International Journal of

Environmental Research
and Public Health

Article
Rasch-Validated Italian Scale for Diagnosing Digital Eye Strain:
The Computer Vision Syndrome Questionnaire IT©
Natalia Cantó-Sancho 1 , Elena Ronda 2,3, * , Julio Cabrero-García 4 , Stefano Casati 5 , Angela Carta 6,7 ,
Stefano Porru 6,7,† and Mar Seguí-Crespo 1,2,†

1 Department of Optics, Pharmacology and Anatomy, University of Alicante, 03690 San Vicente del Raspeig,
Spain; [email protected] (N.C.-S.); [email protected] (M.S.-C.)
2 Public Health Research Group, University of Alicante, 03690 San Vicente del Raspeig, Spain
3 Biomedical Research Networking Center for Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP),
28029 Madrid, Spain
4 Department of Nursing, University of Alicante, 03690 San Vicente del Raspeig, Spain; [email protected]
5 Eye Clinic, Department of Neurosciences, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, University of Verona,
37129 Verona, Italy; [email protected]
6 Department of Diagnostics and Public Health, University of Verona, 37129 Verona, Italy;
[email protected] (A.C.); [email protected] (S.P.)
7 Mistral–Interuniversity Research Centre ‘Integrated Models of Study for Health Protection and Prevention in
Living and Working Environments’, University of Verona, 37134 Verona, Italy
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +34-965-903-835
† These authors contributed equally to this work.

Abstract: The use of digital devices affects eye health; this can influence the performance of workers.



To assess this impact, validated patient-reported outcome questionnaires are needed. The purpose


of this study was to validate the psychometric properties of the Italian version of the Computer
Citation: Cantó-Sancho, N.; Ronda,
Vision Syndrome Questionnaire (CVS-Q©) using Rasch analysis. Two hundred and forty-one Italian
E.; Cabrero-García, J.; Casati, S.;
Carta, A.; Porru, S.; Seguí-Crespo, M.
workers completed an ad hoc questionnaire on anamnesis and exposure to digital devices, and the
Rasch-Validated Italian Scale for Italian version of the CVS-Q©. Subsequently, a battery involving three clinical ocular surface and
Diagnosing Digital Eye Strain: The tear tests was performed. The reliability and validity of the scale was assessed using the Andrich
Computer Vision Syndrome Rating Scale Model, and the prevalence of computer vision syndrome (CVS) was calculated. A good
Questionnaire IT©. Int. J. Environ. fit of both items and persons to the predictions of the Rasch model was observed, with acceptable
Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4506. reliability, unidimensionality, and no or minimal severe differences as a function of gender or age;
https://doi.org/10.3390/ moreover, good test–retest repeatability, adequate values of sensitivity, reliability, and area under
ijerph19084506 the curve, and adequate construct validity based on clinical tests were obtained. Workers with a
Academic Editor: Nicola Magnavita questionnaire score ≥ 7 were found to present with CVS. The prevalence of CVS was 76.6%. The
CVS-Q IT© is a valid and reliable scale to assess CVS in Italian workers who use digital devices.
Received: 2 February 2022
Accepted: 6 April 2022
Keywords: validation study; asthenopia; surveys and questionnaires; Rasch model; psychometrics
Published: 8 April 2022

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral

with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil- 1. Introduction
iations.
Computer vision syndrome (CVS), also known as asthenopia, visual fatigue, or more
recently as digital eye strain (DES), is a problem that has been recognised for more than
20 years [1]. It is considered a repetitive stress injury [2], and defined as a set of symptoms,
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
such as dryness, burning, itching, blurred or double vision, tearing, redness, and eye pain,
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. among others [3], that appear due to the prolonged use of digital devices.
This article is an open access article It is now considered a major public health issue [4] due to the regular use of digital
distributed under the terms and devices both in the workplace and during leisure time; device use has increased since the
conditions of the Creative Commons beginning of the pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 [5], as teleworking or telecommuting has
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// become the best option to maintain safety measures without paralysing work activities [6].
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ According to European Commission data, between 2009 and 2019, less than 6% of European
4.0/). workers reported working from home on a regular basis, a figure that doubled during 2020.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4506. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19084506 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4506 2 of 14

In Italy in particular, this increase was even more significant, from 3.2% to 12.2% [7]. This
way of working, which started as a necessity, is becoming the preferred way of working
across Europe. However, although it has advantages, such as the possibility of avoiding
commutes, greater flexibility in working hours and a better balance between work and
social life [8], negative implications on the visual health of workers are expected, such
as an increase in visual and ocular symptomatology, which has already been reported in
recent studies [5,9,10].
In the assessment of this symptomatology, a problem lies in the imprecise definition
of CVS in most published studies, due to the use of unstructured and non-validated
questionnaires. This has led to heterogeneous results that have made it difficult to compare
this health problem between populations with different characteristics [11–14]. There
are few validated questionnaires for the diagnosis of CVS [15,16], among them, the CVS-
Q© (Computer Vision Syndrome Questionnaire) stands out as the most widely used
questionnaire, originally designed and validated in Spanish [17]. Its design was based on
a review of the scientific literature, and it was validated with a broad consensus among
experts from different fields (occupational medicine, epidemiology, preventive medicine,
optometry and ophthalmology), by means of a pre-test, a pilot test, and a re-evaluation.
It is a self-administered scale that evaluates the frequency and intensity of 16 ocular and
visual symptoms related to the use of digital devices. It obtained sensitivity and specificity
values above 70%, good test–retest repeatability, and acceptable psychometric properties
derived from the Rasch analysis. Since there is a need for questionnaires to be validated in
several languages to establish whether there are differences between countries, the research
group responsible for the original questionnaire has been developing cultural adaptations
for other languages, such as Italian, among others [18,19].
In Italy, studies with unvalidated questionnaires prior to the pandemic report the
prevalence of CVS in workers as ranging from 13.3% to 88.6% [20–26], and there are no
known post-2019 studies on CVS in the Italian working population. In most of these
studies, ad hoc questionnaires, or a standardised questionnaire developed by the Società
Italiana di Medicina del Lavoro ed Igiene Industriale (SIMLII) [27]—which is pending
validation—were used [28,29].
Since the availability of a valid and reliable original tool for the measurement of CVS
in the working population [17], as well as its translated and adapted version in Italian [18],
this study aimed to validate the psychometric properties of the Italian version of the CVS-
Q© (CVS-Q IT©). This will allow epidemiological studies to be carried out on how the
increasing use of digital devices is affecting the Italian working population.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. The Italian Version of the Computer Vision Syndrome Questionnaire (CVS-Q IT©)
The CVS-Q IT© is a self-administered scale that evaluates the frequency and intensity
of 16 ocular and visual symptoms related to the use of digital devices. The scoring of the
questionnaire follows the procedure of the original version. The 16 items (symptoms) are
scored with two rating scales: one for frequency (never, occasionally, often, or always), and
one for intensity (moderate, intense). The responses to the two rating scales for each item
are combined multiplicatively into a single scale called symptom severity, and the result
should be recoded as 0 = 0; 1 or 2 = 1; 4 = 2. Thus, the scoring rule is:

