IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0214290.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Towards population screening for Cerebral Visual Impairment: Validity of the Five Questions and the CVI Questionnaire

Author

Listed:
  • Fiona Gorrie
  • Karen Goodall
  • Robert Rush
  • John Ravenscroft

Abstract

Introduction: Cerebral Visual Impairment (CVI) is the most common cause of visual impairment in children in the developed world and appears to be more prevalent in children with additional support needs (ASN). There is an urgent need for routine screening for CVI, particularly in children with ASN, however, current screening questionnaires for CVI have limited validation. The aim of this study was to evaluate two screening tools: the Five Questions and the CVI Questionnaire. Additionally, the distribution of CVI across neurodevelopmental disorders is unknown. This too was investigated. Methods: An online survey was completed by 535 parents. The survey was advertised via social media, CVI websites and parent email systems of four schools. The survey comprised of the Five Questions, the CVI Questionnaire and additional questions regarding the child’s diagnoses. Whether or not a child had a diagnosis of CVI and/or additional neurodevelopmental disorders was based on parental report. Results: Based on parent reports, both the screening tools accurately screened for CVI diagnoses in children. The Five Questions and the CVI Questionnaire have construct validity (as determined through factor analysis), high internal consistency (as determined by Cronbach’s alpha) and convergent validity (as determined by correlation analysis of the raw scores of each questionnaire). This study also highlights that among children with neurodevelopmental disorders, a large proportion have parent-reported CVI (23%-39%) and potential CVI (6.59–22.53%; as identified by the questionnaires). Conclusion: The current study demonstrates that the Five Questions and CVI Questionnaire have good convergent validity, internal consistency and a reliable factor structure and may therefore be suitable as screening tools. The study also highlights that reported or potential CVI is evident in a large proportion of children with neurodevelopmental disorders.

Suggested Citation

  • Fiona Gorrie & Karen Goodall & Robert Rush & John Ravenscroft, 2019. "Towards population screening for Cerebral Visual Impairment: Validity of the Five Questions and the CVI Questionnaire," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-19, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0214290
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214290
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0214290
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0214290&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0214290?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0214290. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.