PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Robert W Massof

Publications and source records attributed to Robert W Massof.

15 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Measuring outcomes of vision rehabilitation with the Veterans Affairs Low Vision Visual Functioning Questionnaire.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the sensitivity to change, in patients who undergo vision rehabilitation, of the Veteran Affairs (VA) Low Vision Visual Functioning Questionnaire (LV VFQ-48), which was designed to measure the difficulty visually impaired persons have in performing daily activities and to evaluate vision rehabilitation outcomes. METHODS: Before and after rehabilitation, the VA LV VFQ-48 was administered by telephone interview to subjects from five sites in the VA and private sector. Visual acuity of these subjects ranged from near normal to total blindness. RESULTS: The VA LV VFQ exhibited significant differential item functioning (DIF) for 7 of 48 items (two mobility tasks, four reading tasks, and one distance-vision task). However, the DIF was small relative to baseline changes in item difficulty for all items. Therefore, the data were reanalyzed with the constraint that item difficulties do not change with rehabilitation, which assigns all changes to the person measure. Subjects in the inpatient Blind Rehabilitation Center (BRC) program showed the largest changes in person measures after vision rehabilitation (effect size = 1.9; t-test P < 0.0001). The subjects in the outpatient programs exhibited smaller changes in person measures after rehabilitation (effect size = 0.29; t-test P < 0.01). There was no significant change in person measures for the control group (test-retest before rehabilitation). CONCLUSIONS: In addition to being a valid and reliable measure of visual ability, the VA LV VFQ-48 is a sensitive measure of changes that occur in visual ability as a result of vision rehabilitation. Patients' self-reports of the difficulty they experience performing daily activities measured with this instrument can be used to compute a single number, the person measure that can serve as an outcome measure in clinical studies. The VA LV VFQ-48 can be used to compare programs that offer different levels of intervention and serve patients across the continuum of vision loss.

Activities of Daily Living↗
PubMed2005

Visual disability variables. I: the importance and difficulty of activity goals for a sample of low-vision patients.

OBJECTIVE: To test the validity and reliability of latent trait measures estimated from ratings by low-vision patients of the importance and difficulty of selected activity goals. DESIGN: Validation of a telephone-administered functional assessment instrument using Rasch analysis of self-assessment ratings. SETTING: Telephone interviews of respondents in their homes. Participants Consecutive series of 600 outpatients with low vision. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Ratings of the importance and difficulty of achieving 41 activity goals. Person and item traits were measured with the Andrich rating scale model. Measurement validity and reliability were tested statistically by comparing response patterns and distributions with measurement model expectations. RESULTS: Patients could distinguish only 3 categories of importance and 4 categories of difficulty. The distributions of person and item measure fit statistics were consistent with 2 unidimensional constructs: value of independence estimated from importance ratings and visual ability estimated from difficulty ratings. However, 8 of 41 activity goals were poor estimators of value of independence and 7 of 41 activity goals were poor estimators of visual ability. Person measure distributions could be divided into 3 statistically distinct strata for estimates from both importance ratings and difficulty ratings. Item measure distributions could be divided into 21 strata for estimates from importance ratings and 7 strata for estimates from difficulty ratings. CONCLUSIONS: The 2 variables that define visual disability-value of independence and visual ability-are valid constructs that can be estimated accurately and reliably from patient ratings of the importance and difficulty of activity goals.

Activities of Daily Living↗
PubMed2005

Visual disability variables. II: The difficulty of tasks for a sample of low-vision patients.