16
Score = ∑ (frequency of symptom occurrence)i × (intensity of symptom)i (1)
i=1

2.2. Design, Target Population, and Ethical Aspects

This epidemiological study of Italian workers, with cross-sectional design, recruited
participants at the University Hospital of Verona (Italy) from May to July 2019. Workers
aged 18–65 years, with Italian as their mother tongue and who were regular users of digital
devices during their working day, were included. Workers who wore contact lenses on a
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4506 3 of 14

daily basis, who were undergoing refractive or cataract surgery, suffering from any ocular
pathology, and/or undergoing ocular (including artificial tears) or systemic treatment in
the 3 months prior to the study, which could affect CVS symptomatology, were excluded.
The sample size necessary to reliably estimate the Rasch–Andrich rating scale model
(RSM) is between 10 and 20 times the number of thresholds to be estimated [30]. Given
that our scale had 18 thresholds (16 items and 2 response thresholds), the sample needed to
include at least 180 people.
To recruit participants, people attending routine medical health appointments at the
Occupational Medicine Unit were offered to participate in the research. All received the
participant information sheet detailing the characteristics of the study. Those who agreed to
participate signed an informed consent form, and consented to the processing of personal
data in accordance with EU Regulation 2016/679. The study was conducted following the
standards of Good Clinical Practice and international ethical principles applicable to human
research, according to the latest revision of the Declaration of Helsinki. The study was
approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Alicante (UA-2018-02-22) and by the
Comitato Etico per la Sperimentazione Clinica delle Province di Verona e Rovigo (41605).

2.3. Procedure
First, participants underwent a guided anamnesis, in which sociodemographic infor-
mation was collected (gender, age, place of work, tasks performed, and department or
operational unit to which the worker belonged), general health (if they take any medication,
and type and reason for its use), ocular health (eye-related alterations, pharmacological
treatment, and ocular surgery), optical correction (use of correction on a regular basis and
at work, as well as its design), and exposure to digital devices (daily hours of use of digital
devices for work and leisure purposes, years as a digital device worker, work breaks and
their duration, and use of air conditioning at work). Based on this information, inclusion
and exclusion criteria were applied. The participants included then completed a hard copy
of the CVS-Q IT© and underwent a battery of three clinical ocular surface tests in both
eyes. The tests were performed from least to most invasive. Tear stability was assessed
using Break-Up Time (BUT) as well as the presence of corneal staining using a slit lamp,
fluorescein strips, and blue filter. Finally, after 10 min, the tear quantity was evaluated
using the Schirmer II test, with an ocular anaesthetic and Schirmer’s absorbent paper strips.
For the 3 clinical tests, the normality criteria established by the TFOS DEWS II Report in
2017 [31] were followed. Accordingly, we considered: the BUT to be altered when it was
less than or equal to 10 s; the existence of more than 5 staining points to be altered evidence;
and the tear quantity to be inadequate when the wet part of the absorbent strip was less
than or equal to 10 mm after 5 min. Finally, a sub-sample of 30 participants from the total
sample of included workers completed the CVS-Q IT© again after an interval of between
7 and 15 days from the first administration (retest) [32].
An optician–optometrist and a final-year occupational medicine resident collected
all information related to the informed consent, the anamnesis, and the CVS-Q IT© in
the Occupational Medicine Unit, while the series of clinical tests were carried out by an
ophthalmologist and a final-year ophthalmology resident in the Ophthalmology Unit.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

2.4.1. Sample Description
A descriptive analysis was performed for all study variables. For categorical variables,
the absolute frequency and percentage were calculated. For continuous variables, the mean
and standard deviation (SD), both minimum and maximum, were obtained.

