Visual Vertigo Analogue Scale (VVAS) is valid and reliable self-administered questionnaire to assess visual vertigo. Although VVAS has been culturally adapted and validated in several cultures, it has not been adapted in Turkish.
Objectives
The aim of this research is to translate and cross-culturally adapt the VVAS into Turkish (VVAS-Tr) and evaluate its psychometric properties.
Methods
Following established cross-cultural adaptation guidelines, the VVAS was translated into Turkish and completed by 113 patients with vestibulopathy. Validity was assessed using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, correlations with the Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI), Bland–Altman plots, and regression analyses. Reliability was tested with Cronbach’s alpha.
Results
The VVAS-Tr demonstrated a unidimensional structure with strong factor loadings (0.743–0.928) and excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.954). Moderate correlations with DHI scores (rho = 0.553–0.595) supported criterion-related validity. Agreement with DHI was confirmed through Bland–Altman analysis, and predictive validity was explained by DHI physical and emotional subscales (R2 = 0.41).
Conclusion
The VVAS-Tr is the first Turkish tool specifically designed to measure visual vertigo and the first adaptation of the VVAS to undergo both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. It demonstrates strong validity and reliability and is suitable for clinical use in Turkish-speaking patients with vestibular disorders.
JacobRGRedfernMSFurmanJM. Space and motion discomfort and abnormal balance control in patients with anxiety disorders. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry2009; 80: 74–78.
2.
BittarRSMvon Söhsten LinsEMD. Clinical characteristics of patients with persistent postural-perceptual dizziness. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol2015; 81(3): 276–282.
3.
BronsteinAM. Vision and vertigo: some visual aspects of vestibular disorders. J Neurol2004; 251(4): 381–387.
4.
GuerrazMYardleyLBertholonP, et al.Visual vertigo: symptom assessment, spatial orientation and postural control. Brain2001; 124: 1646–1656.
5.
MaireRMallinsonACeyteH, et al.Discussion about visual dependence in balance control: European society for clinical evaluation of balance disorders, J Int Adv Otol2017; 13; 404–406.
6.
BronsteinAMBronsteinAM. Visual vertigo syndrome: clinical and posturography findings. Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry1995; 59(5): 472–476.
ChinS. Visual vertigo: Vertigo of oculomotor origin. Med Hypotheses2018; 116: 84–95.
10.
SharonJDHullarTE. Motion sensitivity and caloric responsiveness in vestibular migraine and Meniere’s disease. Laryngoscope. John Wiley and Sons Inc, 2014; 124(4): 969–973.
JacobRGLilienfeldSOFurmanJMR, et al.Panic disorder with vestibular dysfunction: further clinical observations and description of space and motion phobic stimuli. J Anxiety Disord1989; 3(2): 117–130.
13.
DannenbaumEChilingaryanGFungJ. Visual vertigo analogue scale: an assessment questionnaire for visual vertigo. J Vestib Res2011; 21(3): 153–159.
14.
JacobRGWoodySRClarkDB, et al.Discomfort with space and motion: a possible marker of vestibular dysfunction assessed by the situational characteristics questionnaire. J Psychopathol Behav Assess1993; 15(4): 299–324.
PavlouMWhitneySLAlkathiryAA, et al.Visually induced dizziness in children and validation of the pediatric visually induced dizziness questionnaire. Front Neurol2017; 8(DEC): 656.
17.
BeatonDEBombardierCGuilleminF, et al.Guidelines for the Process of Cross-Cultural Adaptation of Self-Report Measures. Spine, vol 25(24): 3186–3191.
18.
BisdorffARStaabJPNewman-TokerDE. Overview of the international classification of vestibular disorders. Neurol Clin2015; 33(3): 541–550.
19.
CattellR. The scientific use of factor analysis in behavioral and life sciences. Springer nature. Springer, 2012.
20.
JacobsonGPNewmanCW. The development of the dizziness handicap inventory. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg1990; 116: 424–427.
21.
CanbalMCebeciSDuyanG, et al.A study of reliability and validity for the Turkish version of dizziness handicap inventory. Turkish Journal of Family Medicine & Primary Care2016; 1: 198514.
22.
MardiaKV. Biometrika Trust Measures of Multivariate Skewness and Kurtosis with Applications. Vol 57, Source: Biometrika. 1970.
23.
HornJL. A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika1965; 30(2): 179–185.
24.
