Translation and validation of the contact lens dry eye questionnaire 8 (CLDEQ-8) in Canadian French

Published:December 06, 2022DOI:



      To present the process that led to the creation of the French Canadian translated version of the Contact Lens Dry Eye Questionnaire-8 (which allows for an assessment of symptoms while wearing soft contact lenses) as well as the validation data of the f-CLDEQ-8.


      The CLDEQ-8 went through the process of reverse translation, which was then reviewed and improved by an experts’ committee to create a first version of the French questionnaire. Cognitive interviews were conducted to pretest the tool and ensure content validity. After a review of the pretest, the f-CLDEQ-8 was created. A web-based version of this questionnaire was sent to contact lens wearers (CLW) recruited out of a clinical setting for completion at two different endpoints interspaced by 7 days. Internal consistency and test-reliability were calculated using Cronbach’s alpha and Intra-class Correlation coefficient (ICC), respectively. Convergent validity between the f-CLDEQ-8 score and overall opinion of the contact lenses was evaluated with a correlation.


      9 CLW with different socio-economic statuses and education levels went through a cognitive interview with the back-translated version of the f-CLDEQ-8 to improve the questionnaire wording and enhance its comprehension. 63 CLW (34.2 ± 10.1 years old and 2/3 of them women) completed the f-CLDEQ-8 twice. An average Cronbach alpha of 0.928 was found and an ICC of 0.944 (CI at 95 % 0.905;0.966). A moderately strong correlation of −0.714 (CI at 95 % −0.817;-0.566) was found between the overall opinion of the contact lenses and the total score to the f-CLDEQ-8.


      The French language version (f-CLDEQ-8) generated from the original CLDEQ −8 was shown to be easy to use, reliable and culturally adapted to French spoken in Canada.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Contact Lens and Anterior Eye
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Dumbleton K.
        • Caffery B.
        • Dogru M.
        • Hickson-Curran S.
        • Kern J.
        • Kojima T.
        • et al.
        The TFOS International Workshop on Contact Lens Discomfort: report of the subcommittee on epidemiology.
        Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013; 54: TFOS20-TFOS36
        • Markoulli M.
        • Kolanu S.
        Contact lens wear and dry eyes: challenges and solutions.
        Clin Optom (Auckl). 2017; 9: 41-48
        • Pucker A.D.
        • Jones-Jordan L.A.
        • Marx S.
        • Powell D.R.
        • Kwan J.T.
        • Srinivasan S.
        • et al.
        Clinical factors associated with contact lens dropout.
        Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2019; 42: 318-324
        • Sulley A.
        • Young G.
        • Hunt C.
        • McCready S.
        • Targett M.T.
        • Craven R.
        Retention rates in new contact lens wearers.
        Eye Contact Lens. 2018; 44: S273-S282
        • Chalmers R.L.
        • Young G.
        • Kern J.
        • Napier L.
        • Hunt C.
        Soft contact lens-related symptoms in North America and the United Kingdom.
        Optom Vis Sci. 2016; 93: 836-847
        • Papas E.B.
        • Chiem A.
        • Zhang G.
        • Mobeen R.
        • Lee L.
        Temporal considerations in contact lens discomfort.
        Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2021; 44: 14-17
        • Pritchard N.
        • Fonn D.
        • Brazeau D.
        Discontinuation of contact lens wear: a survey.
        Int Contact Lens Clin. 1999; 26: 157-162
        • Richdale K.
        • Sinnott L.T.
        • Skadahl E.
        • Nichols J.J.
        Frequency of and factors associated with contact lens dissatisfaction and discontinuation.
        Cornea. 2007; 26: 168-174
        • Foulks G.
        • Chalmers R.
        • Keir N.
        • Woods C.A.
        • Simpson T.
        • Lippman R.
        • et al.
        The TFOS International Workshop on Contact Lens Discomfort: report of the subcommittee on clinical trial design and outcomes.
        Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013; 54: TFOS157-TFOS183
        • Nichols J.J.
        • Mitchell G.L.
        • Nichols K.K.
        • Chalmers R.
        • Begley C.
        The performance of the contact lens dry eye questionnaire as a screening survey for contact lens-related dry eye.
        Cornea. 2002; 21: 469-475
        • Chalmers R.L.
        • Begley C.G.
        Dryness symptoms among an unselected clinical population with and without contact lens wear.
        Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2006; 29: 25-30
        • Chalmers R.L.
        • Begley C.G.
        • Moody K.
        • Hickson-Curran S.B.
        Contact Lens Dry Eye Questionnaire-8 (CLDEQ-8) and opinion of contact lens performance.
        Optom Vis Sci. 2012; 89: 1435-1442
        • Chalmers R.L.
        • Keay L.
        • Hickson-Curran S.B.
        • Gleason W.J.
        Cutoff score and responsiveness of the 8-item Contact Lens Dry Eye Questionnaire (CLDEQ-8) in a Large daily disposable contact lens registry.
        Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2016; 39: 342-352
        • Pucker A.D.
        • Dougherty B.E.
        • Jones-Jordan L.A.
        • Kwan J.T.
        • Kunnen C.M.E.
        • Srinivasan S.
        Psychometric analysis of the SPEED questionnaire and CLDEQ-8.
        Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2018; 59: 3307-3313
        • Koh S.
        • Chalmers R.
        • Kabata D.
        • Shintani A.
        • Nishida K.
        Translation and validation of the 8-item Contact Lens Dry Eye Questionnaire (CLDEQ-8) among Japanese soft contact lens wearers: The J-CLDEQ-8.
        Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2019; 42: 533-539
        • Garza-Leon M.
        • Amparo F.
        • Ortiz G.
        • de la Parra-Colin P.
        • Sanchez-Huerta V.
        • Beltran F.
        • et al.
        Translation and validation of the contact lens dry eye questionnaire-8 (CLDEQ-8) to the Spanish language.
        Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2019; 42: 155-158
        • Dogan A.S.
        • Karabulut E.
        • Gurdal C.
        Validation and reliability of the Turkish version of Contact Lens Dry Eye Questionnaire-8 (CLDEQ-8).
        Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2020; 43: 472-475
        • Ribeiro M.
        • Vieira M.S.
        • Gorgone G.
        • Barbosa L.Y.C.
        • Martini A.
        • David M.A.
        • et al.
        The contact lens dry eyes questionnaire (CLDEQ-8) validation and ocular surface dysfunction among soft contact lens wearers.
        Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2022; 85: 68-76
        • Beaton D.E.
        • Bombardier C.
        • Guillemin F.
        • Ferraz M.B.
        Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25: 3186-3191
        • Streiner D.L.
        Starting at the beginning: an introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency.
        J Pers Assess. 2003; 80: 99-103
        • Schuck P.
        Assessing reproducibility for interval data in health-related quality of life questionnaires: which coefficient should be used?.
        Qual Life Res. 2004; 13: 571-586
        • Shrout P.E.
        • Fleiss J.L.
        Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability.
        Psychol Bull. 1979; 86: 420-428
        • Weir J.P.
        Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM.
        J Strength Cond Res. 2005; 19: 231-240
      1. Fleiss JL. The design and analysis of clinical experiments. Wiley classics library ed. New York: Wiley; 1999. xiv, 432 p. p.