2.4.2. Rasch–Andrich Rating Scale Model Analysis

The RSM scale was used to analyse the psychometric properties of the adapted version.
The model entails estimating the parameters of the response structure of the rating scale
(the response thresholds, i.e., the locations on the trait where the response probability is the
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4506 4 of 14

same for two adjacent categories) and a general location (difficulty) parameter on the trait
for each item.
It was used to examine the following issues:
1. The performance of the rating scale. The two thresholds of the rating scale (a threshold
between categories 0 and 1 and a threshold between categories 1 and 2) should
advance monotonically, i.e., they should be ordered, and the separation between them
should be at least 1.4 logits. In addition, the average measures of the categories should
also advance monotonically;
2. The fit of the items and the response structure to the model predictions. For this, infit
and outfit mean square error (MNSQ) chi-square statistics were used. Infit MNSQ
gives more weight to differences close to the point where item difficulty and subject
ability are matched, and outfit MNSQ includes all differences, regardless of the match
between difficulty and ability. Ideally, such values should be close to unity, with a
critical range of 0.7–1.3, if the fit to the Rasch model is good [33];
3. The fit of persons to model predictions, using the MNSQ statistics referring to persons.
This analysis focuses on detecting persons with MNSQ values greater than two and
examining their influence on the model parameters;
4. The assumptions of unidimensionality (only one dimension determines the response
to the items) and local independence (the response to one item is not influenced by the
responses to the other test items once the level in the trait is controlled). Unidimen-
sionality was assessed using the principal component (PC) analyses of Rasch residuals.
The variance explained by the first contrast should be <10%, and the eigenvalue of the
first contrast should be <1.9 [34]. In addition, the examination of the patterns of item
loadings can give information about the relevance of possible secondary dimensions.
Local independence is examined using the residual correlations between items: if they
are equal to or less than 0.3, local independence can be assumed [35];
5. Measurement error and reliability item–person model. Compared to a global indicator
of scale precision, such as the standard error measurement (SEM), IRT models enable
us to estimate the information function of the test (and its reciprocal, the standard
error function). This function describes the variation of scale precision along with
the trait. As a measure of scale reliability in the sample, the Rasch model’s person
separation reliability statistic was employed, which is analogous to Cronbach’s alpha
(and which we also compute) and uses logits (the linear scores) instead of raw scores.
Person separation reliability usually underestimates reliability, whereas Cronbach’s
alpha overestimates it. Reliability should be equal to or higher than 0.7 [36];
6. Targeting the difficulty level of the items to the sample. A good alignment between
items and persons occurs when a given person’s mean scores are close to 0 logits,
which is the value at which the scale is centred and corresponds to the mean of the
items. In addition, a joint mapping of item and person locations allows for a more
detailed exploration of the target;
7. Analysis of differential item functioning (DIF) and its impact on scale scores. DIF was
examined as a function of gender (female vs. male), age (40+ vs. 40−), and version
of the questionnaire (Spanish vs. Italian). It was considered an item to have severe
DIF if the between-group contrast (DIF size) was >1 and the t-Student value was
significant at the 0.05 level, after Bonferroni correction (0.05/16 = 0.003). This was
followed by an iterative procedure that eliminated a single item at each step to achieve
a purified scale without DIF. To examine the impact of DIF on the scale scores, the
procedure developed by Tennant was followed [37]. The proportion of estimates that
differed by 0.5 logits or more was calculated as an indicator of the impact of DIF on
the non-trivial scores.

2.4.3. Test–Retest Reliability

The difference in means between times was tested using the non-parametric Wilcoxon
test. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated based on a mixed effects
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4506 5 of 14

model with a measure of absolute agreement. The test–retest reliability of the diagnosis
of CVS was analysed by calculating Cohen’s Kappa coefficient (k), with its corresponding
95% confidence interval. The acceptable level of ICC and k was set to >0.70 [38].

2.4.4. Criterion Validity—Sensitivity, Specificity and ROC Curve

To assess the criterion validity of the questionnaire, the scale should ideally be com-
pared with a gold standard. Currently, there is no gold standard for measuring CVS, so
it was decided to use the same criterion used by the authors of the original questionnaire
to define the existence of CVS. The criterion of “occurrence of at least one symptom two
or three times a week” obtained after a review of the scientific literature was most widely
accepted by different authors [17].
To determine the diagnostic performance of the CVS-Q IT©, the sensitivity and speci-
ficity of all possible values of the questionnaire were calculated and the ROC curve was
plotted. To find the point that optimised both values, the Youden Index was calculated,
which establishes the cut-off point with the highest sensitivity and specificity together. The
area under the ROC curve was also calculated, since this can be used to estimate the ability
of the questionnaire to diagnose CVS.

2.4.5. Construct Validity Based on Known Groups

To assess the construct validity of the questionnaire, the strategy of comparing two
groups, established according to the clinical tests performed (staining, tear quality, and
tear quantity), was followed. The differences in the scores obtained in the questionnaire
(Student’s t-test) and the differences in the prevalence of CVS (Chi-square) between people
with altered and unaltered clinical tests were analysed. Although the clinical tests were
performed on both eyes, to classify a worker in the group of altered clinical tests, data
from a single randomly selected eye were considered and included when at least 2 of the 3
clinical tests performed were failed. To determine which eye to randomly select from each
worker, all patient ID numbers were entered into a statistical programme and the numbers
were randomized. It was determined that, from the first half, the right eye would be taken,
and from the remaining the left eye would be taken.

2.5. Prevalence of CVS and Frequency and Intensity of CVS-Q IT© Symptoms
The total prevalence of CVS was also calculated in the sample of included workers, in
addition to the frequency of occurrence and intensity with which each of the 16 symptoms
that make up the CVS-Q IT© were perceived.
The statistical programmes Winsteps v5.1.5.0 and SPSS version 25 were used to carry
out all the analyses.

3. Results
3.1. Description of the Study Sample
Out of a total of 296 people who agreed to participate, 55 were excluded for different
reasons (Table 1). The presence of an ocular pathology at the time of the study was the
most frequent reason for exclusion. The most prevalent pathologies were amblyopia,
diagnosed dry eye, and retinal pathologies. There were nine people who, after completing
the questionnaires, did not attend the Ophthalmology Unit to undergo the clinical tests,
and were therefore not included in the study.
Table 1. Reasons for exclusion of the participants.

Reason for Exclusion N

Daily use of contact lenses 6
Prior refractive surgery 8
Prior cataract surgery 4
Ocular pathology at the time of the study 20
Ocular pharmacological treatment at the time of the study 8
Failure to perform the battery of clinical tests 9
Total 55
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4506 6 of 14

The final sample amounted to a total of N = 241 participants. Of these, 64.3% were
women and 93.0% used digital devices for 20 h or more per week (Table 2). The mean
age of the sample was 45.49 ± 10.96 years (mean ± SD) and the average time spent using
digital devices at work was 5.85 ± 1.53 h per day.
Table 2. Sociodemographic characteristics and exposure to digital devices of the study sample.

N %
Total 241 100
Gender
Female 155 64.3
Male 86 35.7
Age (years)
≤35 52 21.6
36–45 55 22.8
≥46 134 55.6
Occupational use of digital
devices (hours/week)
<20 17 7.0
≥20 224 93.0
Years working with digital
devices
≤10 74 30.7
11–20 94 39.0
≥21 73 30.3
Scheduled breaks during
work with digital devices
No 34 14.1
Yes 207 85.9
Use of digital devices to
leisure (hours/day)
<2 130 53.9
≥2 111 46.1
Total use of digital devices
(hours/day)
≤4 9 3.7
5–8 156 64.7
>8 76 31.6

3.2. Rasch–Andrich Rating Scale Model Analysis

The rating scale thresholds advanced monotonically, with a separation of 3.52 logits, far
exceeding the cut-off (Figure 1). The mean scores per category also advanced monotonically:
−2.91, −1.45 and −0.25 for categories 0, 1 and 2, respectively. The infit and outfit values
of response categories were also acceptable (infit: 1.02, 1.02 and 0.92; outfit: 1.02, 0.94 and
0.89; for response categories 0, 1, and 2, respectively).
The fit of the items to the RSM predictions was good, as indicated by the infit and outfit
MNQS values of all items being within the range of acceptability (Table 3). Item locations
ranged from −1.09 for feeling that sight was worsening (sensazione di vedere peggio) to 1.99
for eye pain (dolore oculare). Person fit to the model was also good: only two subjects had
MNQS outfit values slightly higher than 2, suggesting that item responses were generally
governed by their trait location (symptom severity).
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4506 7 of 14

Figure 1. Category response probability curves for the CVS-Q IT©.

Table 3. Item Rasch analysis results of the symptom severity scale.

Outfit Gender DIF Age DIF Version DIF

Item Description Severity SE Infit MNSQ
MNSQ Contrast Contrast Contrast
1. Burning −0.61 0.13 0.73 0.70 0.12 0.10 * 1.30
2. Itching −0.24 0.14 0.93 0.94 0.76 0.00 * 1.31
3. Feeling of a foreign body 0.60 0.15 0.93 0.86 0.26 0.29 0.52
4. Tearing 0.06 0.14 1.10 1.10 0.29 0.16 0.25
5. Excessive blinking 0.79 0.16 0.95 0.94 0.47 0.36 0.19
6. Eye redness −0.15 0.14 1.00 1.06 0.90 0.29 0.67
7. Eye pain 1.99 0.21 1.03 0.82 0.10 0.49 * 1.35
8. Heavy eyelids −0.49 0.13 0.99 1.01 0.18 0.68 0.72
9. Dryness −0.33 0.13 1.14 1.05 0.73 0.15 0.08
10. Blurred vision −1.07 0.13 0.87 0.87 0.03 0.18 0.31
11. Double vision 1.38 0.18 1.02 0.86 0.25 0.05 * 1.41
12. Difficulty focusing for
−0.72 0.13 1.14 1.19 0.20 * 1.58 0.19
near vision
13. Increased sensitivity to
−0.78 0.13 1.25 1.23 0.62 0.15 0.47
light
14. Coloured halos around
1.51 0.19 0.91 0.76 0.29 0.13 0.39
objects
15. Feeling that sight is
−1.09 0.13 0.84 0.81 0.36 0.51 0.20
worsening
16. Headache −0.85 0.13 1.18 1.23 0.32 0.61 0.45
MNSQ, mean square error; DIF, differential item functioning. * p ≤ 0.003 (Bonferroni correction).

The results of the PC analysis of the Rasch residuals showed the first contrast with
an eigenvalue of 2.12, slightly higher than the cut-off to rule out multidimensionality;
however, its proportion of variance explained was 9.3, i.e., slightly less than 10%, and
thus supported the unidimensionality of the scale. Item loading patterns (three clusters
of items) were compatible with the existence of a secondary dimension composed by
items 10, 11, 12, and 15, relating to internal symptoms of visual level or image quality.
However, this secondary dimension seemed to have little influence, as indicated by both
the MNQS values of these items (see Table 3), and the values of the Pearson correlations
(disattenuated from the measurement error) between the scores of this cluster, and those
of the other two, which were close to 0.8 (the correlation between the other two clusters
was 1). As for local dependence, no residual correlation was higher than the cut-off of 0.3.
Consequently, the scale seemed to meet the assumptions of unidimensionality and local
independence reasonably.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4506 8 of 14

As indicated by the scale’s information function (Figure 2), the highest precision lies
in the interval between 0 (raw score = 16) and 1 logit (raw score = 21), with a SEM of 0.48.
The person separation reliability (0.72) and Cronbach’s alpha (0.76) values both exceeded
the acceptability threshold for reliability.

Figure 2. Information function of the CVS-Q IT©.

The mean of the person scores was −2.36 (SD = 0.61); thus, far from 0. The item–person
map (Figure 3) revealed that the questionnaire lacked items located at the lower levels of
the trait, i.e., lower severity symptom items. These data indicate that the targeting was
poor overall, and better at discriminating people with moderate and severe symptoms.

Figure 3. Item–person map for the CVS-Q IT©.

