Scribd
Upload
1K views

Visual Vertigo Analog Scale PDF

This document is a visual vertigo analogue scale that asks patients to rate the amount of dizziness they experience in 9 common situations, such as walking through a supermarket or being a passenger in a car, by marking a number between 0 (no dizziness) and 10 (most dizziness) on a scale for each situation. The scale was adapted from a 2002 source and aims to assess the severity of visual vertigo symptoms in different daily activities.

Uploaded by

Agus Nugroho
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views

Visual Vertigo Analog Scale PDF

This document is a visual vertigo analogue scale that asks patients to rate the amount of dizziness they experience in 9 common situations, such as walking through a supermarket or being a passenger in a car, by marking a number between 0 (no dizziness) and 10 (most dizziness) on a scale for each situation. The scale was adapted from a 2002 source and aims to assess the severity of visual vertigo symptoms in different daily activities.

Uploaded by

Agus Nugroho
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Visual Vertigo Analogue Scale

(Adapted from Longridge et al., 2002)

Indicate the amount of dizziness you experience in the following situations


by marking off the scales below.

0 represents no dizziness and 10 represents the most dizziness

Walking through a supermarket aisle


0 10

Being a passenger in a car


0 10

Being under fluorescent lights


0 10

Watching traffic at a busy intersection


0 10

Walking through a shopping mall


0 10

Going down an escalator


0 10

Watching a movie at the movie theatre


0 10

Walking over a patterned floor


0 10

Watching action television


0 10

from: J. Vestib Res. 2011;21(3):153-9.

You might also like