OBJECTIVES: To test the validity and reliability of measures of visual ability and to evaluate the relation between measurements made at the task level and measurements made at the goal level of a hierarchical model for visual disability. DESIGN: Validation of a telephone-administered functional assessment instrument using Rasch analysis on self-assessment ratings. SETTING: Telephone interviews of respondents in their homes. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive series of 600 outpatients with low vision. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Ordinal ratings of the difficulty in performing a subset of 337 tasks. Measures of the visual ability of each patient and the required visual ability to perform each task were made using the Andrich rating scale model. Measurement validity and reliability were tested statistically by comparing response patterns and distributions to measurement model expectations. RESULTS: Results were consistent with a single visual ability construct. Patients' visual ability estimated from task difficulty ratings agreed with estimates from goal difficulty ratings ( r =.74); the difficulty of individual goals was equal to the weighted average of the difficulties of subsidiary tasks ( r =.79). However, conclusions from the Rasch analysis were not confirmed by principal components analysis of item residuals, which indicated that visual ability had a 2-dimensional structure, with 1 factor related to mobility and the other related to reading. Factor analysis on person measures estimated from subsets of functionally grouped items confirmed the 2-dimensional structure of visual ability. CONCLUSIONS: Our study results confirm the hierarchical structure of the Activity Breakdown Structure model and show how the individualized Activity Inventory can produce measures of limitations in functional vision.

Activities of Daily Living↗
PubMed2005

Application of stochastic measurement models to visual function rating scale questionnaires.

PURPOSE: To test hypotheses that low vision patient responses to visual function rating scale questionnaires conform to an additive conjoint structure and that the Likert score is a sufficient statistic for the latent patient trait; to compare results for two competing stochastic measurement models; and to determine if different questionnaires measure the same construct in low vision patients. METHODS: Visual function rating scale questionnaires were administered to 284 low vision subjects by telephone. Each subject was administered two of four questionnaires: ADVS, NEI VFQ-25 plus supplement, expanded VAQ, and VF-14. RESULTS: Data were analyzed with the Muraki item response model and the Andrich measurement model. The estimates of latent person, item, and response threshold measures from the two models are linearly related. The Muraki model produced a better overall fit to the item response data, the Andrich model produced a better fit to the average ratings for each person and item. Fit statistics for the Andrich model were proportional to the item-dependent discrimination parameter in the Muraki model. The ADVS was the most accurate measure and the NEI VFQ was the least. Reliability was similar for all four instruments. Person measures for each pair of instruments were linearly related indicating that all four instruments measured the same construct. The person measure estimate from the Andrich model is monotonic with the average rating. That relationship suggests a transformation of the Likert score that can correct the floor and ceiling effects in rating scale data. CONCLUSIONS: Patient responses to all four questionnaires conform to varying degrees to an additive conjoint structure. The Likert score is a sufficient statistic for the ADVS and the VAQ, but not for the NEI VFQ or VF-14. All four instruments measure the same construct in the low vision population, but they differ in measurement accuracy and precision.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Measuring the severity of stress urinary incontinence using the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire.

AIMS: Questionnaires, including the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire (IIQ), have been used to assess the severity of urinary incontinence in clinical trials. However, the summed score derived from the IIQ does not have any inherent clinical meaning. Also, a summed score does not have interval properties, complicating the interpretation of changes in severity. The purpose of this study is to test the hypothesis that incontinence-related disability is a measurable variable and that the IIQ can measure that variable accurately. METHODS: We used Rasch analysis, a logistic regression technique, to estimate an interval scale of incontinence severity. Rasch analysis is based on the mathematical assumption that each subject's response to any given item is a function of (a) the individual's inherent level of disability and (b) the inherent difficulty of that item. RESULTS: Twenty-seven women with urodynamic stress urinary incontinence (USUI) completed the IIQ. Using Rasch analysis, we found that women with USUI had the most difficulty engaging in "physical recreational activities" and the least difficulty participating in "relationship with family." We also assessed the ability of the IIQ to discriminate between individuals with respect to disease severity. We found that most of the items in the IIQ are useful for discriminating incontinence severity among women with mild or moderate incontinence, but very few IIQ items distinguish among women with severe incontinence. CONCLUSIONS: Our results have important implications for clinical trials using the IIQ: among women treated for severe incontinence, the standard IIQ summed score will underestimate the magnitude of any change in incontinence severity.

Aged↗
PubMed2004

Likert and Guttman scaling of visual function rating scale questionnaires.