The results of the DIF analysis can be seen in Table 3. In terms of age, only item
12 showed severe DIF, related to the symptom of difficulty in focusing for near vision
(difficoltà nella messa a fuoco da vicino), indicating higher symptom severity among those
under 40 years of age. As for DIF by gender, no items showed severe DIF. Finally, DIF by
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4506 9 of 14

version was considerably more notable: four items showed severe DIF; however, the impact
of DIF on scale scores was small, with only two scores differing by 0.5 logits or more.
A table with the conversion of Rasch scores in logits to raw scores of the CVS-Q IT©
questionnaire is included below (Table 4).

Table 4. Raw score in the CVS-Q IT© questionnaire and its conversion to logits.

Raw Score Rasch Score (Logits) Raw Score Rasch Score (Logits)
0 −6.05 E 17 0.24
1 −4.78 18 0.47
2 −4.00 19 0.70
3 −3.50 20 0.93
4 −3.11 21 1.16
5 −2.78 22 1.39
6 −2.48 23 1.63
7 −2.20 24 1.88
8 −1.94 25 2.15
9 −1.69 26 2.43
10 −1.44 27 2.75
11 −1.19 28 3.11
12 −0.94 29 3.53
13 −0.70 30 4.07
14 −0.46 31 4.90
15 −0.22 32 6.20 E
16 0.01

3.3. Test–Retest Reliability

No differences were observed between the mean scores obtained before and after
(p = 0.440). A good test–retest repeatability was observed for both scores (ICC = 0.725; 95%
CI: 0.496–0.859) and the diagnosis of CVS (k = 0.780; 95% CI: 0.545–1.015).

3.4. Criterion Validity—Sensitivity, Specificity and ROC Curves

The highest Youden Index value (Y = 0.631) corresponded to the Rasch score = −2.0700
(CVS-Q IT© score of 7.5 points). Thus, a cut-off point of 7 points could optimise both
sensitivity and specificity, which obtained values of 80.0% and 83.1%, respectively. Those
workers using digital devices who scored 7 or more points on the questionnaire had CVS.
The area under the obtained ROC curve (AUC = 0.874, with a 95% CI: 0.828–0.919 and a
p < 0.001) indicates that the CVS-Q IT© has a good discriminant capacity (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Receiver operator characteristic curve of the CVS-Q IT©.

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4506 10 of 14

3.5. Construct Validity Based on Known Groups

Following the criteria established to classify people in both groups, it was obtained
that, of the 241 participants, 93 (38.6%) had their tests altered and 148 (61.4%) did not. There
were statistically significant differences between the CVS-Q IT© scores (p = 0.037) in terms
of the diagnosis of CVS (p = 0.038) between both groups.

3.6. Prevalence of CVS and Frequency and Intensity of Symptoms of CVS-Q IT©
The overall prevalence of CVS in the sample was 67.2%. The most prevalent symptoms
were blurred vision (visione sfuocata), feeling that sight was worsening (sensazione di vedere
peggio), and headaches (mal di testa), with prevalences of 63.5%, 62.3%, and 56%, respectively.
The least prevalent were eye pain (dolore oculare), coloured halos around objects (aloni di
colori intorno agli oggetti), and double vision (visione doppia), with prevalences of 11.2%,
16.2%, and 17.4%, respectively. All symptoms occurred occasionally and, more frequently,
with moderate intensity (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Percentage of workers who presented each symptom according to frequency and intensity.

4. Discussion
The CVS-Q IT© is the first linguistic, validated version of the original CVS-Q© which
can be used in clinical practice for the surveillance of the visual health of workers in Italy. It
can also be used to carry out studies to compare results in groups of the adult digital-device-
using population with different characteristics. The present study demonstrated that the
survey has adequate item and person fit to the model predictions, adequate reliability,
unidimensionality, no or minimal severe DIF by gender and age, and adequate construct
validity based on ocular surface and tear tests. A worker with a questionnaire score ≥ 7
will have CVS.
In this study, it was decided to carry out parameter estimation using RSM for several
reasons. RSM was the model applied in the original version of the questionnaire and,
therefore, its use facilitates the comparison of the results. Moreover, RSM is the first choice
for questionnaires measuring a single trait (a unidimensional scale) with a set of items
sharing an ordered polytomous response scale, such as the CVS-Q© questionnaire. This
technique has a high statistical power when using medium sample sizes [39], as in our case,
and prevents the characteristics of the instrument from depending on a specific sample;
therefore, the estimated parameters in different groups and contexts will be equivalent [40].
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4506 11 of 14

