PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to validate DEQ-5 and mOSDI in children using Rasch analysis and determine the optimal cutoff value for DEQ-5 to differentiate dry eye symptoms defined by mOSDI in children aged 6-17 years. In addition, the repeatability of mOSDI and DEQ-5 were investigated in children. METHODS: A total of 225 children were recruited. Both DEQ-5 and mOSDI were administered to participants in a randomized sequence. Retests of the two questionnaires were performed after 30 min in 72 participants. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was generated to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the DEQ-5 questionnaire for diagnosis of dry eye symptoms. Repeatability of both questionnaires was evaluated using coefficient of repeatability (CoR) and 95% limits of agreement. RESULTS: The median of mOSDI score was 11.4 (Inter-quartile range: 4.5-20.5). The median DEQ-5 score was 4.0 (Inter-quartile range: 2.0-7.0). The area under the curve of the ROC curve for DEQ-5 was 0.78 (p < 0.0001). A DEQ-5 threshold of 4.5 yielded maximum sensitivity (72.2%) and specificity (66.1%) to differentiate dry eye symptoms in children. Females had significantly higher OSDI scores than males. CoR was ±4.8 for DEQ-5 and ±16.6 for mOSDI. The 95% limits of agreement were 5.5 to -4.2 for DEQ-5 and 16.5 to -16.7 for modified OSDI. Rasch analysis demonstrated that the five-level response scales in both the mOSDI and DEQ-5 produced disordered item thresholds. Collapsing the response scales from five to three categories improved overall model fit. CONCLUSIONS: Although we identified a DEQ-5 cutoff value of ≥5 for differentiating dry eye symptoms in children, which is different from that used in adults (≥6), the five-level response scales of both the mOSDI and DEQ-5 may not be optimal for the pediatric population and certain items might not be adequate to measure dry eye symptoms, thus we do not recommend using DEQ-5 in children to measure dry eye symptoms. This underscores the need to develop a dry eye questionnaire specifically designed for children to ensure more accurate assessment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: