Web-based versus paper administration of common ophthalmic questionnaires: comparison of subscale scores.

Objective To compare participants' responses to Web-based and paper-and-pencil versions of an ophthalmic, patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaire. Design Questionnaire development. Participants Matched subjects with ocular surface disease (OSD) (n = 68) and without OSD (controls, n=50). Methods Subjects completed a standard, paper-and-pencil and a Web-based version of the same questionnaire in randomized order. The administered questionnaire included several ophthalmic PRO subscales: the National Eye Institute's (NEI's) Refractive Error Quality of Life Instrument's Clarity of Vision, Near Vision, Far Vision, Glare, Symptoms, Worry, and Satisfaction with Correction subscales; the Ocular Surface Disease Index's (OSDI's) Symptoms subscale; and the NEI's Visual Function Questionnaire's Driving subscale. Possible scores for each subscale ranged from 0 (no difficulty) to 100 (most difficulty). Agreement of subscale scores between modes of administration was assessed using the Bland–Altman approach and multivariable logistic regression. Main Outcome Measures Subscale scores and an unweighted average total score for each mode of administration. Results Mean differences in scores between modes of administration ranged from −2.1 to +2.3 units. Although no differences were found to be statistically significant, the Worry and Satisfaction with Correction subscales approached statistical significance ( P = 0.07 and 0.08, respectively). Although most subscale mean differences in score did not differ significantly by gender, age (≥40 vs. P = 0.04) and Clarity of Vision ( P = 0.03) subscales; those with OSD had greater score differences for Clarity of Vision than did controls ( P = 0.0006); and those aged ≥40 years had slightly greater differences in OSDI Symptoms subscale than those aged P = 0.04). Conclusions To our knowledge, this Food and Drug Administration and NEI collaboration is the first study to evaluate the equivalence of Web-based and paper versions of ophthalmic PRO questionnaires. We found no evidence of clinically significant differences between scores obtained by the 2 modes for any of the examined subscales. A Web-based instrument should yield scores equivalent to those obtained by standard methods, providing a useful tool that may facilitate ophthalmic innovation. Financial Disclosure(s) The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.