CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 33Vestibular and auditory disordersNausea and vomiting managementVirtual Reality Applications and Impacts

Validity and responsiveness of the visual vertigo analogue scale

Dannenbaum, Elizabeth, Chilingarian, Gevorg, Fung, Joyce·2019·Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy
DOI 10.1097/npt.0000000000000261
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: People with visual vertigo have dizziness provoked by visual stimulation. We have developed a Visual Vertigo Analogue Scale (VVAS) to evaluate their symptoms and response to rehabilitation. Our goal was to validate the VVAS against the Situation Characteristics Questionnaire (SITQ) score and determine its responsiveness to treatment. METHODS: Participants (n = 115) completed 3 questionnaires: Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI), VVAS, and the SITQ at their initial and final sessions of vestibular rehabilitation. The SITQ was analyzed using the Space Motion Discomfort (SMD1) outcome measure and by calculating the average score of all the items (SMDavg). The results were stratified into those who had a significant clinical change in their DHI score posttreatment and those who did not. Associations of the VVAS with SMD scores and change scores were determined by Pearson and Spearman correlations. Nonparametric t tests were used to compare the 2 DHI groups on the clinical outcomes. RESULTS: There were significant associations between VVAS scores (P < 0.0001) and both SMD1 (βVVAS = 0.02) and SMDavg scores (βVVAS = 0.03). Significant differences existed between the 2 DHI groups for all scores: VVAS (P = 0.0002), SMD1 (P = 0.02), and SMDavg (P = 0.0001). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: VVAS scores correlated well with SMD1 and SMDavg scores. Changes in VVAS pre- and posttreatment scores corresponded to the changes seen in SMD1 and SMDavg scores. The VVAS shows validity and responsiveness to change. The VVAS can be used to detect clients with visual vertigo and to verify the progression of the client's symptoms.Video Abstract available for more insights from the authors (see Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A258).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/npt.0000000000000261

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Dannenbaum, E., Chilingarian, G., & Fung, J.
Affiliations
Jewish Rehabilitation Hospital (CA)
Corresponding author
Dannenbaum, Elizabeth
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2019-04
Volume
43
Issue
2
Pages
117-121
ISSN
  • 1085-049X (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-0576
DOI
10.1097/npt.0000000000000261
OpenAlex
W2921874088
Cited by
33
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 1
FWCI
1.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neurology Report (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Vestibular and auditory disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Nausea and vomiting management
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
Keywords
visual vertigo, vestibular rehabilitation, dizziness, scale validity, responsiveness to change, Dizziness Handicap Inventory, visual stimulation
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Diagnostic Techniques, Neurological, Dizziness, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Severity of Illness Index, Vertigo, Visual Perception, Reproducibility of Results, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

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