VelicerWF. Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika1976; 41(3): 321–327.
25.
AlparRS. Sağlık ve eğitim bilimlerinden Örneklerle uygulamalı istatistik Ve geçerlik-Güvenirlik. Detay Yayıncılık, 2020, pp. 1–2.
26.
PettMLackeyNSullivanJ. Making sense of factor analysis. Making sense of factor analysis, 2011.
MuthénBKaplanD. A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non‐normal likert variables. Br J Math Stat Psychol1985; 38(2): 171–189.
29.
WangJWangX. Structural equation modeling: applications using mplus. Struct Equ Model: Applications Using Mplus2012; 15: 1–464.
30.
JöreskogKGSörbomD.LISREL IV: Analysis of Linear Structural Relationships by the Method of Maximum Likelihood: [user’s Guide]. In: International educational services: Scientific Software: Mooresville, Ind; 1980.
31.
ten BergeJMFKiersHAL. A numerical approach to the approximate and the exact minimum rank of a covariance matrix. Psychometrika1991; 56(2): 309–315.
32.
BaglinJ. Improving your exploratory factor analysis for ordinal data: a demonstration using FACTOR. Practical Assess Res Eval. 2014; 19(1): 5.
33.
KaiserHF. An index of factorial simplicity, 1974.
34.
FieldAP. Discovering statistics using SPSS. Sage, 2009, p. 821.
35.
ThurstoneLL. Multiple factor analysis. University of Chicago Press, 1947.
36.
TabachnickBGFidellLS. Using multivariate statistics. Struct Equ Model2019: 17–32.
37.
ComreyALLeeHB. A first course in factor analysis. In: A first course in factor analysis. 2nd ed: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, 1992. 430, xii, 430–xii.
38.
ZwickWRVelicerWF. Comparison of five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychol Bull1986; 99(3): 432–442.
39.
O’ConnorBP. SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput2000; 32(3): 396–402.
40.
KoçakDÇoklukOKayriM. Faktör sayısının belirlenmesinde MAP testi. Paralel Analiz, K1 ve Yamaç Birikinti Grafiği Yöntemlerinin Karşılaştırılması. Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi2016; 13(1): 330–359.
41.
WestSGFinchJFCurranPJ. Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: problems and remedies. In: Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications: Sage Publications, Inc, 1995, pp. 56–75.
42.
CurranPJWestSGFinchJF. The Robustness of Test Statistics to Nonnormality and Specification Error in Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Psychological Methods1996; 1(1): 16–29.
43.
KlineRB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 4th ed. The Guilford Press, 2016. 534, xvii, 534–xvii p. (Methodology in the social sciences.).
44.
CelikHYılmazVUygulamalarP. In: BalintGAntalaBCartyC, et al. (eds). Lisrel 9.1 ile Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi- Temel kavramlar. Uniwersytet śląski 3rd ed. Anı Yayıncılık, 2016, Vol 7, pp. 343–354.
45.
HuLTBentlerPM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model1999; 6(1): 1–55.
46.
Schermelleh-EngelK. Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. MPR Online, 2003, 8(8), pp. 23–74.
47.
CortinaJM. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. J Appl Psychol1993; 78(1): 98–104.
48.
DeVellisRF. Scale development: theory and applications. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage, 2003, pp. 1–113.
49.
VaskeJJ. Hypothesis testing and effect size. Survey research and analysis: applications in parks, Recreation and human dimensions, 2008, pp. 97–119.
50.
Hahs-VaughnDL. Applied multivariate statistical concepts. 1st ed. New York (NY): Routledge, 2016, pp. 77–109.
51.
MontgomeryDCPeckEAViningGG. Introduction to linear regression analysis. John Wiley&Sons;, 2012.
52.
TalaatHSEl AbedeinAMZAliRE. Arabic version of the visual vertigo analogue scale for assessment visual vertigo syndrome. Egyptian Journal of Ear, Nose, Throat and Allied Sciences2019; 20(3): 117–121.
53.
VerdecchiaDHHernandezDAndreuMF, et al.Validated Argentine version of the visual vertigo analogue scale. J Vestib Res2022; 32(3): 235–243.
54.
AmorimAMSimõesJGonçalvesJ, et al.The Portuguese version of the visual vertigo analog scale. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol2022; 88: S125–S129.
55.
WibbleTPansellT. Translation and validation of a Swedish version of the visual vertigo analogue scale. Ann Med2023; 55(1): 572–577.
