Survey of satisfaction of contact lens wearers: Development, validation and reliability

Aim: To develop and validate a survey for the measurement of the effect of contact lenses on ocular physiological parameters, visualfunctions, appearance, and socioeconomic and psychological factors.Material and Methods: Between September 2018and July 2019, 392 participants who applied to Erzincan University Faculty ofMedicine Department of Ophthalmology were included in the study. All patients were contact lens users at least one year. Participantswere aged 18 or above. A questionnaire containing 36 questions was created and distributed to contact lens users. All participantsanswered the questionnaire completely.Results: Of the 392 respondents, 202 (51.5%) were male and 190 (48.5%) were female. The total scores of correlations of 36 itemsranged from 0.310 to 0.598. Factor loads ranged from 0.359 to 0.770 and all were considered statistically significant. (KMO: 0.878p

PDF

___

1. Vitale S, Schein OD, Meinert CL,et al. The refractive status and vision profile: a questionnaire to measure vision-related quality of life in persons with refractive error. Ophthalmology 2000;107:1529-39.
2. Hoteling AJ, Nichols WF, Harmon PS, et al. Characterization and quantitation of PVP content in a silicone hydrogel contact lens produced by dualphase polymerization processing. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2018;106:1064-72.
3. Jones L, May C, Nazar L, et al. In vitro evaluation of the dehydration characteristics of silicone hydrogel and conventional hydrogel contact lens materials. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2002;25:147-56.
4. Tighe BJ. A decade of silicone hydrogel development: Surface properties, mechanical properties, and ocular compatibility. Eye Contact Lens 2013;39:4-12.
5. Papas E, Vajdic C, Austen R, et al. High-oxygentransmissibility soft contact lenses do not induce limbal hyperaemia. Curr Eye Res 1997;16:942-8.
6. Dumbleton KA, Chalmers RL, Richter DB, et al. Vascular response toextended wear of hydrogel lenses with high and low oxygen permeability. Optom Vis Sci 2001;78:147-51.
7. Riley C, Young G, Chalmers R. Prevalence of ocular surface symptoms, signs, and uncomfortable hours of wear in contact lens wearers: The effect of refitting with daily-wear silicone hydrogel lenses (senofilcon a). Eye Contact Lens 2006;32:281-6.
8. Hays RD, Mangione CM, Ellwein L,et al. Psychometric properties of the National Eye Institute- Refractive Error Quality of Life instrument. Ophthalmology 2003;110:2292-301.
9. Fraenkel G, Comaish F, Lawless MA, et al. Development of a questionnaire to assess subjective vision score in myopes seeking refractive surgery. J Refract Surg 2004;20:10-9.
10. Erickson DB, Stapleton F, Erickson P,et al. Development and validation of a multidimensional quality- of-life scale for myopia. Optom Vis Sci 2004;81:70-81.
11. Pesudovs K, Garamendi E, Elliott DB. The Quality of Life Impact of Refractive Correction (QIRC) Questionnaire: development and validation. Optom Vis Sci 2004;81:769-77.
12. Glasson MJ, Hseuh S, Willcox MD. Preliminary tear film measurements of tolerant and non-tolerant contact lens wearers. Clin Exp Optom 1999;82:177-81.
13. Walline JJ, Bailey MD, Zadnik K. Vision-specific quality of life and modes of refractive error correction. Optom Vis Sci 2000;77:648-52.
14. Nichols JJ, Mitchell GL, Zadnik K. The performance of the refractive status and vision profile survey in a contact lens clinical trial. Ophthalmology 2001;108:1160-6.
15. Nichols JJ, Mitchell GL, Nichols KK,et al. The performance of the contact lens dry eye questionnaire as a screening survey for contact lens-related dry eye. Cornea 2002;21:469-75.
16. Begley CG, Caffery B, Chalmers RL, et al. DEIDS: use of the dry eye questionnaire to measure symptoms of ocular irritation in patients with aqueous tear deficient dry eye. Cornea. 2002;21:664-70.
17. Jutai J, Day H, Woolrich W, et al. The predictability of retention and discontinuation of contact lenses. Optometry 2003;74: 299-308.
18. Lipson MJ, Sugar A, Musch DC. Overnight corneal reshaping versus soft daily wear: a visual quality of life study (interim results). Eye Contact Lens. 2004;30:214-7.
19. Ritchey ER, Barr JT, Mitchell GL. The comparison of overnight lens modalities (COLM) study. Eye Contact Lens.2005;31:70-5.
20. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.
21. de Vet HC, Ader HJ, Terwee CB, et al. Are factor analytical techniques used appropriately in the validation of health status questionnaires? A systematic review on the quality of factor analysis of the SF-36. Qual Life Res 2005;14:1203-18.
22. Scholtes VA, Terwee CB, Poolman RW. What makes a measurement instrument valid and reliable? Injury 2011;42:236-40.
23. Bond TG, Fox CM. Applying the Rasch model: fundamental measurement in the human sciences, 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 2007.
24. Embretson SE, Reise SP. Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000.
25. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:737-45.
26. Scholtes VA, Terwee CB, Poolman RW. What makes a measurement instrument valid and reliable? Injury 2011;42:236-40.
27. Epstein AB, Wilson B, Reindel WT. How visual performance influences patients’ perceptions of contact lens wear. CL Spectrum. 2016;31:20-5.
28. Schafer J, Steffen R, Reindel W, et al. Evaluation of surface water characteristics of novel daily disposable contact lens materials, using refractive index shifts after wear. Clin Ophthalmol 2015;9:1973-9.
29. Pesudovs K, Garamendi E, Elliott DB. The Contact Lens Impact on Quality of Life (CLIQ) Questionnaire: development and validation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47:2789-96.
30. de Boer MR, Moll AC, de Vet HC, et al. Psychometric properties of vision-related quality of life questionnaires: a systematic review. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2004;24:257-73