Table of Contents
Abstract
The National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25) is a specialized psychometric instrument designed to capture the nuanced ways that Visual Impairment affects an individual's daily life and overall well-being. While traditional clinical metrics, such as visual acuity or visual field tests, provide objective data about ocular health, they often fail to reflect the patient's lived experience. This scale bridges that gap by quantifying vision-targeted Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL), offering a patient-centered metric for evaluating the impact of eye diseases and the efficacy of therapeutic interventions.
Originally developed for English-speaking populations in North America, the instrument has become a global standard in ophthalmic research. It evaluates a broad spectrum of functional and psychosocial domains, ranging from the physical difficulty of reading or driving to the emotional toll of vision loss, such as dependency and mental health struggles. By translating and validating the tool for diverse linguistic and cultural contexts, researchers ensure that subjective visual functioning can be reliably measured across different populations, facilitating international comparisons and culturally competent clinical care.
📊 Psychometric Scorecard
25
Multidimensional
📍 Serbia
Authors
Purpose
In the realm of Ophthalmology and health psychology, objective clinical measurements frequently diverge from a patient's subjective experience of their condition. Generic quality-of-life surveys often lack the sensitivity required to detect the specific functional limitations and emotional burdens associated with vision loss. The NEI VFQ-25 was developed to address this critical measurement gap. It provides clinicians and researchers with a standardized, validated method to assess how eye diseases—such as cataracts, glaucoma, and macular degeneration—interfere with daily activities and psychosocial well-being. This makes it an indispensable tool for evaluating patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials and routine care.
Construct
The core psychological construct measured by the NEI VFQ-25 is vision-targeted Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL). This is a multidimensional construct that conceptualizes visual functioning not merely as a sensory capacity, but as a critical determinant of independence, social participation, and psychological stability. The framework posits that Visual Impairment cascades into various life domains, creating a complex profile of disability. The instrument operationalizes this by dividing the construct into 12 distinct subscales, capturing physical symptoms (like ocular pain), functional limitations (such as difficulties with near or distance vision), and psychosocial consequences (including role limitations, social functioning, and mental health impacts).
Validity
The validation process for this instrument typically involves a rigorous examination of its construct and criterion validity. In the Serbian adaptation study, researchers utilized multi-trait analysis to confirm both convergent and discriminant validity, ensuring that individual items correlated more strongly with their intended subscales (coefficients of 0.4 or higher) than with unrelated domains. Concurrent validity was established by comparing the scale's psychosocial domains against analogous subscales of the SF-36, a widely used generic health survey. Furthermore, clinical validity was demonstrated by mapping the subjective questionnaire scores against objective ophthalmic measurements, such as visual acuity and visual field deficits, confirming that the self-reported data accurately reflects clinical severity.
Convergent & Discriminant Validation Correlations
| Reference Instrument | Correlation Coefficient (r) |
|---|---|
| SF-36 Health Survey |
Reliability
Psychometric evaluation of the scale demonstrates robust reliability across different patient cohorts. Internal consistency is evaluated using Cronbach's alpha to ensure that items within each of the 12 subscales reliably measure the same underlying facet of visual functioning, with item-total correlations assessed via Spearman's analysis. Additionally, test-retest reliability is established by administering the survey to clinically stable patients over a two-week interval, utilizing intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) to verify temporal stability. These rigorous reliability checks confirm that the instrument yields consistent, dependable scores that are not unduly influenced by measurement error, making it suitable for longitudinal tracking of patient outcomes.
Factor Analysis
To investigate the underlying dimensionality of the questionnaire, researchers employed maximum-likelihood factor analysis with varimax rotation. Notably, the 'Driving' subscale is often excluded from these structural analyses due to high rates of missing data (e.g., 73.3% missing in the Serbian cohort), as many visually impaired or elderly patients do not drive. Beyond classical test theory approaches, modern psychometric evaluations of the scale frequently incorporate Rasch analysis using the Andrich rating scale model. This item response theory (IRT) approach allows researchers to rigorously assess category threshold ordering, unidimensionality, and differential item functioning, ultimately refining the scale by maximizing trait homogeneity and minimizing item redundancy.
