RESUMEN
Context: Visual disability is categorised using objective criteria. Subjective measures are not considered. Aim: To use subjective criteria along with objective ones to categorise visual disability. Settings and Design: Ophthalmology out‑patient department; teaching hospital; observational study. Material and Methods: Consecutive persons aged >25 years, with vision <20/20 (in one or both eyes) due to chronic conditions, like cataract and refractive errors, were categorized into 11 groups of increasing disability; group‑zero: normal range of vision, to group‑X: no perception of light, bilaterally. Snellen’s vision; binocular contrast sensitivity (Pelli‑Robson chart); automated binocular visual field (Humphrey; Esterman test); and vision‑related quality of life (Indian Visual Function Questionnaire‑33; IND‑VFQ33) were recorded. Statistical Analysis: SPSS version‑17; Kruskal‑wallis test was used to compare contrast sensitivity and visual fields across groups, and Mann‑Whitney U test for pair‑wise comparison (Bonferroni adjustment; P < 0.01). One‑way ANOVA compared quality of life data across groups; for pairwise significance, Dunnett T3 test was applied. Results: In 226 patients, contrast sensitivity and visual fields were comparable for differing disability grades except when disability was severe (P < 0.001), or moderately severe (P < 0.01). Individual scales of IND‑VFQ33 were also mostly comparable; however, global scores showed a distinct pattern, being different for some disability grades but comparable for groups III (78.51 ± 6.86) and IV (82.64 ± 5.80), and groups IV and V (77.23 ± 3.22); these were merged to generate group 345; similarly, global scores were comparable for adjacent groups V and VI (72.53 ± 6.77), VI and VII (74.46 ± 4.32), and VII and VIII (69.12 ± 5.97); these were merged to generate group 5678; thereafter, contrast sensitivity and global and individual IND‑VFQ33 scores could differentiate between different grades of disability in the five new groups. Conclusions: Subjective criteria made it possible to objectively reclassify visual disability. Visual disability grades could be redefined to accommodate all from zero‑100%.