Therapeutic Science for Rehabilitation (재활치료과학)

Korean Society of Neurological Occupational Therapy (대한신경계작업치료학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Reliability and Validity of the Korean Version of Melbourne Low-Vision ADL Index

한국판 맬버른 저시력 일상생활지수(Melbourne Low-vision ADL Index: MLVAI)의 신뢰도 및 타당도

  • Yoo, Yeon Hwan (Dept. of Physical and Occupational Therapy, National Rehabilitation Center) ;
  • Park, Ji-Hyuk (Dept. of Occupational Therapy, College of Health Science, Yonsei University) ;
  • Jung, Min-Ye (Dept. of Occupational Therapy, College of Health Science, Yonsei University) ;
  • Park, Hae Yean (Dept. of Occupational Therapy, College of Health Science, Yonsei University)
  • 유연환 (국립재활원 물리작업치료과) ;
  • 박지혁 (연세대학교 보건과학대학 작업치료학과) ;
  • 정민예 (연세대학교 보건과학대학 작업치료학과) ;
  • 박혜연 (연세대학교 보건과학대학 작업치료학과)
  • Received : 2018.05.01
  • Accepted : 2018.05.16
  • Published : 2018.05.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was performed to modify the performance-based assessment tool, Melbourne Low-Vision ADL Index (MLVAI) had been developed in Australia to suit the Korea culture to verify the reliability and validity. Methods: The subjects were only over the age of 20 living in communities, 26 with low-vision and 42 normal persons. The Korean MLVAI was completed through the expert translation verification and validation of the configuration tool. The validity of the Korean MLVAI was established through the content, discriminant, and convergent validity. Also, the reliability was analyzed through internal consistency reliability for the items, test-retest, and interrater reliability. Results: The Content Validity Index(CVI) was more than .78. There was a statically significant low in low-vision. Also, there was a statically significant low in low-vision. The convergent validity was determined the correlation coefficient of .751 analyzing LVQOL and Korean MLVAI total score, had a significant correlation(p<.05). Cronbach's ${\alpha}$ coefficient indicated an internal consistency of .983(p<.05). Test-retest reliability had a high, significant correlation of .976 and interrater reliability had a high, an intraclass correlation coefficient of .91(p<.05). Conclusion: The results of this study mean that the Korean MLVAI which was modified to fit the Korean is the ADL assessment tool with both validity and reliability. Based on this study, the Korean MLVAI can be used as a useful ADL assessment for OT interventions in low vision.