PURPOSE: To test the assumptions underlying Likert scoring of visual function questionnaires. METHODS: Questionnaires were administered to 284 low-vision subjects by telephone. Each subject was administered two of four questionnaires: ADVS, NEI VFQ-25 plus supplement, expanded VAQ, and VF-14. RESULTS: Z-scores for cumulative frequency of using each rating category across subjects are not linear with rating category rank and items are not the same difficulty for any of the questionnaires. Guttmann coefficients of reproducibility ranged from 57% for the ADVS to 51% for the NEI VFQ-25. Cronbach alphas ranged from 0.92 for the VF-14 to 0.96 for the NEI VFQ; however, inter-item consistency coefficients ranged from 0.24 for the VAQ to 0.45 for the NEI VFQ. Likert scores were significantly correlated between instruments, ranging from 0.66 for NEI VFQ vs ADVS to 0.90 for the VF-14 vs. ADVS. CONCLUSIONS: The rating scales of all four questionnaires fail to satisfy Likert's assumptions. Also, ratings are probabilistic, rather than deterministic, which means that the Likert model is not valid for these questionnaires. However, Likert scores for all four instruments are intercorrelated, suggesting that they are monotonic with the latent subject trait distributed in the low vision sample.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Psychometric properties of the Veterans Affairs Low-Vision Visual Functioning Questionnaire.

PURPOSE: To describe psychometric properties of a self-report questionnaire, the Veterans Affairs (VA) Low-Vision Visual Functioning Questionnaire (LV VFQ-48), which was designed to measure the difficulty visually impaired persons have performing daily activities and to evaluate low-vision outcomes. METHODS: The VA LV VFQ-48 was administered by telephone interview to subjects with visual acuity ranging from near normal to total blindness at five sites in the VA and private sector. Rasch analysis with the Andrich rating scale model was applied to difficulty ratings from 367 subjects, to evaluate measurement properties of the instrument. RESULTS: High intercenter correlations for item measure estimates (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]=0.97) justified pooling the data from these sites. The person measure fit statistics (mean square residuals) confirm that the data fit the assumptions of the model. The item measure fit statistics indicate that responses to 19% of the items were confounded by factors other than visual ability. The separation reliabilities for pooled data (0.94 for persons and 0.98 for items) demonstrate that the estimated measures discriminate persons and items well along the visual ability dimension. ICCs for test-retest data (0.98 for items and 0.84 for persons) confirm temporal stability. Subjects used the rating categories in the same way at all five centers. Ratings of slight and moderate difficulty were used interchangeably, suggesting that the instrument could be modified to a 4-point scale including not difficult, slightly/moderately difficult, extremely difficult, and impossible. Fifty additional subjects were administered the questionnaire with a 4-point scale to confirm that the scale was used in the same way when there were four rather than five difficulty ratings. CONCLUSIONS: The VA LV VFQ-48 is valid and reliable and has the range and precision necessary to measure visual ability of low-vision patients with moderate to severe vision loss across diverse clinical settings.

Activities of Daily Living↗
PubMed2004

Is there a standard of care for eccentric viewing training?

A study was conducted to determine the current Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) standard of practice for eccentric viewing (EV) training. EV training is the process of teaching patients to realign the visual image away from a diseased foveal/macular region onto healthier retina. Optometrists and Visual Skills Instructors at all VA blind rehabilitation centers (BRCs) and VICTORS (vision impairment centers to optimize remaining sight) programs were asked to rate preference for EV prescription criteria, evaluation, and training techniques. Responses were received from 70% of BRCs and 67% of VICTORS. The respondents reported that all programs include EV training. The average minutes of training per patient varied from 20 minutes to nearly 24 hours, with instructors within a single center varying by as much as two orders of magnitude. Routinely, 82% of optometrists prescribe EV training, yet no consensus was found among these practitioners as to the criteria for selecting the best EV area. The results of this survey reveal an inconsistent standard of practice across VA centers and demonstrate the need for prospective studies of the efficacy, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of EV training.