When comparing both versions of the CVS-Q© (original vs. Italian), we observed that
the Italian version obtained slightly better results in terms of item and person fit to the
model, as well as reliability (assessed by means of the person separation reliability). We also
observed higher values for sensitivity, specificity, and AUC in the Italian scale (sensitivity
= 75% vs. 80%; specificity = 70.2% vs. 83.1%; AUC = 0.826 vs. 0.874) [17], indicating that
this scale performs slightly better internally. Additionally, the test–retest analysis revealed
good stability over time for the questionnaire, similar to the results of the original CVS-Q©.
Finally, the cut-off point of the Italian version was higher than the original questionnaire.
Nevertheless, slight changes in the cut-off point are common in different linguistic versions
of health questionnaires [41].
The matching of the items to the sample was poor overall, as the mean item severity
was significantly lower than the mean symptom severity of the sample. In parallel, the
scale had few items measuring mild symptoms, i.e., at the lower level of the trait. Both
facts, however, are common in clinical scales [42]. However, the focus of these scales
(e.g., CVS-Q©) is precisely for detecting people with moderate or severe symptoms, being
uninformative—both in psychometric and substantive terms—at the lower levels of the
trait [43]. Consequently, it is a logical feature of a clinical measure rather than a shortcoming
of the scale.
With regard to the differential analysis, the fact that item 12, difficulty focusing for
near vision (difficoltà nella messa a fuoco da vicino), presented severe DIF by age was to be
expected, since from the age of 40 years people typically experience a deterioration in
their near vision due to presbyopia [44,45]—a phenomenon also reported in the validation
of other vision scales [46]. Regarding the DIF (Spanish vs. Italian), there were different
items that presented severe DIF in the different versions. The severe DIF of item 1, burning
(bruciore), could be justified if we take into account that both translators back-translated
this item to a conceptually more severe term than the symptom in the original version [18].
Item 2, itching (prurito), also presents severe DIF, as it was detected that its back-translation
into Spanish might not fit what was intended to be expressed in the original version; so,
after consultation with both Italian and Spanish experts in visual health and with the target
population (Italian workers using digital devices), it was decided to change this symptom
to pizzicore. Finally, we found no reason for the severe DIF observed in items 7, eye pain
(dolore oculare), and 11, double vision (visione doppia), which were relatively frequent in the
differential analysis [47]. However, the impact of DIF was low, which allows us to assume
that the model and the set of item parameters were similar for all comparable groups.
It should also be noted that, in this study, we present the table with the conversion of
Rasch scores into logit and raw scores from the CVS-Q IT© questionnaire, as the logit-based
scores are more accurate. This is partly because it is a logistic transformation that expands
the scale at the upper and lower ends of the range, in relation to the Likert-based score [48],
which is useful for users in clinical studies where, for example, small variations of the
construct are to be detected, and which require greater precision of the instrument.
Finally, although the main objective of this research was not to determine prevalence,
it should be noted that the prevalence obtained in our study (67.2%) was within the range of
prevalence estimated before the pandemic in the Italian working population using ad hoc
questionnaires, which varied between 64% and 88% [21,24,26]. However, it was higher than
the prevalence reported when using the non-validated instrument standardised by SIMLII
(between 13% and 51%) [22,23,25]. Nevertheless, it is to be expected that the frequency and
intensity of ocular and visual symptoms associated with the intensive use of digital devices
will reach increasingly higher values, especially in the working population, partly due to
the pandemic and the adoption of telework [6].
Almost the entire sample studied (93.0%) were considered video display terminal
workers according to Italian regulations, using digital devices to work ≥ 20 h per week.
Additionally, in the remaining 7.0% not considered by the regulations, the average digital
devices usage for work was also high, around 15 h per week. The lack of a control group of
people not exposed to digital devices at work might seem a priori to be a limitation of our
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4506 12 of 14

study, as it prevents us from comparing the results according to greater or lesser exposure.
However, we believe that, even if a worker does not use digital devices in the workplace,
it is not appropriate to consider him/her as not exposed, given that nowadays the use
of these devices outside work can be very high. As a strength, it should be noted that
many of the problems that occurred when translating and validating an existing instrument
into another language are the same as those that occurred when developing the original
instrument [48]; therefore, the participation of two of the authors of the original CVS-Q©
facilitated the validation of this version. It should also be noted that criterion and construct
validity were analysed in this study, completing the face and content validity assessed
during the process of translation and cultural adaptation of this scale [18]. Evidence of all
types of validity are relevant because of the widespread use of this scale across a variety of
applications, including population monitoring, clinical trials, and outcome research.

5. Conclusions
The CVS-Q IT© is the first linguistic, validated version of the original CVS-Q©. Our
findings indicate that the CVS-Q IT© is a simple, valid, and reliable scale for the assessment
and diagnosis of CVS in the adult digital-device-using population in all types of studies.
This provides clinicians and researchers with a suitable tool that will help epidemiological
registries, decision making for the implementation of preventive measures, interventions,
and treatments, and particularly the comparison between exposed populations in different
countries (File S1).

Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https:
//www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijerph19084506/s1, File S1: Questionario per lo studio della
sindrome da visione al computer, CVS-Q IT© (Italian version of the Computer Vision Syndrome
Questionnaire, CVS-Q©).
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, N.C.-S., E.R., A.C., S.P. and M.S.-C.; data curation, N.C.-S.
and S.C.; formal analysis, N.C.-S. and J.C.-G.; methodology, N.C.-S., E.R., A.C., S.P. and M.S.-C.;
writing—original draft, N.C.-S. and J.C.-G.; writing—review and editing, E.R., J.C.-G., S.C., A.C., S.P.
and M.S.-C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration
of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Alicante (UA-2018-02-22) and
by the Comitato Etico per la Sperimentazione Clinica delle Province di Verona e Rovigo (41605).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The authors thank the Vice-Rectorate of Research of the University of Alicante
for the pre-doctoral training contract for the first author (UAFPU2019-08). Likewise, all authors would
like to thank the resident in ophthalmology Manuela Mambretti for her contribution in performing
the clinical tests. This article will form part of the first author’s doctoral thesis.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Sheppard, A.L.; Wolffsohn, J.S. Digital eye strain: Prevalence, measurement and amelioration. BMJ Open Ophthalmol. 2018,
3, e000146. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Munshi, S.; Varghese, A.; Dhar-Munshi, S. Computer vision syndrome—A common cause of unexplained visual symptoms in the
modern era. Int. J. Clin. Pract. 2017, 71, e12962. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. American Optometric Association, Computer Vision Syndrome. Available online: https://www.aoa.org/patients-and-public/
caring-for-your-vision/protecting-your-vision/computer-vision-syndrome (accessed on 25 November 2021).
4. Randolph, S.A. Computer Vision Syndrome. Workplace Health Saf. 2017, 65, 328. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Bahkir, F.A.; Grandee, S.S. Impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on digital device-related ocular health. Indian J. Ophthalmol. 2020,
68, 2378–2383. [CrossRef]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4506 13 of 14