목적 : 본 연구의 목적은 호주에서 개발된 수행기반의 관찰평가도구인 Melbourne Low-Vision ADL Index(MLVAI)를 한국 문화에 적합하게 구성하여 신뢰도와 타당도를 검증하는 것이었다. 연구방법 : 연구대상자는 지역사회에 거주하고 있는 만 20세 이상의 저시력인 26명, 정안인 42명으로 총 68명이었다. 한국판 MLVAI는 번역 검증 및 도구 구성에 대한 전문가 검증을 통해 완성하였다. 한국판 MLVAI의 타당도는 내용타당도, 판별타당도, 수렴타당도 검증을 통해 수립하였고, 신뢰도는 항목에 대한 내적일치도, 검사-재검사 신뢰도, 검사자간 신뢰도를 분석하였다. 결과 : 내용타당도 수립을 위해 저시력 관련 분야의 전문가들이 시행한 문항적합도 검증에서는 .78이상으로 타당성이 수립되었다. 판별타당도 검증은 저시력 집단의 평균점수가 통계적으로 낮았다(p<.05). 수렴타당도는 Low Vision Quality of Life Questionnaire(LVQOL)을 이용하여 한국판 MLVAL 총점과의 상관계수 .751을 산출하였고 통계적으로 유의하였다(p<.05). 전체 항목에 대한 Cronbach's ${\alpha}$값은 .983으로 높았으며 검사-재검사 신뢰도는 .976(p<.05), 검사자간 신뢰도는 급간 내 상관계수(ICC2,1) .91로 모두 양호하였다(p<.05). 결론 : 본 연구 결과 국내 실정에 맞게 수정한 한국판 MLVAI는 신뢰도와 타당도를 모두 갖춘 일상생활 평가도구로 작업치료 중재 시 저시력인의 일상생활활동의 평가를 위해 유용하게 사용될 수 있을 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. 김지택, 문남주. (2007). 저시력 환자의 삶의 질에 관한 연구. 대한안과학회지, 48(9), 1269-1275. https://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2007.48.9.1269
  2. Carta, A., Braccio, L., Belpoliti, M., Soliani, L., Sartore, F., Gandolfi, S. A., & Maraini, G. (1998). Self-assessment of the quality of vision: Association of questionnaire score with objective clinical tests. Current Eye Research, 17(5), 506-512. doi: 10.1076/ceyr.17.5.506.5191
  3. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334. doi:10.1007/BF02310555
  4. Fisher, A. G., Liu, Y., Velozo, C. A., & Pan, W., (1992). Cross-cultural assessment of process skills. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 46(10), 876-885. doi:10.5014/ajot.46.10.876
  5. Freeman, P. B. (2002). Low vision: Overview and review of low vision evaluation and treatment. In M. Scheiman (Ed), Understanding and managing vision deficits: A guide for occupational therapists (2nd ed., pp. 265-286). Thorofare, NJ: SLACK.
  6. Friedman, S. M., Munoz, B., Rubin, G. S., West, S. K., Bandeen-Roche, K., & Fried L. P. (1999). Characteristics of discrepancies between self-reported visual function and measured reading speed. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 40(5), 858-864.
  7. Glasser, A., & Campbell, M. C. (1998). Presbyopia and the optical changes in the human crystalline lens with age. Vision Research, 38(2), 209-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0042-6989(97)00102-8
  8. Haymes, S. A., Johnston, A. W., & Heyes, A. D. (2001a). The development of the Melbourne Low-Vision ADL Index: A measure of vision disability. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 42(6), 1215-1225.
  9. Haymes, S. A., Johnston, A. W., & Heyes, A. D. (2001b). Preliminary investigation of the responsiveness of the Melbourne Low Vision ADL Index to low-vision rehabilitation. Optometry and Vision Science, 78(6), 373-380. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006324-200106000-00008
  10. Haymes, S. A., Johnston, A. W., & Heyes, A. D. (2001c). A weighted version of the Melbourne Low-Vision ADL Index: A measure of disability impact. Optometry and Vision Science, 78(8), 565-579. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006324-200108000-00008
  11. Haymes, S. A., Johnston, A. W., & Heyes, A. D. (2002). Relationship between vision impairment and ability to perform activities of daily living. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 22(2), 79-91. doi:10.1046/j.1475-1313.2002.00016.x
  12. Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2006). The content validity index: Are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 29, 489-497. doi:10.1002/nur.20147
  13. Turco, P. D., Connolly, J., McCabe, P., & Glynn, R. J. (1994). Assessment of functional vision performance: A new test for low vision patients. Ophthalmic Epidemiology, 1(1), 15-25. doi: 10.3109/09286589409071441
  14. Warren, M. (1995). Including occupational therapy in low vision rehabilitation. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 49(9), 857-860. doi:10.5014/ajot.49.9.857
  15. Warrian, K. J., Altangerel, U., & Spaeth, G. L. (2010). Performance-based measures of visual function. Survey of Ophthalmology, 55(2), 146-161. doi:10.1016/j.survophthal.2009.06.006
  16. West, S. K., Rubin, G. S., Broman, A. T., Munoz, B., Bandeen-Roche, K., & Turano, K. (2002). How does visual impairment affect performance on tasks of everyday life? Archives of Ophthalmology, 120(6), 774-780. doi:10.1001/archopht.120.6.774.
  17. Wolffsohn, J. S., & Cochrane, A. L. (2000). Design of the low vision quality-of-life questionnaire (LVQOL) and measuring the outcome of low-vision rehabilitation. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 130(6), 793-802. doi:10.1016/S0002-9394(00)00610-3