Subscales
| Subscale | Items | Description |
|---|---|---|
| General Health | 1 item | Evaluates the patient's overall perception of their general health status. |
| General Vision | 1 item | Assesses the patient's subjective rating of their overall eyesight. |
| Ocular Pain | 2 items | Measures the frequency and severity of pain or discomfort in and around the eyes. |
| Near Activities | 3 items | Evaluates difficulty performing tasks that require near vision, such as reading or close handiwork. |
| Distance Activities | 3 items | Assesses difficulty with tasks requiring distance vision, such as reading street signs or recognizing faces. |
| Social Functioning | 2 items | Measures the extent to which vision problems interfere with social activities and interactions. |
| Mental Health | 4 items | Evaluates emotional distress, anxiety, and depression specifically related to Visual Impairment. |
| Role Difficulties | 2 items | Assesses limitations in performing typical daily roles or work due to vision problems. |
| Dependency | 3 items | Measures the degree to which the patient relies on others for daily tasks because of their eyesight. |
| Driving | 2 items | Evaluates difficulties encountered while driving a vehicle, particularly in challenging conditions. |
| Color Vision | 1 item | Assesses the patient's ability to accurately perceive and distinguish colors. |
| Peripheral Vision | 1 item | Evaluates the patient's subjective experience of their side or peripheral visual field. |
Instrument
| Test Type | Self-report questionnaire |
| Format | 25 primary items (plus 12 optional items), multiple-choice response formats |
| Scoring | Each subscale is converted to a 0 to 100 scale, where higher scores indicate better vision-specific quality of life. The composite score is the mean of all items excluding the general health item. |
| Language | Serbian |
| Population | Adults, Clinical patients, Older adults |
| Age Group | 40 years and older |
| Administration | Face-to-face interview |
| Completion Time | Approximately 10 minutes |
Scoring & Interpretation Guidelines
| Scoring Instructions | Scores are transformed to a 0-100 scale. The composite score is calculated by averaging all subscale scores except the General Health item. |
| Normative Reference Values | Composite score mean = 67.4 (SD = 15.0) |
National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire Items
Items are currently not available
The individual items of this scale are not publicly available. Researchers interested in using this instrument should contact the original authors directly to request the scale materials.
Sample
105 adult patients (mean age 69.2 ± 9.9 years; 60% female) recruited from the Eye Clinic of the Military Medical Academy in Belgrade. The clinical sample included individuals diagnosed with cataracts (38.1%), diabetic retinopathy (29.5%), age-related macular degeneration (21.0%), and glaucoma (11.4%).
Cite This Paper
Bojan Kovač, Miroslav Vukosavljević, Jelena Djokić Kovač, Mirko Resan, Goran Trajković, Janko Janković, Milena Smiljanic, Anita Grgurević, Jelena Djokic Kovac (2015). National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-015-0330-5
References
38 references
- Nutheti R, Shamanna BR, Nirmalan PK, Keeffe JE, Krishnaiah S, Rao GN, et al. Impact of impaired vision and eye disease on quality of life in Andhra Pradesh. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47:4742–8. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.06-0020
- Jacobs JM, Hammerman-Rozenberg R, Maaravi Y, Cohen A, Stessman J. The impact of Visual Impairment on health, function and mortality. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2005;17:281–6. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03324611
- Cahill MT, Banks AD, Stinnett SS, Toth CA. Vision-related quality of life in patients with bilateral severe age-related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology. 2005;112:152–8. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2004.06.036
- Testa MA, Simonson DC. Assesment of quality-of-life outcomes. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:835–40. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199603283341306
- Tripop S, Pratheepawanit N, Asawaphureekorn S, Anutangkoon W, Inthayung S. Health related quality of life instruments for glaucoma: a comprehensive review. J Med Assoc Thai. 2005;88 Suppl 9:S155–62.
- Pesudovs K, Burr JM, Harley C, Elliott DB. The development, assessment, and selection of questionnaires. Optom Vis Sci. 2007;84:663–74. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0b013e318141fe75
- Donovan JL, Brookes ST, Laidlaw DA, Hopper CD, Sparrow JM, Peters TJ. The development and validation of a questionnaire to assess visual symptoms/dysfunction and impact on quality of life in cataract patients: the Visual Symptoms and Quality of life (VSQ) Questionnaire. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2003;10:49–65. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1076/opep.10.1.49.13775
- Massof RW, Rubin GS. Visual function assessment questionnaires. Surv Ophthalmol. 2001;45:531–48. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0039-6257(01)00194-1
- Lundstrom M, Pesudovs K. Questionnaires for measuring cataract surgery outcomes. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37:945–59. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2011.03.010
- Mangione CM, Lee PP, Gutierrez PR, Spritzer K, Berry S, Hays RD. Development of the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire. Arch Ophthalmol. 2001;119:1050–8. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.119.7.1050
- Mangione CM, Berry S, Spritzer K, Janz NK, Klein R, Owsley C, et al. Identifying the content area for the 51-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire: results from focus groups with visually impaired persons. Arch Ophthalmol. 1998;116:227–33.
- Mangione CM, Lee PP, Pitts J, Gutierrez P, Berry S, Hays RD. Psychometric properties of the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ). NEI-VFQ Field Test Investigators. Arch Ophthalmol. 1998;116:1496–504. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.116.11.1496
- Rossi GC, Milano G, Tinelli C. The Italian version of the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire: translation, validity, and reliability. J Glaucoma. 2003;12:213–20. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1097/00061198-200306000-00006
- Nordmann JP, Viala M, Sullivan K, Arnould B, Berdeaux G. Psychometric Validation of the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire – 25 (NEI VFQ-25) French version: in a population of patients treated for ocular hypertension and glaucoma. Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;22:197–206. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200422030-00005
- Broman AT, Munoz B, West SK, Rodriguez J, Sanchez R, Snyder R, et al. Psychometric properties of the 25-item NEI-VFQ in a Hispanic population: Proyecto VER. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001;42:606–13.