6. Salinas-Toro, D.; Cartes, C.; Segovia, C.; Alonso, M.J.; Soberon, B.; Sepulveda, M.; Zapata, C.; Yañez, P.; Traipe, L.; Goya, C.; et al.
High frequency of digital eye strain and dry eye disease in teleworkers during the coronavirus disease (2019) pandemic. Int. J.
Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2021, 7, 1–6. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. EUROSTAT. Eurostat Database. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/main/data/database (accessed on 30
November 2021).
8. Xiao, Y.; Becerik-Gerber, B.; Lucas, G.; Roll, S.C. Impacts of Working from Home during COVID-19 Pandemic on Physical and
Mental Well-Being of Office Workstation Users. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2021, 63, 181–190. [CrossRef]
9. González-Menéndez, E.; López-González, M.J.; González Menéndez, S.; García González, G.; Álvarez Bayona, T. Major health
consequences a rising from the continued use of new electronic devices with visual display units. Rev. Esp. Salud Pública 2019,
93, 201908062.
10. Ganne, P.; Najeeb, S.; Chaitanya, G.; Sharma, A.; Krishnappa, N.C. Digital Eye Strain Epidemic amid COVID-19 Pandemic—A
Cross-sectional Survey. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2021, 28, 285–292. [CrossRef]
11. Ap Vilela, M.; Castagno, V.D.; Meucci, R.D.; Fassa, A.G. Asthenopia in schoolchildren. Clin. Ophthalmol. 2015, 9, 1595–1603.
[CrossRef]
12. Assefa, N.L.; Weldemichael, D.Z.; Alemu, H.W.; Anbesse, D.H. Prevalence and associated factors of computer vision syndrome
among bank workers in Gondar City, northwest Ethiopia, 2015. Clin. Optom. 2017, 9, 67–76. [CrossRef]
13. Dessie, A.; Adane, F.; Nega, A.; Wami, S.D.; Chercos, D.H. Computer Vision Syndrome and Associated Factors among Computer
Users in Debre Tabor Town, Northwest Ethiopia. J. Environ. Public Health 2018, 2018, 4107590. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Coles-Brennan, C.; Sulley, A.; Young, G. Management of digital eye strain. Clin. Exp. Optom. 2019, 102, 18–29. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
15. Rajabi-Vardanjani, H.; Habibi, E.; Pourabdian, S.; Dehghan, H.; Maracy, M.R. Designing and Validation a Visual Fatigue
Questionnaire for Video Display Terminals Operators. Int. J. Prev. Med. 2014, 5, 841–848. [PubMed]
16. González-Pérez, M.; Susi, R.; Antona, B.; Barrio, A.; González, E. The Computer-Vision Symptom Scale (CVSS17): Development
and Initial Validation. Investig. Opthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2014, 55, 4504–4511. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Seguí, M.D.M.; Cabrero-García, J.; Crespo, A.; Verdú, J.; Ronda, E. A reliable and valid questionnaire was developed to measure
computer vision syndrome at the workplace. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2015, 68, 662–673. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Seguí-Crespo, M.; Cantó Sancho, N.; Ronda, E.; Colombo, R.; Porru, S.; Carta, A. Translation and cultural adaptation of the
Computer Vision Syndrome Questionnaire (CVS-Q) into Italian. Med. Lav. 2019, 110, 37–45. [CrossRef]
19. Mikulášová, E.; Cantó-Sancho, N.; Pérez, P.C.; Ronda-Pérez, E.; Seguí-Crespo, M. Translation and cultural adaptation of the
Computer Vision Syndrome Questionnaire (CVS-Q) into Slovak. Hygiena 2020, 65, 84–92. [CrossRef]
20. Carta, A.; Pasquini, L.; Lucchini, R.; Semeraro, F.; Apostoli, P. Relation of asthenopia and some ophthalmological, neuropsycho-
logical, and musculoskeletal parameters in workers assigned to video display terminals. Med. Lav. 2003, 94, 466–479.
21. Fenga, C.; Cacciola, A.; Anzalone, C.; Trimarchi, G.; Grillo, O.C. Influence of microclimate factors on ocular discomfort in video
display terminal workers. G. Ital. Med. Lav. Ergon. 2006, 27, 417–421.
22. Taino, G.; Ferrari, M.; Mestad, I.J.; Fabris, F.; Imbriani, M. Asthenopia and work at video display terminals: Study of 191 workers
exposed to the risk by administration of a standardized questionnaire and ophthalmologic evaluation. G. Ital. Med. Lav. Ergon.
2007, 28, 487–497.
23. Fenga, C.; Di Pietro, R.; Fenga, P.; Di Nola, C.; Spinella, R.; Cacciola, A.; Germanò, D.; Aragona, P. Asthenopia in VDT users: Our
experience. G. Ital. Med. Lav. Ergon. 2008, 29, 500–501.
24. Fenga, C.; Aragona, P.; Cacciola, A.; Spinella, R.; Di Nola, C.; Ferreri, F.; Rania, L. Meibomian gland dysfunction and ocular
discomfort in video display terminal workers. Eye 2007, 22, 91–95. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Carta, A.; Oppini, M.; Bellina, B.; Crippa, M.; Lucchini, R.; Porru, S.; Alessio, L. VDT use and others visual demanding works:
Risks and prevention. G. Ital. Med. Lav. Ergon. 2010, 32 (Suppl. S2), 90–91.
26. Filon, F.L.; Drusian, A.; Ronchese, F.; Negro, C. Video Display Operator Complaints: A 10-Year Follow-Up of Visual Fatigue and
Refractive Disorders. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2501. [CrossRef]
27. Società Italiana di Medicina del Lavoro (SIML). Available online: https://www.siml.it/ (accessed on 30 November 2021).
28. Piccoli, B.G.; Colais, L.; Leka, I.; Battevi, N.; Di Bari, A.; Di Bisceglie, M.; Grosso, D.; Muzi, G.; Paraluppi, P.; Santucci, P.; et al.
Linee Guida per la Sorveglianza Sanitaria Degli Addetti ad Attività Lavorativa con Videoterminali. (Linee Guida SIMLII); Nuova Editrice
Berti S.r.l.: Parma, Italy, 2013; ISBN 9788873646129.
29. Piccoli, B.; Battevi, N.; Coggiola, M.; Colais, L.; D’orso, M.I.; Di Bari, A.; Di Bisceglie, M.; Grosso, D.; Leka, I.; Muzi, G.; et al.
Funzione Visiva ed uso Occupazionale di Videoterminali: Orientamenti ed Indicazioni Pratico-Applicative per l’attività Professionale
del Medico del Lavoro e del Medico Competente. Strumenti di Orientamento e Aggiornamento in Medicina del Lavoro; Documento di
Orientamento Professionale per i Medici del Lavoro; Società Italiana di Medicina del Lavoro: Vicenza, Italy, 2020.
30. Andrich, D.; Marais, I. A Course in Rasch Measurement Theory: Measuring in the Educational, Social and Health Sciences; Springer:
Singapore, 2019.
31. Wolffsohn, J.S.; Arita, R.; Chalmers, R.; Djalilian, A.; Dogru, M.; Dumbleton, K.; Gupta, P.K.; Karpecki, P.; Lazreg, S.; Pult, H.; et al.
TFOS DEWS II Diagnostic Methodology report. Ocul. Surf. 2017, 15, 539–574. [CrossRef]
32. Perneger, T.V.; Courvoisier, D.S.; Hudelson, P.M.; Gayet-Ageron, A. Sample size for pre-tests of questionnaires. Qual. Life Res.
2014, 24, 147–151. [CrossRef]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4506 14 of 14