Humans↗
PubMed2004

Use of Rasch person-item map in exploratory data analysis: a clinical perspective.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) includes visual impairment in the 10 most prevalent causes of disability in America. As rehabilitation programs have the potential to restore independence and improve the quality of life for affected persons, NIH research priorities include evaluating their effectiveness. This paper demonstrates a clinical perspective on the use of the Rasch person-item map to evaluate the range and precision of a new vision function questionnaire in early analysis (prior to full sample). A self-report questionnaire was developed to measure the difficulty that persons with different levels of vision loss have performing daily activities. This 48-item Veterans Affairs Low-Vision Visual Functioning Questionnaire (VA LV VFQ-48) was administered to 117 low-vision patients. Preliminary analysis indicates that the questionnaire items are applicable to persons of differing abilities. The Rasch person-item map demonstrates that the field-test version of the VA LV VFQ-48 has good range and is well centered with respect to the person measure distribution. Construct validity and reliability are also demonstrated.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

A model of the prevalence and incidence of low vision and blindness among adults in the U.S.

Population-based vision screening studies of the prevalence rate of low vision and blindness in the U.S. are reviewed to evaluate the sources of disagreement among studies. The major reasons that studies disagree on prevalence rate estimates are differences in best-corrected visual acuity criteria for low vision and differences in the age range of the oldest age category. When corrections are made for these differences, the results of all prevalence rate studies, except the Mud Creek Valley Study, fit the same prevalence rate vs. age function. The greater prevalence rate of low vision and blindness for each age category that was observed in the Mud Creek Valley Study can be attributed to the higher prevalence rate of cataract associated with a paucity of health care services in the Mud Creek Valley population. The time-derivative of the prevalence rate vs. age function fit to the data provided an estimate of the annual incidence rate of low vision and blindness vs. age. The estimated annual incidence agreed with estimates from unpublished 8-year incidence data of the Baltimore Eye Survey. The incidence rate of low vision and blindness for Americans aged 40 to 60 years is higher among blacks than among whites. For Americans greater than age 60 years, the incidence rate for whites exceeds that for blacks. This observation probably reflects the different natural histories of glaucoma, a leading cause of low vision and blindness among black Americans, and age-related macular degeneration, a leading cause of low vision and blindness among white Americans. Using the age-dependent models of prevalence rate of low vision and blindness for white and black populations, an estimated 1.5 million Americans over age 45 years have a best-corrected visual acuity in the better eye that is < or = 20/70. Based on the incidence rate estimates, approximately 240,000 new cases of low vision and blindness occur each year. With the aging of the U.S. population, that number is expected to double over the next 25 years.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

The measurement of vision disability.

The American Medical Association's (AMA) visual efficiency scale, a vision disability metric based on visual impairment measurements, was adopted in 1925. That scale was based on a 30-year history of theoretical models in vision economics, a misinterpretation of Snellen notation for visual acuity, and an erroneous application of Weber's psychophysical law. The AMA visual efficiency scale survived uncontested for 75 years. In 2001, the AMA adopted a new vision disability scale based on logarithmic transformations of visual acuity and visual field diameter. Like the earlier visual efficiency scale, the new scale is theoretical-it is not supported by any data that speak to the relationship between vision disability and visual impairments. Attempts to measure vision disability date to the early 1980s with the development of self-assessment visual function rating scale questionnaires. Nearly all of the questionnaires developed over the last 20 years use Likert scales, but use them incorrectly. The development of a vision disability metric based on Likert scaling parallels the historical development of other forms of measurement. A tutorial review of psychometrics-classical test theory, item response theory, and Rasch analysis-shows how vision disability measurement scales can be estimated from Likert-type visual function rating scales. We conclude that preliminary data relating measures of vision disability to measures of visual acuity and visual fields support the new AMA vision disability scale.

Algorithms↗
PubMed2002

Grating visual acuity using the preferential-looking method in elderly nursing home residents.

PURPOSE: To assess the performance of two approaches to visual acuity testing in a group of nursing home residents with cognitive impairment. The study was a cross-sectional comparison of the effectiveness of two tests of visual acuity. METHODS: Nursing home residents participating in a clinical trial were tested with both recognition acuity charts and grating acuity cards (Teller) by masked observers. RESULTS: Of the nursing home residents (n = 656) who participated in the study, 86% could respond to visual acuity testing in at least one eye. Eighty-four percent were testable using Teller cards versus 73% who were testable by Early-Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) charts or Lea symbol charts. Forty-one percent of individuals with MiniMental Status Examination (MMSE) scores lower than 10 were testable by recognition acuity, whereas 61% were testable with grating acuity cards. Grating acuity correlated well with recognition acuity (R = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.75-0.98, intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]). The correlation was slightly lower in individuals with decreased MMSE scores. Although grating acuity was one line better than recognition acuity on average and median acuities were the same, 24% of individuals had results that differed by three or more lines. CONCLUSIONS: Teller acuity cards can effectively test the vision in cognitively impaired individuals who are not testable by conventional means. Grating acuity results correlated well with those of recognition acuity, although differences of three or more lines were not uncommon. Wider use of grating acuity testing allows a more complete assessment of visual function in the cognitively impaired elderly.

