This study translates and adapts the LV-SCOPE for Spanish speakers with low vision, indicating effective cultural equivalence.
Validated assessment questionnaires tailored for patients with peripheral field loss are essential, as these conditions significantly impact daily activities and overall quality of life. Such questionnaires enhance patient care and empower healthcare providers to deliver effective interventions. The LV-SCOPE questionnaire is the only validated instrument with adequate psychometric properties, specifically designed to assess difficulties that individuals with low vision and severe peripheral field loss encounter in daily living, orientation, and mobility. This study aimed to translate into Spanish and culturally adapt English version 'Low Vision Severely Constricted Peripheral Eyesight (LV-SCOPE)'. The LV-SCOPE consists of 53 items and explores 6 dimensions: mobility, object localisation, recognition, reading, social functioning and technology. Following the recommendations of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) for translation and cultural adaptation, translation, back-translation and cognitive interviews with 6 visually impaired patients were conducted. An expert committee of two optometrists and a psychologist specialising in Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO) participated. Conceptual equivalence between the original and adapted versions was assessed. A total of 53 sentences were translated, of which 96.2% exhibited excellent equivalence and 3.8% moderate equivalence with the original. Cognitive interviews indicated that the questionnaire was well-received, with 50% participants reporting difficulty with only 4 items. The Spanish adaptation of the LV-SCOPE was easy to understand in a sample of patients with severe peripheral field loss. Further study is needed to assess the psychometric properties of the Spanish version, including validity, reliability and responsiveness to change.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pérez-Mañá et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: