Reliability and Validity of Abbreviated Surveys Derived from the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire: The Study of Osteoporotic Fractures

PURPOSE: To test the reliability and validity of questionnaires shortened from the National Eye Institute 25-item Vision Function Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25). DESIGN: Cross-sectional, multicenter cohort study. METHODS: Reliability was assessed by Cronbach alpha coefficients. Validity was evaluated by studying the association of vision-targeted quality-of-life composite scores with objective visual function measurements. A total of 5482 women between the ages of 65 and 100 years participated in the year-10 clinic visit in the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures (SOF). A total of 3631 women with complete data were included in the visual acuity (VA) and visual field (VF) analyses of the 9-item NEI VFQ (NEI VFQ-9), which is defined for those who care to drive, and a total of 5311 women with complete data were included in the VA and VF in the analyses of the 8-item NEI VFQ (NEI VFQ-8). To assess differences in prevalent eye diseases, which were ascertained for a random sample of SOF participants, 853 and 1237 women were included in the NEI VFQ-9 and the NEI VFQ-8 analyses, respectively. RESULTS: The Cronbach alpha coefficient for the NEI VFQ-9 scale was 0.83, and that of the NEI VFQ-8 was 0.84. Using both questionnaires, women with VA worse than 20/40 had lower composite scores compared with those with VA of 20/40 or better (P < .001). Participants with mild, moderate, and severe binocular VF loss had lower composite scores compared with those with no binocular VF loss (P < .001). Compared with women without chronic eye diseases in both eyes, women with at least 1 chronic eye disease in at least 1 eye had lower composite scores. CONCLUSIONS: Both questionnaires showed high reliability across items and validity with respect to clinical markers of eye disease. Future research should compare the properties of these shortened surveys with those of the NEI VFQ-25. (Am J Ophthalmol 2010;149:330-340. (C) 2010 by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)