From: The importance of rating scales in measuring patient-reported outcomes
Questionnaire | Number ofquestions | Response options | Same rating scale usedfor all questions (Yes/No) | Attribute/s beingassessed |
---|---|---|---|---|
Visual Functioning index, VFI(Bernth-Petersen, 1981) | 11 | 2 or 3 | No | Difficulty, Severity†|
Activities of Daily Vision Scale,ADVS (Mangione et al. 1992) | 22 | 5 | No | Difficulty |
Visual Activities Questionnaire,VAQ (Sloane et al. 1992) | 33 | 5 | Yes | Frequency |
Cataract Symptom Score, CSS (Brenner et al., 1993; Curbow et al. 1993; Javitt et al., 1993) | 5 | 4 | Yes | Severity |
Visual Function Index-14, VF-14(Steinberg at al., 1994) | 14 | 5 | Yes | Difficulty |
Catquest (Lundstrom et al., 1997) | 24 | 2‡ or 4 | No | Difficulty, Frequency,Severity |
Visual Function and Quality ofLife, VF&QOL (Fletcheret al., 1997) | 25 | 4 | No | Difficulty, Global ratingof vision |
Quality of Life and VisualFunction, QOLVFQ (Cartaat al., 1998 ) | 17 | 3 | Yes | Difficulty |
Visual Disability Assessment, VDA(Pesudovs and Coster, 1998) | 18 | 4 | Yes | Difficulty |
Vision Core Measure 1, VCM1(Frost et al., 1998) | 10 | 6 | Yes | Frequency |
Cataract Symptom Scale, CSScale(Crabtree et al., 1999) | 15 | 5 | No | Difficulty, Frequency |
Impact of Cataract Surgery, ICS(Monestam and Wachtmeister, 1999) | 4 | 4 | No | Difficulty+ |
Technology of Patient Experiences,TyPE (Javitt et al., 1999) | 13* | 5 | No | Global rating of vision,Difficulty |
Houston Vision Assessment Test,HVAT (Prager at al., 2000) | 10 | 5ξ | No | Difficulty, Severity |
Impact of Vision Impairment, IVI(Hassell et al., 2000) | 32 | 6 | No | Difficulty/Severity, Frequency |
National Eye Institute-VisualFunction Questionnaire,NEIVFQ (Mangione et al., 2000) | 39# | 5, 6 or 11^ | No | Difficulty, Global ratingof health, Global ratingof vision, Frequency,Severity |
Visual Symptoms and Quality ofLife, VSQ (Donovan et al., 2003) | 26 | 8, 7, 5, 4, 3 or 2$ | No | Difficulty, Frequency,Global rating of vision |