- Toprak AB, Eser E, Guler C, Baser FE, Mayali H. Cross-validation of the Turkish version of the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ 25). Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2005;12:259–69. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/09286580590967763
- Lin JC, Chie WC. Psychometric validation of the Taiwan Chinese version of the 25-Item National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire. J Eval Clin Pract. 2010;16:619–26. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2009.01253.x
- Suzukamo Y, Oshika T, Yuzawa M, Tokuda Y, Tomidokoro A, Oki K, et al. Psychometric properties of the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25). Japanese version. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2005;3:65. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-3-65
- Labiris G, Katsanos A, Fanariotis M, Tsirouki T, Pefkianaki M, Chatzoulis D, et al. Psychometric properties of the Greek version of the NEI-VFQ 25. BMC Ophthalmol. 2008;8:4. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2415-8-4
- Simao LM, Lana-Peixoto MA, Araujo CR, Moreira MA, Teixeira AL. The Brazilian version of the 25-Item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire: translation, reliability and validity. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2008;71:540–6. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1590/S0004-27492008000400014
- Acquadro C, Jambon B, Ellis D, Marquis P. Language and translations issues. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical. 2nd ed. New York, N.Y: Lippincott-Raven; 1996. p. 575–85.
- ProQuolid patient-reported outcome and quality of life instruments database SF-36 health survey Serbian version. http://www.proqolid.org/ . Accessed 20 June 2012.
- Chylack Jr LT, Wolfe JK, Singer DM, Leske MC, Bullimore MA, Bailey IL, et al. The Lens Opacities Classification System III. The Longitudinal Study of Cataract Study Group. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993;111:831–6. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.1993.01090060119035
- Grading diabetic retinopathy from stereoscopic color fundus photographs–an extension of the modified Airlie House classification. ETDRS report number 10. Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Research Group. Ophthalmol. 1991, 98:786–806. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2062513 . 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0161-6420(13)38012-9
- Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16:297–334. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
- Colton T. Statistics in medicine. 1st ed. Boston: Little, Brown; 1974.
- Kramer MS, Feinstein AR. Clinical biostatistics. LIV. The biostatistics of concordance. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1981;29:111–23. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1038/clpt.1981.18
- Streiner DL, Norman GR. Reliability. In: Streiner DL, Norman GR, editors. Health measurement scales : a practical guide to their development and use. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1995. p. 79–96.
- Campbell DT, Fiske DW. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol Bull. 1959;56:81–105. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046016
- Andrich D. A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika. 1978;43:561–73. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02293814
- Pesudovs K, Gothwal VK, Wright T, Lamoureux EL. Remediating serious flaws in the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010;36:718–32. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.11.019
- Khadka J, Ryan B, Margrain TH, Court H, Woodhause JM. Development of the 25-item Cardiff Visual Ability Questionnaire for Children (CVAQC). Br J Ophthalmol. 2010;94:730–5. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2009.171181
- Marella M, Pesudovs K, Keeffe JE, O’Connor PM, Rees G, Lamoureux EL. The psychometric validity of the NEI VFQ-25 for use in a low-vision population. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010;51:2878–84. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.09-4494
- Mollazadegan K, Huang J, Khadka J, Wang Q, Yang F, Gao R, et al. Cross-cultural validation of the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2014;40:774–84. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrs.2013.10.040
- Kielhofner G. Research in occupational therapy : methods of inquiry for enhancing practice. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis; 2006. p. 186.
- Pesudovs K, Garamendi E, Keeves JP, Elliott DB. The Activities of Daily Vision Scale for cataract surgery outcomes: re-evaluating validity with Rasch analysis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:2892–9. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.02-1075
- Lamoureux EL, Pallant JF, Pesudovs K, Hassell JB, Keeffe JE. The Impact of Vision Impairment Questionnaire: an evaluation of its measurement properties using Rasch analysis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47:4732–41. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.06-0220
- Khadka J, McAlinden C, Pesudovs K. Quality assessment of ophtalmic questionnaires: review and recommendation. Optom Vis Sci. 2013;90:720–44. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000000001
Cite this article
Mohammed looti (2026). National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. Retrieved from https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/national-eye-institute-visual-function-questionnaire/
Mohammed looti. "National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire." PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, 14 Aug. 2026, https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/national-eye-institute-visual-function-questionnaire/.
Mohammed looti. "National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire." PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, 2026. https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/national-eye-institute-visual-function-questionnaire/.
Mohammed looti (2026) 'National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire', PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. Available at: https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/national-eye-institute-visual-function-questionnaire/.
[1] Mohammed looti, "National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire," PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, vol. X, no. Y, ص Z-Z, August, 2026.
Mohammed looti. National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. 2026;vol(issue):pages.