A comparison of three different scales for rating contact lens handling

被引:36
作者
Du Toit, R [1 ]
Pritchard, N
Heffernan, S
Simpson, T
Fonn, D
机构
[1] Univ New S Wales, Sch Optometry, CCLRU, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
[2] Vis Care Res Ltd, Farnham, Surrey, England
[3] Univ Waterloo, Ctr Contact Lens Res, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada
关键词
rating scales; validity; reliability; symptoms;
D O I
10.1097/00006324-200205000-00011
中图分类号
R77 [眼科学];
学科分类号
100212 [眼科学];
摘要
Purpose. To compare the validity, responsiveness, and reliability of three subjective rating scales applied to soft contact lens (SCL) handling. Methods. Fifty-four adapted SCL wearers handled three different types of lenses on two occasions and rated the handling with each scale: visual analogue scales (VAS), 20-interval visual analogue scales with descriptors (VAD) and Likert rating scales with five intervals (LRS). Results. There were significant differences between the scales (p < 0.01) and between the subjective ratings of lens handling (p < 0.001). VAS showed the least variability, exhibited the highest construct validity, were the most responsive, and were the most reliable: interclass correlations (0.63), coefficient of repeatability (27.5), and correlation between test and retest (Spearman r = 0.65, [all p < 0.05]). Higher repeatability, because of the fewer intervals of LRS, was not demonstrated and, generally, LRS was the least satisfactory scale. Handling was rated as easiest using VAD and most difficult using LRS. Conclusions. Although all three scales can be used to provide measures of lens handling, VAS may provide a simple and repeatable tool for measuring subjective responses.
引用
收藏
页码:313 / 320
页数:8
相关论文
共 36 条
[1]
BAILEY IL, 1991, INVEST OPHTH VIS SCI, V32, P422
[2]
MEASURES OF AGREEMENT - A SINGLE PROCEDURE [J].
BARTKO, JJ .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 1994, 13 (5-7) :737-745
[3]
Responses of contact lens wearers to a dry eye survey [J].
Begley, CG ;
Caffery, B ;
Nichols, KK ;
Chalmers, R .
OPTOMETRY AND VISION SCIENCE, 2000, 77 (01) :40-46
[4]
BEGLEY CG, 1994, ICLC, V21, P7
[5]
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT [J].
BLAND, JM ;
ALTMAN, DG .
LANCET, 1986, 1 (8476) :307-310
[6]
SYMPTOMATOLOGY OF HEMA CONTACT-LENS WEAR [J].
BRENNAN, NA ;
EFRON, N .
OPTOMETRY AND VISION SCIENCE, 1989, 66 (12) :834-838
[7]
COMPARISON OF THE CLINICAL-PERFORMANCE OF THE ACUVUE DISPOSABLE CONTACT-LENS AND CSI LENS IN PATIENTS WITH GIANT PAPILLARY CONJUNCTIVITIS [J].
BUCCI, FA ;
LOPATYNSKY, MO ;
JENKINS, PL ;
MACKAY, AT ;
RICKERT, DG ;
GOLD, RM .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 1993, 115 (04) :454-459
[8]
The repeatability of discrete and continuous anterior segment grading scales [J].
Chong, T ;
Simpson, T ;
Fonn, D .
OPTOMETRY AND VISION SCIENCE, 2000, 77 (05) :244-251
[9]
Craig JP, 1998, ADV EXP MED BIOL, V438, P411
[10]
Davies IA, 1992, CONTACT LENS ANTERIO, V15, P155