Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 17, Issue 10, pp 1269–1276 | Cite as

The Turkish version of the National Eye Institute Refractive Error Quality of Life Instrument: translation, validity and reliability

  • Ebru Toker
  • Sumru Onal
  • Muhsin Eraslan
  • Merih Eyriparmak
Brief Communication

Abstract

Purpose

To translate the original 42-item National Eye Institute Refractive Error Quality of Life Questionnaire (NEI-RQL-42) into Turkish and to investigate its validity and reliability.

Methods

The linguistic translation followed the international guidelines of forward and backward translation. Ninety-five consecutive subjects (37 myopes, 18 hyperopes and 40 emmetropes) who had a visual acuity of 0.8 or better in the worse eye completed the NEI-RQL-42 and the Turkish version of the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ-25). Eighty patients completed the NEI-RQL-42 for a second time within 2 weeks. Psychometric evaluation of the Turkish NEI-RQL-42 involved the assessment of internal consistency, test–retest reliability, convergent and known-groups validity.

Results

Internal consistency was generally high (Cronbach’s α = 0.83–0.95), with the exception of three subscales (glare, α = 0.65; suboptimal correction, α = 0.66; appearance, α = 0.62). Test–retest reliability, assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient was good (ICC = 0.74–0.95) except for the subscale suboptimal correction (ICC = 0.61). Almost all subscales and the overall score showed significant inter-correlations. Low to moderate correlations were found between the subscales of the NEI-RQL-42 and the NEI-VFQ-25, which measure similar constructs. The NEI-RQL-42 showed good construct validity in terms of refractive error (myopia, hyperopia and emmetropia) and mode of refractive correction (spectacles, contact lens and no correction) discrimination.

Conclusion

The Turkish version of the NEI-RQL-42 is a reliable and valid measure of vision-related quality of life in patients with refractive error.

Keywords

National Eye Institute Refractive Error Quality of Life Instrument (NEI-RQL-42) Validity Reliability Refractive error 

Abbreviations

VRQoL

Vision-related quality of life

NEI-VFQ-25

National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire

NEI-RQL-42

National Eye Institute Refractive Error Quality of Life Questionnaire

SE

Spherical equivalent of refractive error calculated by adding the spherical error and 1/2 of the cylindrical error

RSVP

Refractive error status and vision profile

QIRC

Quality-of-life impact of refractive correction

Emmetropia

The normal refractive function of the eye in which light is focused exactly on the retina with the eye relaxed. An emmetropic eye requires no refractive correction

Myopia

An eye that focuses light rays in front of the retina with the eye relaxed. Colloquially known as near-sightedness

Hyperopia

An eye that focuses light rays behind the retina with the eye relaxed. Colloquially known as far-sightedness

