Translation and Testing Psychometric Properties of the Thai Version of Vision Bolt-On EQ-5D in Patients With Visual Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to translate, culturally adapt, and evaluate the psychometric properties of the Thai versions of the vision bolt-on EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L, comparing them with the standard EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L, and EQ-VAS in individuals with varying degrees of visual impairment. METHODS: Following EuroQol Translation Guidelines, the vision bolt-on items were translated through forward-backward processes and underwent cognitive debriefing. A total of 301 participants were interviewed at baseline, with 275 completing a 2-week follow-up. Known-groups validity was assessed based on visual acuity classifications and comorbidity status; convergent validity was tested by using Spearman's correlations. Test-retest reliability was evaluated with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and weighted kappa. Responsiveness was analyzed using a standardized effect size in participants who reported better or worse vision. RESULTS: Both versions of the vision bolt-on had no missing data and demonstrated moderate to good test-retest reliability (ICC range 0.62-0.64). They effectively differentiated quality-of-life scores across varying degrees of vision impairment, showing reduced ceiling effects (5%-9%) compared with the standard EQ-5D. Correlations with EQ-VAS were moderate (rho 0.40-0.45). When participants reported improved vision, the vision bolt-on EQ-5D-5L exhibited the highest responsiveness, whereas all instruments were generally less responsive for worsening vision. CONCLUSIONS: The Thai versions of the vision bolt-on EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L demonstrated acceptable reliability, validity, and moderate responsiveness for capturing vision-related health changes, with the 5L version showing slightly greater sensitivity. These findings support the usefulness of adding a vision dimension to EQ-5D for Thai-speaking populations, facilitating more precise evaluations of interventions targeting visual health.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".