcionamiento diferencial de los ítems’’ (DIF) y el ajuste entre la dificultad de los ítems y la habilidad de los sujetos. Para evaluar la validez de constructo, el CVSS17 se correlacionó con una escala de molestias visuales [VDS] en 163 usuarios de VDT, este grupo completó dos veces el CVSS17 para calcular la fiabilidad test-retest (coeficiente de correlación intraclase [ICC] con su intervalo de confianza del 95% y coeficiente de repetibilidad [COR]). RESULTADOS. Los 17 ítems del CVSS17 investigan 15 síntomas diferentes, han demostrado buena fiabilidad y consistencia interna (Infit y Outfit en el intervalo [0.88–1.17], el autovalor del primer contraste del análisis PCA de los resultados era 1,37, la separación para los sujetos era 2.85; y no había DIF). El coeficiente de correlación de Pearson con la VDS fue 0.60 (P <0.001). El ICC fue 0.849 (IC al 95%, 0.800–0.887) y el COR 8,14. CONCLUSIÓN . El CVSS17 es un instrumento basado en el modelo Rasch, que proporciona una escala lineal apropiada para medir el nivel de CRVOS en trabajadores usuarios de VDT.
Description
Artículo en libre acceso en la web del editor
Keywords
Citation
1. Blehm C Vishnu S Khattak A Mitra S Yee R. Computer vision syndrome: a review. Surv Ophthalmol . 2005; 50: 253–262.
2. Ostrovsky A Ribak J Pereg A Gaton D. Effects of job-related stress and burnout on asthenopia among high-tech workers. Ergonomics . 2012; 55: 854–862.
3. Portello J Rosenfield M Bababekova Y Estrada J Leon A. Computer-related visual symptoms in office workers. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt . 2012; 32: 375–382.
4. Sa E Ferreira Junior M Rocha L. Risk factors for computer visual syndrome (CVS) among operators of two call centers in São Paulo, Brazil. Work . 2012; 41 (suppl 1): 3568–3574.
5. Fenga C Di Pietro R Fenga P Astenopia e lavoro al VDT: nostra esperienza. G Ital Med Lav Erg . 2007; 29: 500–501.
6. Taino G Ferrari M Mestad I Fabris F Imbriani M. Astenopia e lavoro al videoterminale: studio di una popolazione di 191 lavoratori esposti al rischio mediante somministrazione di questionario anamnestico mirato e valutazione oftalmologica. G Ital Med Lav Erg . 2006; 28: 487–497.
7. Chu C Rosenfield M Portello J Benzoni J Collier J. A comparison of symptoms after viewing text on a computer screen and hardcopy. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt . 2011; 31: 29–32.
8. Rosenfield M Hue J Huang R Bababekova Y. The effects of induced oblique astigmatism on symptoms and reading performance while viewing a computer screen. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt . 2012; 32: 142–148.
9. Hayes J Sheedy J Stelmack J Heaney C. Computer use, symptoms, and quality of life. Optom Vis Sci . 2007; 84: 738–744.
10. Aakre B Doughty M. Are there differences between “visual symptoms” and specific ocular symptoms associated with video display terminal (VDT) use? Cont Lens Anterior Eye . 2007; 30: 174–182.
11. Helland M Horgen G Kvikstad T Garthus T Bruenech J Aarås A. Musculoskeletal, visual and psychosocial stress in VDT operators after moving to an ergonomically designed office landscape. Appl Ergon . 2008; 39: 284–295.
12. Pesudovs K Garamendi E Elliott D. The Quality of Life Impact of Refractive Correction (QIRC) Questionnaire: development and validation. Optom Vis Sci . 2004; 81: 769–777.
13. Pesudovs K Burr J Harley C Elliott D. The development, assessment, and selection of questionnaires. Optom Vis Sci . 2007; 84: 663–674.
14. Khadka J McAlinden C Pesudovs K. Quality assessment of ophthalmic questionnaires: review and recommendations. Optom Vis Sci . 2013; 90: 720–744.
15. McAlinden C Pesudovs K Moore J. The development of an instrument to measure quality of vision: the Quality of Vision (QoV) questionnaire. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci . 2010; 51: 5537–5545.
16. Borsting E Rouse M Mitchell G Validity and reliability of the revised convergence insufficiency symptom survey in children aged 9 to 18 years. Optom Vis Sci . 2003; 80: 832–838.
17. Rouse M Borsting E Mitchell G Validity and reliability of the revised convergence insufficiency symptom survey in adults. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt . 2004; 24: 384–390.
18. Massof R Fletcher D. Evaluation of the NEI visual functioning questionnaire as an interval measure of visual ability in low vision. Vision Res . 2001; 41: 397–413.
