Advertisement

Visual Disability Variables. II: The Difficulty of Tasks for a Sample of Low-Vision Patients

      Abstract

      Massof RW, Hsu CT, Baker FH, Barnett GD, Park WL, Deremeik JT, Rainey C, Epstein C. 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.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • World Health Organization
        International classification of functioning, disability, and health. WHO, Geneva2001
        • World Health Organization
        International classification of impairments disabilities and handicaps. WHO, Geneva1980
        • Talsma H.E.
        Working with the ICIDH-2 in practice.
        in: 7th International Conference on Low Vision. Goteborg, Sweden2002: 19 (Abstract book: Vision; July 21–25; abs A7 34)
        • Massof R.W.
        A systems model for low vision rehabilitation. I. Basic concepts.
        Optom Vis Sci. 1995; 72: 725-736
        • Massof R.W.
        A systems model for low vision rehabilitation. II. Measurement of vision disabilities.
        Optom Vis Sci. 1998; 75: 349-373
        • Massof R.W.
        • Hsu C.T.
        • Baker F.H.
        • et al.
        Visual disability variables. I: The importance and difficulty of activity goals for a sample of low-vision patients.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005; 86: 946-953
        • Snow K.
        Disability is natural. BraveHeart Pr, Woodland Park2001
        • Legge G.E.
        • Ross J.A.
        • Maxwell K.T.
        • Luebker A.
        Psychophysics of reading: VII. Comprehension in normal and low vision.
        Clin Vis Sci. 1989; 4: 51-60
        • Legge G.E.
        • Ross J.A.
        • Luebker A.
        • LaMay J.M.
        Psychophysics of reading: VIII. The Minnesota Low-Vision Reading Test.
        Optom Vis Sci. 1989; 66: 843-853
        • Bullimore M.A.
        • Bailey I.L.
        • Wacker R.T.
        Face recognition in age-related maculopathy.
        Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1991; 32: 2020-2029
        • Szlyk J.P.
        • Seiple W.
        • Viana M.
        Relative effects of age and compromised vision on driving performance.
        Hum Factors. 1995; 37: 430-436
        • Turano K.A.
        • Geruschat D.R.
        • Stahl J.W.
        Mental effort required for walking.
        Optom Vis Sci. 1998; 75: 879-886
        • West S.K.
        • Munoz B.
        • Rubin G.S.
        • et al.
        Function and visual impairment in a population based study of older adults. The SEE project. Salisbury Eye Evaluation.
        Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1997; 38: 72-82
        • Whittaker S.G.
        • Lovie-Kitchin J.E.
        Visual requirements for reading.
        Optom Vis Sci. 1993; 70: 54-65
        • Geruschat D.
        • Smith A.J.
        Low vision and mobility.
        in: Blasch B.B. Wiener W.R. Welsch R.L. Foundations of orientation and mobility. 2nd ed. AFB Pr, New York1997: 60-103
        • Turano K.A.
        • Geruschat D.R.
        • Stahl J.W.
        • Massof R.W.
        Perceived visual ability for independent mobility in persons with retinitis pigmentosa.
        Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999; 40: 865-877
        • Andrich D.
        A rating formulation for ordered response categories.
        Psychometrika. 1978; 43: 561-573
        • Linacre J.M.
        • Wright B.
        A user’s guide to WINSTEPS Rasch-model computer program. Mesa Pr, Chicago2001
        • Bond T.G.
        • Fox C.M.
        Applying the Rasch model. Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc, Mahwah2001
        • Massof R.W.
        The measurement of vision disability.
        Optom Vis Sci. 2002; 79: 515-552
        • Smith R.M.
        • Miao C.Y.
        Assessing unidimensionality for Rasch measurement.
        in: Wilson M. Objective measurement. Vol 2. Ablex, Norwood1994: 316-327
        • Stensen H.
        • Wilkinson L.
        Factor analysis. SYSTAT 10: Statistics I. SPSS, Chicago2000: 327-364
        • Smith R.M.
        The distributional properties of Rasch item fit statistics.
        Educ Psychol Meas. 1991; 51: 541-565
        • Beals R.
        • Krantz D.H.
        • Tversky A.
        Foundations of multidimensional scaling.
        Psychol Rev. 1968; 75: 127-142
        • Steinberg E.P.
        • Tielsch J.M.
        • Schein O.D.
        • et al.
        The VF-14. An index of functional impairment in patients with cataract.
        Arch Ophthalmol. 1994; 112: 630-638
        • Mangione C.M.
        • Lee P.P.
        • Gutierrez P.R.
        • Spritzer K.
        • Berry S.
        • Hayes R.D.
        Development of the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire.
        Arch Ophthalmol. 2001; 119: 1050-1059
        • Mangione C.M.
        • Phillips R.S.
        • Seddon J.M.
        • et al.
        Development of the “Activities of Daily Vision Scale”. A measure of visual functional status.
        Med Care. 1992; 30: 1111-1126
        • Turano K.A.
        • Rubin G.S.
        • Herdman S.J.
        • Chee E.
        • Fried L.P.
        Visual stabilization of posture in the elderly.
        Optom Vis Sci. 1994; 71: 761-769