33. Wright, B.D.; Linacre, J.M. Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Meas. Trans. 1994, 8, 370–371.
34. Linacre, J.M. A User’s Guide to WINSTEPS/MINISTEP Rasch-Model Computer Programs; Program Manual 4.5.3; John M. Linacre:
Chicago, IL, USA, 2020; ISBN 0-941938-03.
35. Woodburn, J.; Turner, D.E.; Rosenbaum, D.; Balint, G.; Korda, J.; Ormos, G.; Szabo, A.; Vlieland, T.V.; Van Der Leeden, M.;
Steultjens, M.P.M. Adaptation and cross-cultural validation of the foot impact scale for rheumatoid arthritis (FIS-RA) using Rasch
analysis. Arthritis Care Res. 2012, 64, 986–992. [CrossRef]
36. Terwee, C.B.; Bot, S.D.M.; de Boer, M.R.; van der Windt, D.A.W.M.; Knol, D.L.; Dekker, J.; Bouter, L.M.; de Vet, H.C.W. Quality
criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2007, 60, 34–42. [CrossRef]
37. Tennant, A.; Pallant, J.F. DIF matters: A practical approach to test if differential item functioning makes a difference. Rasch Meas.
Trans. 2007, 20, 1082–1084.
38. Prinsen, C.A.C.; Mokkink, L.B.; Bouter, L.M.; Alonso, J.; Patrick, D.L.; De Vet, H.C.W.; Terwee, C.B. COSMIN guideline for
systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual. Life Res. 2018, 27, 1147–1157. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
39. Chen, W.-H.; Lenderking, W.; Jin, Y.; Wyrwich, K.W.; Gelhorn, H.; Revicki, D.A. Is Rasch model analysis applicable in small
sample size pilot studies for assessing item characteristics? An example using PROMIS pain behavior item bank data. Qual. Life
Res. 2013, 23, 485–493. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
40. Andrich, D. Rasch Models for Measurement; SAGE Publications: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 1988.
41. Doruk, C.; Celik, M.; Kara, H.; Polat, B.; Guldiken, Y.; Orhan, K.S. Turkish Translation and Validation of Chronic Otitis Media
Questionnaire-12. Turk. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 2019, 57, 24–29. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
42. McAlinden, C.; Pesudovs, K.; Moore, J.E. The Development of an Instrument to Measure Quality of Vision: The Quality of Vision
(QoV) Questionnaire. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2010, 51, 5537–5545. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
43. Reise, S.P.; Waller, N.G. Item Response Theory and Clinical Measurement. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 2009, 5, 27–48. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
44. Wolffsohn, J.S.; Leteneux-Pantais, C.; Chiva-Razavi, S.; Bentley, S.; Johnson, C.; Findley, A.; Tolley, C.; Arbuckle, R.; Kommineni, J.;
Tyagi, N. Social Media Listening to Understand the Lived Experience of Presbyopia: Systematic Search and Content Analysis
Study. J. Med. Internet Res. 2020, 22, e18306. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
45. Grzybowski, A.; Markeviciute, A.; Zemaitiene, R. A Review of Pharmacological Presbyopia Treatment. Asia-Pac. J. Ophthalmol.
2020, 9, 226–233. [CrossRef]
46. Cantó-Cerdán, M.; Cacho-Martínez, P.; Lara-Lacárcel, F.; García-Muñoz, Á. Rasch analysis for development and reduction of
Symptom Questionnaire for Visual Dysfunctions (SQVD). Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 14855. [CrossRef]
47. Gómez-Benito, J.; Sireci, S.; Padilla, J.-L. Differential Item Functioning: Beyond validity evidence based on internal structure.
Psicothema 2018, 30, 104–109.
48. Raczek, A.E.; Ware, J.E.; Bjorner, J.B.; Gandek, B.; Haley, S.M.; Aaronson, N.K.; Apolone, G.; Bech, P.; Brazier, J.E.; Bullinger, M.;
et al. Comparison of Rasch and Summated Rating Scales Constructed from SF-36 Physical Functioning Items in Seven Countries:
Results from the IQOLA Project. Int. Qual. Life Assess. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 1998, 51, 1203–1214. [CrossRef]