Threshold visual acuity testing of preschool children using the crowded HOTV and Lea Symbols acuity tests

被引:46
|
作者
Ciner, E
Cyert, L
Dobson, V
Kulp, MT
Maguire, M
Moore, B
Orel-Bixler, D
Peskin, E
Quinn, G
Redford, M
Schmidt, P
Schultz, J
机构
[1] Ohio State Univ, Coll Optometry, Vis Preschoolers Study Ctr, Columbus, OH 43218 USA
[2] Penn Coll Optometry, Philadelphia, PA 19141 USA
[3] NE State Univ, Coll Optometry, Tablequah, OK USA
[4] Univ Arizona, Dept Ophthalmol, Tucson, AZ USA
[5] Ohio State Univ, Coll Optometry, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
[6] Univ Penn, Dept Ophthalmol, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[7] New England Coll Optometry, Boston, MA USA
[8] Univ Calif Berkeley, Sch Optometry, Berkeley, CA USA
[9] Childrens Hosp Philadelphia, Div Pediat Ophthalmol, Philadelphia, PA USA
[10] NEI, Bethesda, MD USA
[11] Ohio State Univ, Coll Optometry, Columbus, OH USA
[12] Univ Maryland Coll, Adelphi, MD USA
来源
JOURNAL OF AAPOS | 2003年 / 7卷 / 06期
关键词
D O I
10.1016/S1091-8531(03)00211-8
中图分类号
R77 [眼科学];
学科分类号
100212 ;
摘要
Purpose: To compare the testability and threshold acuity levels for very young children on the crowded HOTV logMAR distance visual acuity test presented on the BVAT apparatus and the Lea Symbols logMAR distance visual acuity chart. Methods: Subjects were 87 Head Start children from age 3 to 3.5 years. Testing consisted of binocular pretraining at near using a lap card as needed, binocular pretraining at 3 m, and threshold testing for each eye. The testing procedure, adapted from the Amblyopia Treatment Study, presented optotypes until the child was unable to correctly name or match three of three or three of four optotypes of a given size. Threshold acuity was the smallest size for which at least three optotypes were correctly identified. Results. Both near and distance pretraining were completed by 71% of children for HOW and by 75% for Lea Symbols (P = .39). The distribution of threshold acuities differed between the two tests. For the 69 eyes of 53 children who were successfully tested with both optotypes, results from the crowded HOW acuity test were on average 0.25 logMar (2.5 lines) better than those from the Lea Symbols acuity test (P < .001). Conclusions. The proportion of children between 3 and 3.5 years of age whose monocular visual acuity could be assessed was high and was similar for the two charts tested. Crowded HOW acuity results were better on average than results using Lea symbols. The different formats of the two tests may explain the observed differences in threshold acuity level.
引用
收藏
页码:396 / 399
页数:4
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Success rates of Lea Visual Acuity, Randot Preschool Stereo Acuity and EyeDx Photoscreening Tests in a community-based preschool vision screening program
    Bane, MC
    Beauchamp, GR
    Cornelius, DA
    INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE, 2000, 41 (04) : S931 - S931
  • [22] Testing kinaesthetic acuity in preschool children
    Livesey, DJ
    Parkes, NA
    AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, 1995, 47 (03) : 160 - 163
  • [23] The Freiburg Acuity Test in Preschool Children: Testability, Test-Retest Variability, and Comparison With LEA Symbols
    Farassat, Navid
    Jehle, Vanessa
    Heinrich, Sven P.
    Lagreze, Wolf A.
    Bach, Michael
    TRANSLATIONAL VISION SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 2024, 13 (03):
  • [24] Comparing the usability of two visual acuity tests with preschool age children
    Moore, Bruce
    Optometry and Vision Science, 2000, 77 (12 SUPPL.)
  • [25] Sensitivity and specificity of a visual acuity screening protocol performed with the Lea Symbols 15-line folding distance chart in preschool children
    Bertuzzi, Francesca
    Orsoni, Jelka Gabriella
    Porta, Maria Rita
    Paliaga, Gian Paolo
    Miglior, Stefano
    ACTA OPHTHALMOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, 2006, 84 (06): : 807 - 811
  • [26] Do picture- based charts overestimate visual acuity? Comparison of Kay Pictures, Lea Symbols, HOTV and Keeler logMAR charts with Sloan letters in adults and children
    Anstice, Nicola S.
    Jacobs, Robert J.
    Simkin, Samantha K.
    Thomson, Melissa
    Thompson, Benjamin
    Collins, Andrew V.
    PLOS ONE, 2017, 12 (02):
  • [27] Optotype and grating visual acuity in preschool children
    Stiers, P
    Vanderkelen, R
    Vandenbussche, E
    INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE, 2003, 44 (09) : 4123 - 4130
  • [28] The results of visual acuity measurements conducted by Lea symbols far chart on pre-school children
    Kulikova, SV
    PERCEPTION, 1997, 26 (06) : 793 - 793
  • [29] Visual Acuity Testing Using a Random Method Visual Acuity Application
    Rhiu, Soolienah
    Lee, Hye Jin
    Goo, Yong Sook
    Cho, Kyoungrok
    Kim, Jae-hyung
    TELEMEDICINE AND E-HEALTH, 2016, 22 (03) : 232 - 237
  • [30] Development of Visual Acuity in Children: Assessing the Contributions of Cognition and Age in LEA Chart Acuity Readings
    Myklebust, Arnulf K.
    Riddell, Patricia M.
    OPTOMETRY AND VISION SCIENCE, 2022, 99 (01) : 24 - 30