Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 486

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Identifying the Content Area for the 51-Item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire: Results From Focus Groups With Visually Impaired Persons

Mangione, Carol M., Berry, Sandra, Spritzer, Karen, Janz, Nancy K., Klein, Ronald, Owsley, Cynthia, Lee, Paul P.·1998·Archives of Ophthalmology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To identify the content area for a questionnaire designed to measure vision-targeted health-related quality of life and to determine whether problems with vision-related functioning are qualitatively similar across different common eye diseases. DESIGN: Twenty-six condition-specific focus groups were conducted with 246 patients from 5 geographic regions to identify the content area for a questionnaire for use among persons with diabetic retinopathy, glaucoma, macular degeneration, cytomegalovirus retinitis, and cataract. A standard protocol was used to structure each focus group discussion. Sessions were audiotaped, transcribed, and coded in preparation for a content analysis. SETTINGS: Five university-based ophthalmology practices and 1 nonprofit eye care foundation. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible participants had to have 1 of the following eye conditions: age-related cataracts, age-related macular degeneration, diabetic retinopathy, primary open angle glaucoma, cytomegalovirus retinitis, or low vision from any cause. All eligible persons were older than 21 years, spoke English, and had sufficient cognitive function to provide informed consent. RESULTS: Among the 246 participants, 2623 problems with vision-related functioning were mentioned. The mean number of problems per person ranged from 13.5 for those with diabetic retinopathy to 7.9 for persons with glaucoma. For the sample overall, reading problems were mentioned most frequently, followed by driving, general problems with seeing clearly, and mental health complaints caused by vision. Although the proportion of persons who reported each problem varied by condition, at least some persons with each eye disease reported each problem. The 3 most common descriptors associated with each problem were difficulty or ease of performance (13%), psychological distress associated with performance of the activity (11%), and complete inability to participate in a visual activity (11%). CONCLUSION: An item-generation strategy for a new questionnaire using a standardized focus group method identified content areas and aspects of visual disability that are not included in currently available vision-specific instruments that assess the impact of common eye diseases on visual functioning in every-day life. Although participants mentioned problems that were unique to their disease, across conditions the problems mentioned were similar. These findings provide empirical evidence of content validity for a vision-targeted, health-related quality-of-life survey designed for use across conditions.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archopht.116.2.227

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 486

Metadata

Authors
Mangione, C. M., Berry, S., Spritzer, K., Janz, N. K., Klein, R., Owsley, C., & Lee, P. P.
Venue
Archives of Ophthalmology
Published
1998-02-01
Volume
116
Issue
2
Pages
227-33
ISSN
0003-9950
OpenAlex
W1978198864
Cited by
486
References
0
FWCI
15.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Identifying the Content Area for the 51-Item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire: Results From Focus Groups With Visually Impaired Persons. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archopht.116.2.227
The paper
Mangione, C. M., Berry, S., Spritzer, K., Janz, N. K., Klein, R., Owsley, C., & Lee, P. P. (1998). Identifying the Content Area for the 51-Item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire: Results From Focus Groups With Visually Impaired Persons. Archives of Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.116.2.227

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.