        • Portney L.G.
        • Watkins M.P.
        Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. 2009; xix: 892 pp.
        • Dillman D.A.
        • Smyth J.D.
        • Christian L.M.
        Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method.
        Wiley, Hoboken2014
        • Baudouin C.
        • Creuzot-Garcher C.
        • Hoang-Xuan T.
        • Rigeade M.C.
        • Brouquet Y.
        • Bassols A.
        • et al.
        Creating a specific diagnostic and quality-of-life questionnaire for patients with ocular surface disease.
        J Fr Ophtalmol. 2003; 26: 119-130
        • Wu Y.
        • Carnt N.
        • Stapleton F.
        Contact lens user profile, attitudes and level of compliance to lens care.
        Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2010; 33: 183-188
        • Buchanan T.
        Internet-based questionnaire assessment: appropriate use in clinical contexts.
        Cogn Behav Ther. 2003; 32: 100-109
        • Determann D.
        • Lambooij M.S.
        • Steyerberg E.W.
        • de Bekker-Grob E.W.
        • de Wit G.A.
        Impact of survey administration mode on the results of a health-related discrete choice experiment: online and paper comparison.
        Value Health. 2017; 20: 953-960
        • Vleeschouwer M.
        • Schubart C.D.
        • Henquet C.
        • Myin-Germeys I.
        • van Gastel W.A.
        • Hillegers M.H.
        • et al.
        Does assessment type matter? A measurement invariance analysis of online and paper and pencil assessment of the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences (CAPE).
        PLoS One. 2014; 9: e84011
        • Mokkink L.B.
        • Boers M.
        • van der Vleuten C.P.M.
        • Bouter L.M.
        • Alonso J.
        • Patrick D.L.
        • et al.
        COSMIN Risk of Bias tool to assess the quality of studies on reliability or measurement error of outcome measurement instruments: a Delphi study.
        BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020; 20: 293
        • Koo T.K.
        • Li M.Y.
        A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research.
        J Chiropr Med. 2016; 15: 155-163