The Optical Refractive Correction Questionnaire (ORCQ): A Face Validity
Main Article Content
Abstract
Uncorrected refractive error is a major global public health challenge that significantly affects an individual's quality of life (QoL). Despite its impact, no validated questionnaire is specifically designed to comprehensively assess the optical correction prescriptions and characteristics for ametropic individuals. The absence of such tools prevents a thorough evaluation of the factors influencing ametropes' QoL. This study aimed to conduct a thorough face validity of the Optical Refractive Correction Questionnaire (ORCQ) to ensure its clarity, relevance, and overall quality. Materials and methods: The ORCQ serves as an instrument designed to assess the optical prescription and characteristics of correction modes worn by individuals with refractive errors. It encompasses 11 items across four domains: the optical prescription (Items 1-2), spectacle frame characteristics (Items 3-5), ophthalmic lens characteristics (Items 6-8) and contact lens characteristics (Items 9-11) currently worn by individuals with refractive errors. Face validity was carried out by six panel of experts (PEs) who are experienced optometrists. The validation criteria included evaluating grammar, clarity, and instrument layout. Quantitative responses were analysed for agreement, and adjustments were implemented based on the qualitative feedback provided by the PEs. Results: Items 1 and 2 in the optical prescription domain garnered solid agreement, confirming their clarity and appropriateness. Adjustments were made in the response box position for items 3 to 5 in the spectacle frame characteristics domain and items 6 to 8 in the ophthalmic lens characteristics domain, refining the overall layout of the instrument. In the contact lens characteristics domain, items 9 to 11 incorporated English terminologies to address clarity concerns raised by the PEs. Conclusion: The ORCQ has successfully undergone a meticulous face validity process. Therefore, it can be effectively utilised to evaluate optical correction prescriptions and characteristics among individuals wearing spectacles and contact lenses.
Downloads
Article Details
References
Holden BA, Fricke TR, Wilson DA, Jong M, Naidoo KS, Sankaridurg P, et al. Global prevalence of myopia and high myopia and temporal trends from 2000 through 2050. Ophthalmology 2016;123:1036–42.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.01.006.
Pesudovs K, Garamendi E, Elliott DB. A quality of life comparison of people wearing spectacles or contact lenses or having undergone refractive surgery. J Refract Surg 2006;22:19–27. the DOI is https://doi: 10.3928/1081-597X-20060101-07.
Plowright AJ, Maldonado-Codina C, Howarth GF, Kern J, Morgan PB. Daily disposable contact lenses versus spectacles in teenagers. Optom Vis Sci 2015;92:44–52. https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000000454.
Mustafa MMSM, Marzuki N, Kamal KM, Halim NA. Face and content validation of phacoemulsification techniques related to surgically induced astigmatism questionnaire. Int J Res Pharm Sci 2019;10:2696–700. https://ijrps.com/home/article/view/2123
Connell J, Carlton J, Grundy A, Taylor Buck E, Keetharuth AD, Ricketts T, et al. The importance of content and face validity in instrument development: lessons learnt from service users when developing the Recovering Quality of Life measure (ReQoL). Qual Life Res 2018;27:1893–902. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1847-y.
Tsang, S., Royse, C. F., & Terkawi AS. Guidelines for developing, translating, and validating a questionnaire in perioperative and pain medicine. Saudi J Anaesth 2017;11:80. https://doi.org/10.4103/sja.SJA_203_17.
Main B, Vitale MC (ed.).The indispensable dispensing guide: the eyecare provider’s basic dispensing guide. 3rd ed. Virginia, The Vision Council: 2020.
Tay J, Izaac RJ, Yeo A, Tay A, Kwok S. Code of professional conduct and professional practice guidelines for optometrists & opticians. Revised Ed. Singapore, Singaporean Optometrists and Opticians Board: 2018.
Brooks CW. System for ophthalmic dispensing. 4th ed. St. Louis, Missouri: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2023.
Patel N, Desai S. ABC of face validity for questionnaire. Int J Pharm Sci Rev Res 2020;65:164–8.https://doi.org/10.47583/ijpsrr.2020.v65i01.025.
Kaur S, Isa MZA, Mutalib HA, Hairol MI, Alias FY, Mustafa MMSM et al. Code of practice for programme accreditation undergraduate optometry degree /opticianry diploma. 2nd Ed. Putrajaya, Malaysian Optical Council: 2022.
Rubio DM, Berg-Weger M, Tebb SS, Lee ES, Rauch S. Objectifying content validity: conducting a content validity study in social work research. Soc Work Res 2003;27:94–104. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/27.2.94.
Gunawan J, Marzilli C, Aungsuroch Y. Establishing appropriate sample size for developing and validating a questionnaire in nursing research. Belitung Nurs J 2021;7:356–60. https://doi.org/10.33546/bnj.1927.
Zamanzadeh V, Ghahramanian A, Rassouli M, Abbaszadeh A, Alavi-Majd H, Nikanfar A-R. Design and implementation content validity study: development of an instrument for measuring patient-centered communication. J Caring Sci 2015;4:165–78. https://doi.org/10.15171/jcs.2015.017.
Freire MH de S, Arreguy-Sena C, Müller PC de S. Cross-cultural adaptation and content and semantic validation of the Difficult Intravenous Access Score for pediatric use in Brazil. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem 2017;25. https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.1785.2920.
Maribo T, Pedersen AR, Jensen J, Nielsen JF. Assessment of primary rehabilitation needs in neurological rehabilitation: translation, adaptation and face validity of the Danish version of Rehabilitation Complexity Scale-Extended. BMC Neurol 2016;16:205. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-016-0728-7.
Reis LC dos, Jaime PC. Pool of items to measure primary health care workers’ knowledge on healthy eating. Rev Saude Publica 2021;55:55. https://doi.org/10.11606/s1518-8787.2021055003218.
Lenzner T, Kaczmirek L, Galesic M. Left feels right: a usability study on the position of answer boxes in web surveys. Soc Sci Comput Rev 2014;32:743–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439313517532.
Md-Muziman-Syah MM, Muzir NS, Abdul Mutalib H, Ab. Halim N. The Quality of Life Impact Refractive Correction (QIRC) questionnaire: validation of the Malay-translated version of the QIRC using Rasch analysis. BMC Ophthalmol 2021;21:378. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-021-02145-5.
Paulisso DC, Cruz DMC, Allegretti ALC, Schein RM, Costa JD, Campos LCB, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and face validity of the functional mobility assessment into Brazilian Portuguese. Occup Ther Int 2020;2020:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8150718.
Kumari A, Chopra S, Ranjan P, Verma A, Malhotra A, Upadhyay A, et al. Development and validation of comprehensive evaluation tool for weight management at menopausal transition and early menopause stage. J Midlife Health 2022;13:57. https://doi.org/10.4103/jmh.jmh_181_21.
Stoyanova R, Dimova R, Tarnovska M, Boeva T. Linguistic validation and cultural adaptation of Bulgarian version of Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSOPSC). Open Access Maced J Med Sci 2018;6:925–30. https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2018.222.