The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reliability and Validity of the Ocular Surface Disease Index
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the validity and reliability of the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) questionnaire. METHODS: Participants (109 patients with dry eye and 30 normal controls) completed the OSDI, the National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25), the McMonnies Dry Eye Questionnaire, the Short Form-12 (SF-12) Health Status Questionnaire, and an ophthalmic examination including Schirmer tests, tear breakup time, and fluorescein and lissamine green staining. RESULTS: Factor analysis identified 3 subscales of the OSDI: vision-related function, ocular symptoms, and environmental triggers. Reliability (measured by Cronbach alpha) ranged from good to excellent for the overall instrument and each subscale, and test-retest reliability was good to excellent. The OSDI was valid, effectively discriminating between normal, mild to moderate, and severe dry eye disease as defined by both physician's assessment and a composite disease severity score. The OSDI also correlated significantly with the McMonnies questionnaire, the National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire, the physical component summary score of the Short Form-12, patient perception of symptoms, and artificial tear usage. CONCLUSIONS: The OSDI is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring the severity of dry eye disease, and it possesses the necessary psychometric properties to be used as an end point in clinical trials.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Cites
Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975) · Journal of Psychiatric Research · doi:10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6 · Cited by 88,282
Cited by
TFOS DEWS II Diagnostic Methodology report
Wolffsohn, J. S., Arita, R., Chalmers, R., Djalilian, A., Dogru, M., Dumbleton, K., Gupta, P. K., Karpecki, P., Lazreg, S., Pult, H., et al. (2017) · The Ocular Surface · doi:10.1016/j.jtos.2017.05.001 · Cited by 2,122
Sall, K., Stevenson, O. D., Mundorf, T. K., & Reis, B. L. (2000) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/s0161-6420(99)00176-1 · Cited by 916
Kunert, K. S. (2000) · Archives of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1001/archopht.118.11.1489 · Cited by 337
Deinema, L. A., Vingrys, A. J., Wong, C. Y., Jackson, D. C., Chinnery, H. R., & Downie, L. E. (2017) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.09.023 · Cited by 160
Short-term Consumption of Oral Omega-3 and Dry Eye Syndrome
Kangari, H., Eftekhari, M. H., Sardari, S., Hashemi, H., Salamzadeh, J., Ghassemi-Broumand, M., & Khabazkhoob, M. (2013) · Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.04.006 · Cited by 128
Metadata
- Authors
- Schiffman, R. M.
- Venue
- Archives of Ophthalmology
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2000-05-01
- Volume
- 118
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 615
- ISSN
- 0003-9950 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2091630088
- Cited by
- 3,045
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 9.01
- 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: Reliability and Validity of the Ocular Surface Disease Index. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archopht.118.5.615
- The paper
- Schiffman, R. M. (2000). Reliability and Validity of the Ocular Surface Disease Index. Archives of Ophthalmology. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.118.5.615
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.