Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 May 1.
Published in final edited form as: Am J Ophthalmol. 2020 Dec 9;225:137–146. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2020.12.001

Table 2:

Reliability, Trait Associations, and Model Fit Statistics for 128 participants

Rod-function
anxiety
Cone-function
anxiety
No. of Questions 6 8
Marginal Reliability 0.81 0.83
Test-Retest, (95% CI)
(n=25)
ρ Correlation 0.81 (0.64, 0.91) 0.83 (0.68, 0.92)
Mean Change −0.14 (−0.37, 0.09) −0.05 (−0.24, 0.14)
SD ME 0.43 (0.31, 0.55) 0.36 (0.22, 0.50)
Trait Associations, R2 (p-value)
VA Better Eye 4.9 (0.013) 8.9 (<0.001)
VA Worse Eye 4.5 (0.017) 7.4 (0.002)
Date of MVAQ 0.1 (0.716) 0.3 (0.555)
Age 0.0 (0.845) 0.4 (0.470)
Sex 2.7 (0.068) 1.4 (0.184)
IRD Phenotype 15.4 (<0.001) 7.6 (0.020)
Model Fit Statistics
SRMSR 0.09 0.14
RMSEA 0.4 0.18
CFI 0.85 0.88
TLI 0.75 0.83
M2 182 32.6
df 9 20
p-value <0.001 <0.001

Marginal reliability estimated from original 128 participants. Three test-retest statistics (Pearson correlation, mean difference, and standard deviation of measurement error) and their 95% confidence intervals were computed from 25 pairs of tests taken approximately two weeks apart.

Associations between Domain Scores (θ) and Participant Characteristics measured by adjusted R2 of linear model and by p-value of the F-test of no association. Corrected logMAR visual acuity (VA) taken closest to questionnaire administration.

Model fit statistics provided include the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMSR), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), and the hybrid C2 of Cai and Monro (2014) with its degrees of freedom (df) and p-value.