Development and validation of a patient based measure of outcome in ocular melanoma. Issue 4 (1st April 2000)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Foss, Alexander J E; Lamping, Donna L; Schroter, Sara; Hungerford, John
• Is Part Of: British journal of ophthalmology. Volume 84:Issue 4(2000)
• Page Start: 347
• Page End: 351
• Publication Date: 2000-04-01
• Subjects: patient based measure -- ocular melanoma -- MOOD questionnaire -- quality of life measure; Ophthalmology -- Periodicals; 617.7
• DOI: 10.1136/bjo.84.4.347
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0007-1161

Abstract

Abstract : BACKGROUND: Patients with uveal melanoma can be treated by a number of modalities. As none of the different treatments offer a survival advantage, a key factor in choosing among treatments is their differential impact on patients' quality of life. A short, patient based questionnaire was developed and validated for evaluating outcomes following treatment for uveal melanoma. METHODS: The 21 item measure of outcome in ocular disease (MOOD) assesses the patient's view of outcome in terms of visual function and the impact of treatment. The reliability and validity of the three MOOD scores (total, vision, impact) were evaluated in 176 patients who had been treated for uveal melanoma (75 brachytherapy, 78 proton beam radiotherapy, 23 enucleation). Of these, 165 patients also completed the SF-36. RESULTS: All three MOOD scales met standard criteria for acceptability, reliability, and validity. The proportion of missing data was low, and responses to all items were well distributed across response categories. Internal consistency, assessed by Cronbach's alpha coefficients, exceeded the standard criterion of 0.70 for all three summary scores. Item total correlations ranged from 0.22 to 0.77 (mean item total correlation 0.58), indicating good homogeneity. Test-retest correlations for all three summary scores exceeded 0.85. Scaling assumptions, assessed by item convergent and discriminant validity correlations, were met for the vision and impact scores. The MOOD showed good content validity, as assessed by review by ophthalmologists and patients. Construct validity was demonstrated by high intercorrelations between the vision and impact scores and the total scale; higher scores for patients who reported being very satisfied compared with those who were not very satisfied and for those who reported persistent red eye compared with those who did not have this complication (known group differences/hypothesis testing); moderate correlations between the MOOD and the SF-36 and visual acuity (convergent validity); and low correlations between the MOOD and age and sex (discriminant validity). CONCLUSIONS: The MOOD is a practical and scientifically sound patient based measure which can be used in research and audit to evaluate outcomes following treatment for uveal melanoma. It takes 5 minutes to complete and meets standard psychometric criteria for reliability and validity.