Ametropia

Refers to absence of emmetropia

Phakic eye

An eye containing the natural lens

References

  1. 1.
    Hays, R. D., Mangione, C. M., Ellwein, L., Lindblad, A. S., Spritzer, K. L., & McDonnell, P. J. (2003). Psychometric properties of the National Eye Institute-Refractive Error Quality of Life instrument. Ophthalmology, 110, 2292–2301. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2002.07.001.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nichols, J. J., Mitchell, L., Saracino, M., & Zadnik, K. (2003). Reliability and validity of refractive error-specific quality-of-life instruments. Archives of Ophthalmology, 121, 1289–1296. doi: 10.1001/archopht.121.9.1289.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McDonnell, P. J., Mangione, C., Lee, P., Lindblad, A. S., Spritzer, K. L., Berry, S., et al. (2003). Responsiveness of the National Eye Institute Refractive Error Quality of Life instrument to surgical correction of refractive error. Ophthalmology, 110, 2302–2309. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2003.02.004.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nicholls, J. J., Twa, M. D., & Mitchell, G. L. (2005). Sensitivity of the National Eye Institute Refractive Error Quality of Life instrument to refractive surgery outcomes. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery, 31, 2313–2318. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2005.04.033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nunes, L. M., & Schor, P. (2005). Evaluation of the impact of refractive surgery on quality of life using the NEI-RQL (National Eye Institute-Refractive Error Quality of Life) instrument. Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia, 68, 789–796.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schmidt, G. W., Yoon, M., McGwin, G., Lee, P. P., & McLeod, S. D. (2007). Evaluation of the relationship between ablation diameter, pupil size, and visual function with vision-specific quality of life measures after laser in situ keratomileusis. Archives of Ophthalmology, 125, 1037–1042. doi: 10.1001/archopht.125.8.1037.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lipson, M. J., & Musch, D. C. (2007). Synergeyes versus soft toric lenses: Vision-related quality of life. Optometry and Vision Science, 84, 593–597. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e31811ece4a.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Richdale, K., Mitchell, G. L., & Zadnik, K. (2006). Comparison of multifocal and monovision soft contact lens corrections in patients with low-astigmatic presbyopia. Optometry and Vision Science, 83, 266–273. doi: 10.1097/01.opx.0000216098.62165.34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lipson, M. J., Sugar, A., & Musch, D. C. (2005). Overnight corneal reshaping versus soft disposable contact lenses: Vision-related quality-of-life differences from a randomized clinical trial. Optometry and Vision Science, 82, 886–891. doi: 10.1097/01.opx.0000180818.40127.dc.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ritchey, E. R., Barr, J. T., & Mitchell, G. L. (2005). The comparison of overnight lens modalities (COLM) study. Eye & Contact Lens, 31, 70–75. doi: 10.1097/01.ICL.0000146323.18919.13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Berntsen, D. A., Mitchell, G. L., & Barr, T. J. (2006). The effect of overnight contact lens corneal reshaping on refractive error-specific quality of life. Optometry and Vision Science, 83, 354–359. doi: 10.1097/01.opx.0000221401.33776.54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nunes, L. M., Cotizo, V., & Schor, P. (2004). Validação de versão em língua portuguesa do questionário NEI-RQL como instrumento de avaliação da qualidade de vida relacionada à visão, em candidatos a cirurgia refrativa. Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia, 63, 110–118.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guillemin, F., Bombardier, C., & Beaton, D. (1993). Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: Literature review and proposed guidelines. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 46, 1417–1432. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(93)90142-N.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hays, R. D., & Spitzer, K. L. (2001). National Eye Institute-Refractive Error Quality of Life Instrument (NEI-RQL-42), version 1.0: Self-administered format. Los Angeles, Calif: Rand Health Sciences.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hays, R. D., & Spitzer, K. L. (2002). National Eye Institute-Refractive Error Quality of Life Instrument (NEI-RQL-42), version 1.0: A manual for scoring and use. Los Angeles, Calif: Rand Health Sciences.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Toprak, A. B., Eser, E., Guler, C., Baser, F. E., & Mayali, H. (2005). Cross-validation of the Turkish version of the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ 25). Ophthalmic Epidemiology, 12, 259–269. doi: 10.1080/09286580590967763.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vitale, S., Schein, O. D., Meinert, C. L., & Steinberg, E. P. (2000). The refractive status and vision profile: A questionnaire to measure vision-related quality of life in persons with refractive error. Ophthalmology, 107, 1529–1539. doi: 10.1016/S0161-6420(00)00171-8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pesudovs, K., Garamendi, E., & Elliott, D. B. (2004). The Quality of Life Impact of Refractive Correction (QIRC) questionnaire: Development and validation. Optometry and Vision Science, 81, 769–777. doi: 10.1097/00006324-200410000-00009.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ebru Toker
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sumru Onal
    • 1
  • Muhsin Eraslan
    • 1
  • Merih Eyriparmak
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of OphthalmologyMarmara University School of MedicineIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Hamidiye Mah. Barisyolu Cad. Agaoglu My Country SitesiIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations