{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2025,12,12]],"date-time":"2025-12-12T14:40:27Z","timestamp":1765550427480,"version":"3.48.0"},"reference-count":51,"publisher":"Springer Science and Business Media LLC","issue":"1","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2025,12,12]],"date-time":"2025-12-12T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1765497600000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2025,12,12]],"date-time":"2025-12-12T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1765497600000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["link.springer.com"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["J Patient Rep Outcomes"],"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Background<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are underutilized in medical device evaluations, including in ophthalmology and intraocular lens (IOL) replacements. This article summarizes research conducted to develop the Patient-Reported Intraocular Lens Questionnaire (PR-ILQ) and support its content validity and psychometric performance. Use of the PR-ILQ in a regulated clinical trial to support new product approval decisions, secondary effectiveness claims, and safety observations is also discussed.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Results<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>\n                      The PR-ILQ, developed with ophthalmology experts (\n                      <jats:italic>n<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2009=\u200910) and use of qualitative data generated from patients during concept elicitation (\n                      <jats:italic>n<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2009=\u200944) and cognitive debriefing (\n                      <jats:italic>n<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2009=\u200932) interviews, includes the Vision Correction Scale (VCS, three items), Vision Disturbance Scale (VDS, eight items), and IOL Replacement Satisfaction Scale (IOL-RSS, five items). Each assessment is distinct, and items within each are scored independently to address treatment benefit hypotheses. With its content validity established, the PR-ILQ was administered to 271 subjects (mean age\u2009=\u200968.3\u2009years) participating in a clinical trial to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of an asymmetric segmented multifocal IOL (SBL-INI-02\u201313). Descriptively, item scores behaved as expected, with clustering of VCS and VDS scores at more- and less-severe levels at study entry and exit, respectively, though scores were distributed across response options across timepoints. Test-retest reliability results mostly indicate \u201cfair\u201d\/\u201cgood\u201d (weighted Kappa [KW]\/intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]\u2009&gt;\u20090.40 to 0.60) to \u201cexcellent\u201d (KW\/ICC\u2009&gt;\u20090.75) reproducibility for VCS, VDS, and IOL-RSS items in two independent analyses. Construct validity hypotheses, including those associated with sensitivity to change, were supported via correlational analysis showing a pattern of expected relationships among PR-ILQ items and with other variables including ratings of visual acuity. For example, reduced use of vision correction at near (\n                      <jats:italic>r<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2009=\u2009\u22120.28), intermediate (\n                      <jats:italic>r<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2009=\u2009\u22120.42), and far (\n                      <jats:italic>r<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2009=\u2009\u22120.57) distances were more strongly related to overall lens satisfaction at end of study than improved visual acuity at those same distances (\n                      <jats:italic>r<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2009=\u2009\u22120.25. \u22120.26, and \u22120,14).\n                    <\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Conclusions<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>The PR-ILQ is content valid and early evidence suggests it is capable of producing reliable scores upon which valid conclusions may be drawn when administered among patients undergoing cataract lens replacement surgery. Acknowledging limitations and need for additional psychometric evaluation, the assessment recently supported a new product approval decision, secondary effectiveness claims, and safety observations. Together, this indicates that the PR-ILQ, along with the evidentiary basis and suggestions for use presented herein, will be of immediate value to IOL replacement outcomes researchers, regulators, and other stakeholders interested in generating evidence to inform health care decisions and improving cataracts patients\u2019 lives.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Trial registration<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>\n                      Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02487160. Registered 25 June 2015,\n                      <jats:ext-link xmlns:xlink=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/1999\/xlink\" xlink:href=\"https:\/\/clinicaltrials.gov\/study\/NCT02487160\" ext-link-type=\"uri\">https:\/\/clinicaltrials.gov\/study\/NCT02487160<\/jats:ext-link>\n                      .\n                    <\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1186\/s41687-025-00968-0","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2025,12,12]],"date-time":"2025-12-12T14:18:22Z","timestamp":1765549102000},"update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/springer_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["The patient reported intraocular lens questionnaire (PR-ILQ): content validity, psychometric performance, and use in a regulated clinical trial to evaluate safety and effectiveness outcomes"],"prefix":"10.1186","volume":"9","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0003-3362-3135","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Alan L.","family":"Shields","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Nina","family":"Galipeau","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Leighann","family":"Litcher-Kelly","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Alejandro","family":"Moreno-Koehler","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Jimmy","family":"Chacko","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"297","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2025,12,12]]},"reference":[{"issue":"1","key":"968_CR1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"53","DOI":"10.1186\/s41687-022-00463-w","volume":"6","author":"C. M. Webber","year":"2022","unstructured":"Webber, C. M., Caldwell, B., Bocell, F. D., Saha, A., Tarver, M. E (2022). Patient-reported outcomes and medical device evaluation: from conception to implementation. J Patient Rep Outcomes, 6(1), 53.","journal-title":"J Patient Rep Outcomes"},{"key":"968_CR2","volume-title":"Best (Biomarkers, EndpointS, and other Tools) Resource","author":"FDA-NIH Biomarker Working Group","year":"2016","unstructured":"FDA-NIH Biomarker Working Group (2016). Best (Biomarkers, EndpointS, and other Tools) Resource. Silver Spring (MD): food and Drug Administration (US)."},{"issue":"1","key":"968_CR3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"146","DOI":"10.1177\/2168479018772569","volume":"53","author":"E. Richardson","year":"2019","unstructured":"Richardson, E., Burnell, J., Adams, H. R., Bohannon, R. W., Bush, E. N., Campbell, M. et al. (2019). Developing and implementing performance outcome assessments: evidentiary, Methodologic, and operational considerations. Ther Innov Regul Sci, 53(1): 146\u2013153.","journal-title":"Ther Innov Regul Sci"},{"issue":"10094","key":"968_CR4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"600","DOI":"10.1016\/S0140-6736(17)30544-5","volume":"390","author":"Y. C. Liu","year":"2017","unstructured":"Liu, Y. C., Wilkins, M., Kim, T., Malyugin, B., Mehta, J. S (2017). Cataracts. Lancet, 390(10094): 600\u2013612.","journal-title":"Lancet"},{"issue":"5","key":"968_CR5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"863","DOI":"10.1007\/s00417-018-04218-6","volume":"257","author":"S. S. Khandelwal","year":"2019","unstructured":"Khandelwal, S. S., Jun, J. J., Mak, S., Booth, M. S., Shekelle, P. G (2019). Effectiveness of multifocal and monofocal intraocular lenses for cataract surgery and lens replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol, 257(5): 863\u2013875.","journal-title":"Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol"},{"key":"968_CR6","unstructured":"US Food & Drug Administration (09\/27\/2018). PMA Labeling. https:\/\/www.fda.gov\/medical-devices\/premarket-approval-pma\/pma-labeling. Accessed 11\/19\/2022."},{"key":"968_CR7","unstructured":"US Food & Drug Administration (2014). Updated dfu for the Tecnis\u00ae multifocal foldable acrylic intraocular lens. https:\/\/www.accessdata.fda.gov\/cdrh_docs\/pdf\/P980040S049D.pdf. Accessed 10\/24\/2023."},{"key":"968_CR8","volume-title":"Patient-focused drug development: collecting comprehensive and Representative input - guidance for industry, food and drug administration staff, and other stakeholders","author":"US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, & Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research","year":"2020","unstructured":"US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, & Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (06\/2020). Patient-focused drug development: collecting comprehensive and Representative input - guidance for industry, food and drug administration staff, and other stakeholders. Silver Springs, MD: Office of Communications, Division of Drug Information."},{"key":"968_CR9","volume-title":"Patient-focused drug development: methods to identify what is important to patients - guidance for industry, food and drug administration staff, and other stakeholders","author":"US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, & Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research","year":"2022","unstructured":"US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, & Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (02\/2022). Patient-focused drug development: methods to identify what is important to patients - guidance for industry, food and drug administration staff, and other stakeholders. Silver Spring, MD: Office of Communications, Division of Drug Information."},{"key":"968_CR10","volume-title":"Patient-focused drug development: selecting, developing, or modifying fit-for-purpose clinical outcome assessments","author":"US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, & Center for Devices and Radiological Health","year":"2022","unstructured":"US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, & Center for Devices and Radiological Health (06\/2022). Patient-focused drug development: selecting, developing, or modifying fit-for-purpose clinical outcome assessments. Silver Spring, MD: Office of Communications, Division of Drug Information."},{"key":"968_CR11","unstructured":"US Food and Drug Administration (12\/16\/2019). Patient-focused drug development: guidance 4 - incorporating clinical outcome assessments into endpoints for regulatory decision making. https:\/\/www.fda.gov\/drugs\/development-approval-process-drugs\/public-workshop-patient-focused-drug-development-guidance-4-incorporating-clinical-outcome. Accessed 11\/23\/2022."},{"issue":"10","key":"968_CR12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1804","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ophtha.2007.06.047","volume":"114","author":"R. W. Beck","year":"2007","unstructured":"Beck, R. W., Maguire, M. G., Bressler, N. M., Glassman, A. R., Lindblad, A. S., Ferris, F. L (2007). Visual acuity as an outcome measure in clinical trials of retinal diseases. Ophthalmology, 114(10): 1804\u20131809.","journal-title":"Ophthalmology"},{"issue":"2","key":"968_CR13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"155","DOI":"10.1016\/S0896-1549(03)00013-0","volume":"16","author":"C. Kniestedt","year":"2003","unstructured":"Kniestedt, C., Stamper, R. L (2003). Visual acuity and its measurement. Ophthalmol Clin N Am, 16(2), 155\u2013170, v.","journal-title":"Ophthalmol Clin N Am"},{"key":"968_CR14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"941","DOI":"10.2147\/opth.S399857","volume":"17","author":"V. Patel","year":"2023","unstructured":"Patel, V., Pakravan, P., Lai, J., Watane, A., Mehra, D., Eatz, T. A. et al. (2023). Intraocular lens exchange: indications, comparative outcomes by technique, and complications. Clin Ophthalmol, 17, 941\u2013951, doi: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2147\/opth.S399857.","journal-title":"Clin Ophthalmol"},{"issue":"6","key":"968_CR15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"700","DOI":"10.1136\/bjophthalmol-2016-309955","volume":"101","author":"S. Dean","year":"2017","unstructured":"Dean, S., Mathers, J. M., Calvert, M., Kyte, D. G., Conroy, D., Folkard, A. et al. (2017). \u201cThe patient is speaking\u201d: discovering the patient voice in ophthalmology. Br J Ophthalmol, 101(6): 700\u2013708.","journal-title":"Br J Ophthalmol"},{"issue":"1","key":"968_CR16","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"90","DOI":"10.1186\/s40900-025-00747-7","volume":"11","author":"J. Enoch","year":"2025","unstructured":"Enoch, J., Matthews, D., Ghulakhszian, A., Sekhon, M., Callaghan, T., Crabb, D. et al. (2025). Implementing patient and public involvement (ppi) in eye research: reflections from developing a research study on geographic atrophy treatment acceptability. Res Involv Engagem, 11(1), 90, doi: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s40900-025-00747-7.","journal-title":"Res Involv Engagem"},{"issue":"11","key":"968_CR17","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1247","DOI":"10.1001\/jamaophthalmol.2015.2810","volume":"133","author":"I. Mahmud","year":"2015","unstructured":"Mahmud, I., Kelley, T., Stowell, C., Haripriya, A., Boman, A., Kossler, I. et al. (2015). A proposed minimum standard set of outcome measures for cataract surgery. JAMA Ophthalmol, 133(11): 1247\u20131252.","journal-title":"JAMA Ophthalmol"},{"issue":"1","key":"968_CR18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"119","DOI":"10.1186\/s12886-021-01887-6","volume":"21","author":"L. Queir\u00f3s","year":"2021","unstructured":"Queir\u00f3s, L., Redondo, P., Fran\u00e7a, M., Silva, S. E., Borges, P., de Melo, A. B. et al. (2021). Implementing ichom standard set for cataract surgery at IPO-Porto (Portugal): clinical outcomes, quality of life and costs. BMC Ophthalmol, 21(1), 119, doi: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s12886-021-01887-6.","journal-title":"BMC Ophthalmol"},{"issue":"2","key":"968_CR19","first-page":"188","volume":"28","author":"G. Oderda","year":"2022","unstructured":"Oderda, G., Brixner, D., Biskupiak, J., Burgoyne, D., Arondekar, B., Deal, L. S. et al. (2022). Payer perceptions on the use of patient-reported outcomes in oncology decision making. J Manag Care Spec Pharm, 28(2): 188\u2013195.","journal-title":"J Manag Care Spec Pharm"},{"issue":"1","key":"968_CR20","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"57","DOI":"10.1186\/s41687-022-00466-7","volume":"6","author":"K. Maruszczyk","year":"2022","unstructured":"Maruszczyk, K., Aiyegbusi, O. L., Torlinska, B., Collis, P., Keeley, T., Calvert, M. J (2022). Systematic review of guidance for the collection and use of patient-reported outcomes in real-world evidence generation to support regulation, reimbursement and health policy. J Patient Rep Outcomes, 6(1), 57, doi: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s41687-022-00466-7.","journal-title":"J Patient Rep Outcomes"},{"key":"968_CR21","unstructured":"US Food & Drug Administration (08\/11\/2022). SBL-3 multifocal intraocular lens - P200020. https:\/\/www.fda.gov\/medical-devices\/recently-approved-devices\/sbl-3-multifocal-intraocular-lens-p200020. Accessed 11\/19\/2022."},{"issue":"1","key":"968_CR22","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"38","DOI":"10.1186\/s41687-022-00444-z","volume":"6","author":"S. T. Matts","year":"2022","unstructured":"Matts, S. T., Webber, C. M., Bocell, F. D., Caldwell, B., Chen, A. L., Tarver, M. E (2022). Inclusion of patient-reported outcome instruments in us fda medical device marketing authorizations. J Patient Rep Outcomes, 6(1), 38.","journal-title":"J Patient Rep Outcomes"},{"issue":"7","key":"968_CR23","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1522","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ophtha.2015.02.038","volume":"122","author":"F. Lum","year":"2015","unstructured":"Lum, F., Tarver, M. E., Kahook, M. Y., Oetting, T. A., Rorer, E., Hilmantel, G. et al. (2015). Special commentary: food and Drug administration and American Academy of ophthalmology sponsored: developing novel end points for premium intraocular lenses workshop. Ophthalmology, 122(7): 1522\u20131531.","journal-title":"Ophthalmology"},{"key":"968_CR24","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"9","DOI":"10.2147\/prom.S162802","volume":"10","author":"T. Braithwaite","year":"2019","unstructured":"Braithwaite, T., Calvert, M., Gray, A., Pesudovs, K., Denniston, A. K (2019). The use of patient-reported outcome research in modern ophthalmology: impact on clinical trials and routine clinical practice. Patient Relat Outcome Meas, 10, 9\u201324, doi: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2147\/prom.S162802.","journal-title":"Patient Relat Outcome Meas"},{"issue":"1","key":"968_CR25","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"74","DOI":"10.1186\/s41687-023-00610-x","volume":"7","author":"C. Kay","year":"2023","unstructured":"Kay, C., Audo, I., Naujoks, C., Spera, C., Fischer, M. D., Green, J. et al. (2023). Qualitative exploration of the visual function impairments and impacts on vision-dependent activities of daily living in retinitis Pigmentosa and Leber Congenital Amaurosis: content validation of the ViSIO-PRO and ViSIO-ObsRO measures. J Patient Rep Outcomes, 7(1), 74, doi: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s41687-023-00610-x.","journal-title":"J Patient Rep Outcomes"},{"issue":"4","key":"968_CR26","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"788","DOI":"10.1038\/eye.2017.297","volume":"32","author":"J. M. Sparrow","year":"2018","unstructured":"Sparrow, J. M., Grzeda, M. T., Frost, N. A., Johnston, R. L., Liu, C. S. C., Edwards, L. et al. (2018). Cataract surgery patient-reported outcome measures: a head-to-head comparison of the psychometric performance and patient acceptability of the cat-PROM5 and catquest-9SF self-report questionnaires. Eye (Lond), 32(4): 788\u2013795.","journal-title":"Eye (Lond)"},{"key":"968_CR27","unstructured":"Loden, J. C (2021). Clinical study results of a new segmented multifocal iol: overall results from All 18 investigational sites for \u201cquality\u201d of vision only. Paper presented at the ASCRS Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, NV."},{"key":"968_CR28","unstructured":"US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, & Center for Devices and Radiological Health (12\/2009). Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Silver Spring, MD: Office of Communications, Division of Drug Information."},{"key":"968_CR29","volume-title":"Patient-focused drug development: collecting comprehensive and Representative input - guidance for industry, food and drug administration staff, and other stakeholders. Draft guidance","author":"US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, & Center for biologics Evaluation and Research","year":"2018","unstructured":"US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, & Center for biologics Evaluation and Research (2018). Patient-focused drug development: collecting comprehensive and Representative input - guidance for industry, food and drug administration staff, and other stakeholders. Draft guidance. Silver Spring, MD: Office of Communications, Division of Drug Information."},{"issue":"8","key":"968_CR30","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"967","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jval.2011.06.014","volume":"14","author":"D. L. Patrick","year":"2011","unstructured":"Patrick, D. L., Burke, L. B., Gwaltney, C. J., Leidy, N. K., Martin, M. L., Molsen, E. et al. (2011). Content validity-establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (pro) instruments for medical product evaluation: ispor pro good research practices task force report: part 1-eliciting concepts for a new pro instrument. Value Health, 14(8): 967\u2013977.","journal-title":"Value Health"},{"issue":"8","key":"968_CR31","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"978","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jval.2011.06.013","volume":"14","author":"D. L. Patrick","year":"2011","unstructured":"Patrick, D. L., Burke, L. B., Gwaltney, C. J., Leidy, N. K., Martin, M. L., Molsen, E. et al. (2011). Content validity-establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (pro) instruments for medical product evaluation: ispor pro good research practices task force report: part 2-assessing respondent understanding. Value Health, 14(8): 978\u2013988.","journal-title":"Value Health"},{"issue":"7","key":"968_CR32","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"839","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jval.2017.11.014","volume":"21","author":"D. M. Turner-Bowker","year":"2018","unstructured":"Turner-Bowker, D. M., Lamoureux, R. E., Stokes, J., Litcher-Kelly, L., Galipeau, N., Yaworsky, A. et al. (2018). Informing a priori sample size estimation in qualitative concept elicitation interview studies for clinical outcome assessment instrument development. Value Health: The J Int Soc For Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Res, 21(7): 839\u2013842.","journal-title":"Value Health: The J Int Soc For Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Res"},{"issue":"1","key":"968_CR33","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2","DOI":"10.1186\/s12955-014-0176-2","volume":"12","author":"E. Anthoine","year":"2014","unstructured":"Anthoine, E., Moret, L., Regnault, A., S\u00e9bille, V., Hardouin, J.-B (2014). Sample size used to validate a scale: a review of publications on newly-developed patient reported outcomes measures. Health and Qual of Life Outcomes, 12(1), 2, doi: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s12955-014-0176-2.","journal-title":"Health and Qual of Life Outcomes"},{"issue":"Suppl 2","key":"968_CR34","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"S94","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1524-4733.2007.00272.x","volume":"10","author":"M. H. Frost","year":"2007","unstructured":"Frost, M. H., Reeve, B. B., Liepa, A. M., Stauffer, J. W., Hays, R. D (2007). What is sufficient evidence for the reliability and validity of patient-reported outcome measures? Value In Health, 10Suppl 2, S94\u2013S105.","journal-title":"Value In Health"},{"issue":"12","key":"968_CR35","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1412","DOI":"10.1037\/pas0000626","volume":"31","author":"L. A. Clark","year":"2019","unstructured":"Clark, L. A., Watson, D (2019). Constructing validity: new developments in creating objective measuring instruments. Psychol Assess, 31(12): 1412\u20131427.","journal-title":"Psychol Assess"},{"issue":"6","key":"968_CR36","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1013","DOI":"10.1007\/s11136-011-0003-8","volume":"21","author":"J. M. Norquist","year":"2012","unstructured":"Norquist, J. M., Girman, C., Fehnel, S., DeMuro-Mercon, C., Santanello, N (2012). Choice of recall period for patient-reported outcome (pro) measures: criteria for consideration. qual.Life Res., 21(6), 1013\u20131020, doi: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s11136-011-0003-8. [doi].","journal-title":"qual.Life Res"},{"issue":"4","key":"968_CR37","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"929","DOI":"10.1185\/03007990902774765","volume":"25","author":"D. E. Stull","year":"2009","unstructured":"Stull, D. E., Leidy, N. K., Parasuraman, B., Chassany, O (2009). Optimal recall periods for patient-reported outcomes: challenges and potential solutions. Curr Med Res Opin., 25(4): 929\u2013942.","journal-title":"Curr Med Res Opin"},{"issue":"1","key":"968_CR38","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"30","DOI":"10.1037\/1082-989X.1.1.30","volume":"1","author":"K. O. McGraw","year":"1996","unstructured":"McGraw, K. O., Wong, S. P (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1(1): 30\u201346.","journal-title":"Psychological Methods"},{"issue":"8","key":"968_CR39","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"730","DOI":"10.1016\/S0895-4356(03)00084-2","volume":"56","author":"R. G. Marx","year":"2003","unstructured":"Marx, R. G., Menezes, A., Horovitz, L., Jones, E. C., Warren, R. F (2003). A comparison of two time intervals for test-retest reliability of health status instruments. J Clin Epidemiol., 56(8): 730\u2013735.","journal-title":"J Clin Epidemiol"},{"key":"968_CR40","first-page":"1","volume-title":"The design and analysis of clinical experiments","author":"J. L Fleiss","year":"1986","unstructured":"Fleiss, J. L (1986). Reliability of measurement. In The design and analysis of clinical experiments (pp. 1\u201332). New York: Wiley."},{"issue":"1","key":"968_CR41","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"159","DOI":"10.2307\/2529310","volume":"33","author":"J. R. Landis","year":"1977","unstructured":"Landis, J. R., Koch, G. G (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1): 159\u2013174.","journal-title":"Biometrics"},{"issue":"4","key":"968_CR42","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"284","DOI":"10.1037\/1040-3590.6.4.284","volume":"6","author":"D. V Cicchetti","year":"1994","unstructured":"Cicchetti, D. V (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess, 6(4): 284\u2013290.","journal-title":"Psychol Assess"},{"issue":"2","key":"968_CR43","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"149","DOI":"10.4055\/cios.2012.4.2.149","volume":"4","author":"K. M. Lee","year":"2012","unstructured":"Lee, K. M., Lee, J., Chung, C. Y., Ahn, S., Sung, K. H., Kim, T. W. et al. (2012). Pitfalls and important issues in testing reliability using intraclass correlation coefficients in orthopaedic research. Clin Orthop Surg, 4(2), 149\u2013155, doi: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4055\/cios.2012.4.2.149.","journal-title":"Clin Orthop Surg"},{"key":"968_CR44","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"309","DOI":"10.1037\/1040-3590.7.3.309","volume":"7","author":"L. Clark","year":"1995","unstructured":"Clark, L., Watson, D (1995). Constructing validity: basic issues in objective scale development. Psychol Assess, 7, 309\u2013319.","journal-title":"Psychol Assess"},{"key":"968_CR45","volume-title":"Standards for educational and psychological testing","author":"American Educational Research Association, American Psychologial Association, National Council on Measurement in Education, & Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing","year":"2014","unstructured":"American Educational Research Association, American Psychologial Association, National Council on Measurement in Education, & Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washinton, D.C.: American Educational Research Association."},{"key":"968_CR46","volume-title":"Statistical Power analysis for the behavioral sciences","author":"J Cohen","year":"1988","unstructured":"Cohen, J (1988). Statistical Power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates."},{"key":"968_CR47","volume-title":"Patient-focused drug development: incorporating clinical outcome assessments into endpoints for regulatory decision-making","author":"US Department of Health & Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, & Center for Devices and Radiological Health","year":"2023","unstructured":"US Department of Health & Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, & Center for Devices and Radiological Health (04\/2023). Patient-focused drug development: incorporating clinical outcome assessments into endpoints for regulatory decision-making. Silver Spring, MD: Office of Communications, Division of Drug Information."},{"issue":"1","key":"968_CR48","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"101","DOI":"10.1186\/s12886-023-02844-1","volume":"23","author":"J. Fern\u00e1ndez","year":"2023","unstructured":"Fern\u00e1ndez, J., Rocha-de-Lossada, C., Zamorano-Mart\u00edn, F., Rodr\u00edguez-Calvo-de-Mora, M., Rodr\u00edguez-Vallejo, M (2023). Positioning of enhanced monofocal intraocular lenses between conventional monofocal and extended depth of focus lenses: a scoping review. BMC Ophthalmol, 23(1), 101.","journal-title":"BMC Ophthalmol"},{"issue":"2","key":"968_CR49","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"94","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x","volume":"8","author":"D. Wild","year":"2005","unstructured":"Wild, D., Grove, A., Martin, M., Eremenco, S., McElroy, S., Verjee-Lorenz, A. et al. (2005). Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (pro) measures: report of the ispor task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value in Health, 8(2): 94\u2013104.","journal-title":"Value in Health"},{"issue":"2","key":"968_CR50","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"174","DOI":"10.1177\/0013164400602002","volume":"60","author":"B. Thompson","year":"2000","unstructured":"Thompson, B., Vacha-Haase, T (2000). Psychometrics is Datametrics: the test is not reliable. Educ and Psychological Meas, 60(2): 174\u2013195.","journal-title":"Educ and Psychological Meas"},{"issue":"4","key":"968_CR51","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"281","DOI":"10.1037\/h0040957","volume":"52","author":"L. J. Cronbach","year":"1955","unstructured":"Cronbach, L. J., Meehl, P. E (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol Bull, 52(4): 281\u2013302.","journal-title":"Psychol Bull"}],"container-title":["Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1186\/s41687-025-00968-0.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1186\/s41687-025-00968-0\/fulltext.html","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1186\/s41687-025-00968-0.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,12,12]],"date-time":"2025-12-12T14:18:25Z","timestamp":1765549105000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/10.1186\/s41687-025-00968-0"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2025,12,12]]},"references-count":51,"journal-issue":{"issue":"1","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2025,12]]}},"alternative-id":["968"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s41687-025-00968-0","relation":{},"ISSN":["2509-8020"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2509-8020","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2025,12,12]]},"assertion":[{"value":"24 February 2025","order":1,"name":"received","label":"Received","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"22 October 2025","order":2,"name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"12 December 2025","order":3,"name":"first_online","label":"First Online","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"order":1,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Declarations"}},{"value":"For study SBL-INI-02\u201313, full Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was obtained from Salus IRB (USA) prior to recruitment and written informed consent was obtained prior to enrollment. For the patient concept elicitation interview study, approval to execute the study was received from Copernicus Group IRB (USA) and from the Aston University Ethics Committee (UK) prior to recruitment, and written informed consent was obtained prior to data collection. The patient content evaluation interview study was granted approval from Copernicus Group IRB (USA) prior to recruitment, and written informed consent was obtained prior to data collection.","order":2,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Ethics approval and consent to participate"}},{"value":"Not applicable.","order":3,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Consent for publication"}},{"value":"JC is an employee of Lenstec, Inc., the study sponsor. AS, NG, LLK, and AMK are employees of Adelphi Values, which was contracted by Lenstec, Inc. for work on the original research study and the manuscript.","order":4,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Competing interests"}}],"article-number":"142"}}