Aged↗
PubMed2002

Measuring low-vision rehabilitation outcomes with the NEI VFQ-25.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the sensitivity of the National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire-25 (NEI VFQ-25) to change in visual abilities after low-vision rehabilitation in two different Veterans Administration (VA) low-vision programs METHODS: Seventy-seven legally blind veterans from the Blind Rehabilitation Center (BRC) at Hines VA Hospital and 51 partially sighted veterans from the Visual Impairment Center to Optimize Remaining Sight (VICTORS) program at the Chicago Health Care Network, West Side Division, were administered the NEI VFQ-25 plus supplement in interview format at admission and discharge. Instructions for administration were modified to have study participants answer all the questions as if they were wearing glasses or contact lenses or were using low-vision devices. Interval measures of person ability and item difficulty were estimated from the patients' responses to 34 of the 39 items on the VFQ-25 plus supplement before and after rehabilitation, by the polytomous rating scale measurement model of Wright and Masters. RESULTS: In VICTORS patients, item order by difficulty before rehabilitation agreed with item order for BRC patients. Visual ability scales are used similarly by different patients with different degrees of low vision. Based on prerehabilitation person measure distributions, VICTORS patients were less disabled, as would be predicted by visual acuity, than were BRC patients. After rehabilitation, estimated item difficulty for 4 of the 34 items decreased significantly in both BRC and VICTORS patients. CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrates that the NEI VFQ-25 plus supplement can be used to measure the effects of low-vision rehabilitation; however, only 7 of the 34 items tested are sensitive to change after rehabilitation. Targeted activities, such as reading ordinary print, small print, and street signs are easier to perform for graduates of both programs after rehabilitation. The patients' visual ability also shows improvement in both BRC and VICTORS. Improvement in visual ability is independent of change in difficulty of targeted items. Although this was not a controlled clinical trial, the decrease in difficulty of targeted items may reflect the use of low-vision aids and training to make tasks easier. The change in visual ability may reflect positive outcomes of rehabilitation or may be the consequence of patients' overestimates of their functional ability at the time of discharge.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

A self-assessment instrument designed for measuring independent mobility in RP patients: generalizability to glaucoma patients.

PURPOSE: To determine whether the patient-based assessment of difficulty in mobility, developed and validated in a group of patients with retinitis pigmentosa (RP), is valid for measuring perceived visual ability for independent mobility in patients with glaucoma. METHODS: A mobility questionnaire that had previously been developed was administered to 83 patient-volunteers who had various amounts of visual impairment caused by glaucoma. Each volunteer rated the perceived difficulty of walking independently in each of 35 mobility situations. A Rasch analysis of the ordinal difficulty ratings was used to estimate interval measures of perceived visual ability for independent mobility. RESULTS: The instrument showed good construct and content validity and high reliability scores. Criterion validity of the instrument was demonstrated by its ability to discriminate mobility-related behaviors such as fear of falling, asking for accompaniment, and believing their ability to travel independently is less than that of persons with normal vision. To make the perceived mobility scale comparable for the two diagnostic groups the questionnaire was restricted to those items whose difference in item-logit distributions was within +/-3 (18 items). Using the same instrument calibration, we compared the person measures between the patients with glaucoma and those with RP. Patients with glaucoma had, on average, higher perceived visual ability for independent mobility than those with RP. CONCLUSIONS: The instrument developed for patients with RP, to determine difficulty across a range of mobility situations, is a valid measure of perceived ability for independent mobility in patients with glaucoma.

Activities of Daily Living↗