Psychometric validation of an Assessment Questionnaire on the Perception of and Adaptation to Visual Handicap in Adults (QUEPAHVA).

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Handicap evaluation in adults with acquired or progressive congenital visual loss allows for identification of the individual's specific needs and targeted therapy (medical, technical, rehabilitative and psychological). Currently, the subjective dimension of the handicap remains poorly explored in the field of visual loss. Our questionnaire aims to understand the whole of these subjective impacts. It differs from existing quality of life scales in ophthalmology in its approach centered on the process of adaptation, individual resources (technical, cognitive, psychic and environmental), and investigation of the perception of the handicap. The goal of the present study is to validate this questionnaire, which could be used in any adult with a visual handicap, regardless of the extent of the visual loss, its etiology, or the type of treatment or compensatory mechanisms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Assessment Questionnaire on the Perception of and Adaptation to Visual Handicap in Adults (QUEPAHVA) is composed of 28 items relating to perception of the visual impairment, its impact, and adaptive resources. They are divided into 3 sub-categories Perception of daily life and relationships (10 items), Perception of visual status and compensatory mechanisms (8 items), and Psychological impact of the visual handicap (10 items). The responses are graded on a Likert scale. Factor analysis and verification of psychometric qualities were performed based on the responses of 446 subjects. The discriminatory validity of the NEI-VFQ 25 was proven with 99 subjects. Reliability over time (mean interval between T1 and T2=49.43 days) was measured in 31 subjects. Sensitivity to change between pre- and post-management (mean interval between T1 and T2=410 days) was tested in 123 subjects. RESULTS: Internal consistency was very good for the global scale (α=.90) as well as for the 3 sub-dimensions (α=.86; α=.79; α=.80). The discriminatory validity was satisfactory (r=.70). This result had to be interpreted as a function of the qualitative specificity of the questionnaire. The questionnaire enjoyed good reproducibility over time with regard to its total score and relatively satisfactory reproducibility with regard to its sub-dimensions. Sensitivity to change was very high and accounted for adaptations to the disability over time. CONCLUSION: The QUEPAHVA displays good psychometric qualities. It constitutes a new means of evaluation. Its potential applications are many. It permits evaluation of the needs of the individual and adaptation of the protocol of care. Its use in institutions may support a step forward in the science of evaluation and continued improvement in quality of care.