Test-retest reliability of the revised diplopia questionnaire

Sasha A. Mansukhani, Sarah R. Hatt, David A. Leske, Jonathan M. Holmes

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate misclassification of diplopia “success” when using a standardized diplopia questionnaire (DQ), and to report test-retest reliability of the DQ. Methods: We retrospectively identified a cohort of 100 patients with stable strabismus (<5Δ change in prism and alternate cover test measurements at distance and near), stable visual acuity, no change in treatment, and no clinical evidence of change, with completed DQ at two consecutive office visits (median, 71 days apart; range, 5-350 days). To evaluate the rate of misclassification of “success” and “not success,” we compared the second to the first administration of the DQ using two established definitions of success: (1) “rarely” or “never” for straight ahead distance and (2) “rarely” or “never” for straight-ahead distance and reading. For DQ test-retest variability, 95% limits of agreement (LOA) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated on DQ scores (0-100 scale). Results: When defining success as rarely or never diplopic for distance, misclassification occurred in 12 (12%) of 100 (95% CI, 6%-20%). When defining success as rarely or never diplopic for distance and reading, misclassification occurred in 14 (14%) of 100 (95% CI, 8%-22%). The 95% LOA for the DQ score were 35.2 points, and ICC was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.79-0.90). Conclusions: We have quantified misclassification and test-retest variability when using the DQ dichotomously or as a continuous measure, equipping the clinician to better interpret DQ outcome data in practice and research.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)319.e1-319.e5
JournalJournal of AAPOS
Volume23
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2019

Fingerprint

Diplopia
Reproducibility of Results
Reading
Surveys and Questionnaires
Office Visits
Strabismus
Visual Acuity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health
  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

Test-retest reliability of the revised diplopia questionnaire. / Mansukhani, Sasha A.; Hatt, Sarah R.; Leske, David A.; Holmes, Jonathan M.

In: Journal of AAPOS, Vol. 23, No. 6, 12.2019, p. 319.e1-319.e5.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Mansukhani, Sasha A. ; Hatt, Sarah R. ; Leske, David A. ; Holmes, Jonathan M. / Test-retest reliability of the revised diplopia questionnaire. In: Journal of AAPOS. 2019 ; Vol. 23, No. 6. pp. 319.e1-319.e5.
@article{89b03e1c1db144d3a5983510e01a6864,
title = "Test-retest reliability of the revised diplopia questionnaire",
abstract = "Purpose: To evaluate misclassification of diplopia “success” when using a standardized diplopia questionnaire (DQ), and to report test-retest reliability of the DQ. Methods: We retrospectively identified a cohort of 100 patients with stable strabismus (<5Δ change in prism and alternate cover test measurements at distance and near), stable visual acuity, no change in treatment, and no clinical evidence of change, with completed DQ at two consecutive office visits (median, 71 days apart; range, 5-350 days). To evaluate the rate of misclassification of “success” and “not success,” we compared the second to the first administration of the DQ using two established definitions of success: (1) “rarely” or “never” for straight ahead distance and (2) “rarely” or “never” for straight-ahead distance and reading. For DQ test-retest variability, 95{\%} limits of agreement (LOA) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated on DQ scores (0-100 scale). Results: When defining success as rarely or never diplopic for distance, misclassification occurred in 12 (12{\%}) of 100 (95{\%} CI, 6{\%}-20{\%}). When defining success as rarely or never diplopic for distance and reading, misclassification occurred in 14 (14{\%}) of 100 (95{\%} CI, 8{\%}-22{\%}). The 95{\%} LOA for the DQ score were 35.2 points, and ICC was 0.85 (95{\%} CI, 0.79-0.90). Conclusions: We have quantified misclassification and test-retest variability when using the DQ dichotomously or as a continuous measure, equipping the clinician to better interpret DQ outcome data in practice and research.",
author = "Mansukhani, {Sasha A.} and Hatt, {Sarah R.} and Leske, {David A.} and Holmes, {Jonathan M.}",
year = "2019",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1016/j.jaapos.2019.08.277",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "23",
pages = "319.e1--319.e5",
journal = "Journal of AAPOS",
issn = "1091-8531",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Test-retest reliability of the revised diplopia questionnaire

AU - Mansukhani, Sasha A.

AU - Hatt, Sarah R.

AU - Leske, David A.

AU - Holmes, Jonathan M.

PY - 2019/12

Y1 - 2019/12

N2 - Purpose: To evaluate misclassification of diplopia “success” when using a standardized diplopia questionnaire (DQ), and to report test-retest reliability of the DQ. Methods: We retrospectively identified a cohort of 100 patients with stable strabismus (<5Δ change in prism and alternate cover test measurements at distance and near), stable visual acuity, no change in treatment, and no clinical evidence of change, with completed DQ at two consecutive office visits (median, 71 days apart; range, 5-350 days). To evaluate the rate of misclassification of “success” and “not success,” we compared the second to the first administration of the DQ using two established definitions of success: (1) “rarely” or “never” for straight ahead distance and (2) “rarely” or “never” for straight-ahead distance and reading. For DQ test-retest variability, 95% limits of agreement (LOA) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated on DQ scores (0-100 scale). Results: When defining success as rarely or never diplopic for distance, misclassification occurred in 12 (12%) of 100 (95% CI, 6%-20%). When defining success as rarely or never diplopic for distance and reading, misclassification occurred in 14 (14%) of 100 (95% CI, 8%-22%). The 95% LOA for the DQ score were 35.2 points, and ICC was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.79-0.90). Conclusions: We have quantified misclassification and test-retest variability when using the DQ dichotomously or as a continuous measure, equipping the clinician to better interpret DQ outcome data in practice and research.

AB - Purpose: To evaluate misclassification of diplopia “success” when using a standardized diplopia questionnaire (DQ), and to report test-retest reliability of the DQ. Methods: We retrospectively identified a cohort of 100 patients with stable strabismus (<5Δ change in prism and alternate cover test measurements at distance and near), stable visual acuity, no change in treatment, and no clinical evidence of change, with completed DQ at two consecutive office visits (median, 71 days apart; range, 5-350 days). To evaluate the rate of misclassification of “success” and “not success,” we compared the second to the first administration of the DQ using two established definitions of success: (1) “rarely” or “never” for straight ahead distance and (2) “rarely” or “never” for straight-ahead distance and reading. For DQ test-retest variability, 95% limits of agreement (LOA) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated on DQ scores (0-100 scale). Results: When defining success as rarely or never diplopic for distance, misclassification occurred in 12 (12%) of 100 (95% CI, 6%-20%). When defining success as rarely or never diplopic for distance and reading, misclassification occurred in 14 (14%) of 100 (95% CI, 8%-22%). The 95% LOA for the DQ score were 35.2 points, and ICC was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.79-0.90). Conclusions: We have quantified misclassification and test-retest variability when using the DQ dichotomously or as a continuous measure, equipping the clinician to better interpret DQ outcome data in practice and research.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85075451580&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85075451580&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jaapos.2019.08.277

DO - 10.1016/j.jaapos.2019.08.277

M3 - Article

C2 - 31655115

AN - SCOPUS:85075451580

VL - 23

SP - 319.e1-319.e5

JO - Journal of AAPOS

JF - Journal of AAPOS

SN - 1091-8531

IS - 6

ER -