19. Massof R Rubin G. Visual function assessment questionnaires. Surv Ophthalmol . 2001; 45: 531–548.
20. Rattray J Jones M. Essential elements of questionnaire design and development. J Clin Nurs . 2007; 16: 234–243.
21. Streiner D Norman G. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003; 61–76.
22. Cole B Maddocks J Sharpe K. Effect of VDUs on the eyes: report of a 6-year epidemiological study. Optom Vis Sci . 1996; 73: 512–528.
23. Coren S Hakstian A. Color vision screening without the use of technical equipment: scale development and cross-validation. Percept Psychophys . 1988; 43: 115–120.
24. Coren S Hakstian A. Validation of a self-report inventory for the measurement of visual acuity. Int J Epidemiol . 1989; 18: 451–456.
25. Coren S Hakstian A. Screening for stereopsis without the use of technical equipment: scale development and cross-validation. Int J Epidemiol . 1996; 25: 146–151.
26. Feldman J Cooper J Reinstein F Swiatoca J. Asthenopia induced by computer-generated fusional vergence targets. Optom Vis Sci . 1992; 69: 710–716.
27. McKeon C Wick B Aday L Begley C. A case-comparison of intermittent exotropia and quality of life measurements. Optom Vis Sci . 1997; 74: 105–110.
28. Vertinsky T Forster B. Prevalence of eye strain among radiologists: influence of viewing variables on symptoms. Am J Roentgenol . 2005; 184: 681–686.
29. Snyder C Watson M Jackson J Cella D Halyard M. Mayo/FDA Patient-Reported Outcomes Consensus Meeting Group. Patient-reported outcome instrument selection: designing a measurement strategy. Value Health . 2007; 10 (suppl): 76–85.
30. Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo. Guía Técnica para la evaluación y prevención de los riesgos relativos a la utilización de equipos con Pantallas de visualización. Madrid: Ministerio de Trabajo e Inmigración; 2006; 11.
31. Broman A Munoz B West S Psychometric properties of the 25-item NEI-VFQ in a Hispanic population: Proyecto VER. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci . 2001; 42: 606–613.
32. Steinberg E Tielsch J Schein O The VF-14: an index of functional impairment in patients with cataract. Arch Ophthalmol . 1994; 112: 630–638.
33. Wu M Adams R. Applying the Rasch Model to Psycho-Social Measurement: A Practical Approach . Melbourne: Educational Measurement Solutions; 2007: 87.
34. Linacre J. Comparing “Partial Credit Models” (PCM) and “Rating Scale Models” (RSM). Rasch Measurement Transactions . 2000; 14: 768.
35. Lamoureux E Pallant J Pesudovs K Rees G Hassell J Keeffe J. The impact of vision impairment questionnaire: an assessment of its domain structure using confirmatory factor analysis and rasch analysis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci . 2007; 48: 1001–1006. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36. Linacre J. Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. J Appl Meas . 2002; 3: 85–106. [PubMed]
37. Bland J Altman D. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet . 1986; 1: 307–310. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38. Linacre J Wright BA. User's Guide to BIGSTEPS: Rasch Model Computer Programs . Chicago: Mesa Press; 1998; 89–91.
39. Garamendi E Pesudovs K Stevens M Elliott D. The Refractive Status and Vision Profile: evaluation of psychometric properties and comparison of Rasch and summated Likert-scaling. Vision Res . 2006; 46: 1375–1383.
40. Sheedy J Hayes J Engle J. Is all asthenopia the same? Optom Vis Sci . 2003; 80: 732–739. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
41. Brod M Tesler L Christensen T. Qualitative research and content validity: developing best practices based on science and experience. Qual Life Res . 2009; 18: 1263–1278.
42. Khadka J Gothwal V McAlinden C Lamoureux E Pesudovs K. The importance of rating scales in measuring patient-reported outcomes. Health Qual Life Outcomes . 2012; 10: 80.
43. Khadka J McAlinden C Gothwal V Lamoureux E Pesudovs K. The importance of rating scale design in the measurement of patient-reported outcomes using questionnaires or item banks. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci . 2012; 53: 4042–4054.
44. Bland J Altman D. Statistics notes: Cronbach's alpha. BMJ . 1997; 314: 572.
45. Linacre J. Winsteps® Rasch Measurement Computer Program User's Guide . Beaverton, Oregon: Winsteps.com; 2014.
46. Conlon E Lovegrove W Chekaluk E Pattison P. Measuring visual discomfort. Vis Cogn . 1999; 6: 637–666.
47. Borsting E Chase C Ridder WR. Measuring visual discomfort in college students. Optom Vis Sci . 2007; 84: 745–751.