ArticleBMC ophthalmology2025
Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of The Digital Eye Strain Questionnaire.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe rapid spread of digital technologies has become important in work and social life. However, prolonged use of digital screens, such as digital eye strain, negatively affects individuals. This has increased the importance of using valid and reliable scales to assess digital eye strain.
methodsTo adapt the Digital Eye Strain Questionnaire (DESQ) into Turkish for validity and reliability. This study followed a methodological research design in accordance with the EQUATOR checklist. This methodological study was conducted in Istanbul with 401 individuals continuously exposed to digital screens for at least 2 h. Data were collected via the sociodemographic characteristics form, DESQ, and the Problematic Internet Use Scale (PIUS). The study was conducted in five consecutive stages: direct translation, synthesis of translations, back translation, expert committee evaluation, and validity and reliability analysis.
resultsIndividuals spent an average of 6.66 ± 3.20 h per day in front of a digital screen. The content validity index of the DESQ was found to be 0.962, and the confirmatory factor analysis results, the model's fit indices were high and statistically significant (χ2 = 161.689, sd = 62). The reliability analysis revealed that the Kuder‒Richardson 20 value was 0.787, and the item‒total correlation values ranged between 0.306 and 0.517. The parallel form correlation between the DESQ and PIUS scores revealed statistically significant relationships between the subdimensions and total scores.
conclusionsThe results prove that the Turkish version of the DESQ is valid and reliable for assessing digital eye strain.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.