↓ Skip to main content

Cross-cultural validation of the Functional Vision Questionnaire for Children and Young People (FVQ_CYP) with visual impairment in the Dutch population: challenges and opportunities

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, December 2019
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cross-cultural validation of the Functional Vision Questionnaire for Children and Young People (FVQ_CYP) with visual impairment in the Dutch population: challenges and opportunities
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, December 2019
DOI 10.1186/s12874-019-0875-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ellen B. M. Elsman, Valerija Tadić, Carel F. W. Peeters, Ger H. M. B. van Rens, Jugnoo S. Rahi, Ruth M. A. van Nispen

Abstract

To assess cross-cultural validity between Dutch and English versions of the FVQ_CYP, a patient-reported outcome measure developed in the United Kingdom (UK) for children and adolescents with (severe) visual impairment or blindness (VI for brevity) to measure functional vision. The 36-item FVQ_CYP was translated and adapted into Dutch using standard guidelines. The questionnaire was administered to Dutch children and adolescents aged 7-17 years (N = 253) with impaired vision (no restrictions regarding acuity). Data were compared to existing UK data of children and adolescents aged 10-15 years (N = 91) with VI (acuity LogMar worse than 0.48). As with the original UK FVQ_CYP validation, a rating scale model (RSM) was applied to the Dutch data. Minor adaptations were needed in translation-rounds. Significant differences in item responses were found between the Dutch and UK data. Item response theory assumptions were met, but fit to the RSM was unsatisfactory. Therefore, psychometric properties of the Dutch FVQ_CYP were analysed irrespective of the original model and criteria used. A graded response model led to the removal of 12 items due to missing data, low information, overlapping content and limited relevance to Dutch children. Fit indices for the remaining 24 items were adequate. Differences in population characteristics, distribution of responses, non-invariance at the model level and small sample sizes challenged the cross-cultural validation process. However, the Dutch adapted FVQ_CYP showed high measurement precision and broad coverage of items measuring children's functional vision. The underlying reasons for differences between countries in instrument performance are discussed with implications for future studies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 2 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 12%
Student > Postgraduate 2 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 12%
Lecturer 1 6%
Other 3 18%
Unknown 5 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 12%
Mathematics 1 6%
Sports and Recreations 1 6%
Computer Science 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 35%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 December 2019.
All research outputs
#12,979,643
of 16,343,452 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,312
of 1,544 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#279,503
of 385,595 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#165
of 194 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,343,452 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,544 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 385,595 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 194 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.