The Impact of Vision Impairment Questionnaire: An Assessment of Its Domain Structure Using Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Rasch Analysis
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess and validate the subscale structure of the 28-item Impact of Visual Impairment (IVI) Scale by using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and Rasch analysis for use as an outcome measure. METHODS: Three hundred nineteen participants completed the IVI questionnaire, and the responses then were subjected to Rasch analysis by RUMM2020 software. With the person estimates for each item, CFA was used to assess two hypothesized structures: three-and four-factor models. The subscales of the model with the best fit were then further validated by Rasch analysis. RESULTS: CFA supported a three-factor model that included items from the emotional well-being, reading and accessing information, and mobility and independence subscales. Almost all the selected goodness-of-fit statistics for the three-factor model were better than the recommended values. The factor loadings of the items on their respective domains were all statistically significant (P < 0.001) and ranged between 0.54 and 0.81. The three subscales individually fitted the Rasch model according to the item-trait interaction test (mobility and independence chi(2) [df] = 45.9 [44], P = 0.39; emotional well-being = 28.4 [32], P = 0.65; and reading and accessing information = 43.5 [36], P = 0.18). The item-fit residuals values of the three subscales were <2.5 and showed mean and standard deviations approximating 0 and 1, respectively. The internal consistency reliability of the subscales (alpha) was substantial, ranging between 0.89 and 0.91. CONCLUSIONS: An examination of the IVI dimension confirmed a three-subscale structure that displays interval measurement characteristics likely to provide a valid and reliable assessment of restriction of participation. The findings provide an opportunity for a more detailed measurement of the effects of different types of low-vision rehabilitation programs.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Both Cronbach's alpha coefficients (.740 for P&G and .764 for Unilever) are above .7, indicating high internal consistency and reliability.
“Both coefficients are above .7 which means that internal consistency and reliability are high (Malhotra and Birks, 2007; Lamoureux et al ., 2007).”
From Corporate social responsibility influences employee engagement (2018) · cites this paper as Lamoureux et al., 2007
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The relationship between diabetic retinopathy and psychosocial functioning: a systematic review
Khoo, K., Man, R. E. K., Rees, G., Gupta, P., Lamoureux, E. L., & Fenwick, E. K. (2019) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-019-02165-1 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
Self-citationCorporate social responsibility influences employee engagement
Tsourvakas, G., & Yfantidou, I. (2018) · Social Responsibility Journal · doi:10.1108/srj-09-2016-0153 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Htike, H. M., Margrain, T. H., Lai, Y.-K., & Eslambolchilar, P. (2020) · Translational Vision Science & Technology · doi:10.1167/tvst.9.10.26 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Fenwick, E. K., Man, R. E. K., Gan, A. T. L., Kumari, N., Wong, C., Aravindhan, A., Gupta, P., Wang, J. J., Mitchell, P., Wong, T. Y., et al. (2019) · British Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1136/bjophthalmol-2018-313082 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Lamoureux, E. L., Pallant, J. F., Pesudovs, K., Rees, G., Hassell, J. B., & Keeffe, J. E.
- Affiliations
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- Swinburne University of Technology (AU)
- Flinders University (AU)
- Venue
- Investigative Opthalmology & Visual Science
- Published
- 2007-03-01
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1001
- ISSN
- 0146-0404 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-5783
- OpenAlex
- W2119947320
- Cited by
- 165
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 15.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Flinders Academic Commons (Flinders University) (submittedVersion)
- Swinburne figshare (Swinburne University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
- Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
- Keywords
- visual impairment, low vision, questionnaire validation, domain structure, subscale structure, Rasch analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, emotional well-being
- MeSH terms
- Activities of Daily Living, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Health Status Indicators, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Models, Statistical, Vision, Low, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Visually Impaired Persons, Persons with Visual Disabilities
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