Cargando…

Evaluation of the SpotChecks contrast sensitivity test in children

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine intrasession repeatability of a worksheet style contrast sensitivity test (SpotChecks) in children and agreement with an established contrast sensitivity test (Pelli–Robson). METHODS: Forty‐three children aged 4 to 12 years participated in this sin...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Anderson, Heather A., Mathew, Anusha Rachel, Cheng, Han
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10087722/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36164764
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/opo.13054
_version_ 1785022414476804096
author Anderson, Heather A.
Mathew, Anusha Rachel
Cheng, Han
author_facet Anderson, Heather A.
Mathew, Anusha Rachel
Cheng, Han
author_sort Anderson, Heather A.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine intrasession repeatability of a worksheet style contrast sensitivity test (SpotChecks) in children and agreement with an established contrast sensitivity test (Pelli–Robson). METHODS: Forty‐three children aged 4 to 12 years participated in this single visit study that included two administrations of the SpotChecks binocularly, a single administration of the Pelli–Robson test and other measures of visual performance such as high‐contrast visual acuity. Test order was randomised, and participants wore their habitual correction (39 unaided, 4 wearing glasses) for testing. Bland–Altman plots were used to assess the test–retest repeatability of SpotChecks and its agreement with the Pelli–Robson test. Multiple linear regressions were performed to evaluate whether contrast sensitivity was related to participant characteristics such as age, sex and near binocular visual acuity. RESULTS: The mean difference in log contrast sensitivity (logCS) between two administrations of the SpotChecks was 0.01, with a coefficient of repeatability (1.96*SD of differences) of 0.14 logCS. The mean difference between SpotChecks and Pelli–Robson was 0.00 logCS with 95% limits of agreement of −0.19 to +0.20. For both tests, a statistically significant increase in logCS was associated with age (slopes were 0.02 logCS/year, p < 0.001 and 0.01 logCS/year, p = 0.02 for the SpotChecks and Pelli–Robson tests, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The SpotChecks test shows good intrasession repeatability and excellent agreement with the Pelli–Robson test in children. Contrast sensitivity showed an increase in logCS with age in children for both tests.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10087722
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-100877222023-04-12 Evaluation of the SpotChecks contrast sensitivity test in children Anderson, Heather A. Mathew, Anusha Rachel Cheng, Han Ophthalmic Physiol Opt Original Articles PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine intrasession repeatability of a worksheet style contrast sensitivity test (SpotChecks) in children and agreement with an established contrast sensitivity test (Pelli–Robson). METHODS: Forty‐three children aged 4 to 12 years participated in this single visit study that included two administrations of the SpotChecks binocularly, a single administration of the Pelli–Robson test and other measures of visual performance such as high‐contrast visual acuity. Test order was randomised, and participants wore their habitual correction (39 unaided, 4 wearing glasses) for testing. Bland–Altman plots were used to assess the test–retest repeatability of SpotChecks and its agreement with the Pelli–Robson test. Multiple linear regressions were performed to evaluate whether contrast sensitivity was related to participant characteristics such as age, sex and near binocular visual acuity. RESULTS: The mean difference in log contrast sensitivity (logCS) between two administrations of the SpotChecks was 0.01, with a coefficient of repeatability (1.96*SD of differences) of 0.14 logCS. The mean difference between SpotChecks and Pelli–Robson was 0.00 logCS with 95% limits of agreement of −0.19 to +0.20. For both tests, a statistically significant increase in logCS was associated with age (slopes were 0.02 logCS/year, p < 0.001 and 0.01 logCS/year, p = 0.02 for the SpotChecks and Pelli–Robson tests, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The SpotChecks test shows good intrasession repeatability and excellent agreement with the Pelli–Robson test in children. Contrast sensitivity showed an increase in logCS with age in children for both tests. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-09-26 2023-01 /pmc/articles/PMC10087722/ /pubmed/36164764 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/opo.13054 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of College of Optometrists. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Anderson, Heather A.
Mathew, Anusha Rachel
Cheng, Han
Evaluation of the SpotChecks contrast sensitivity test in children
title Evaluation of the SpotChecks contrast sensitivity test in children
title_full Evaluation of the SpotChecks contrast sensitivity test in children
title_fullStr Evaluation of the SpotChecks contrast sensitivity test in children
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of the SpotChecks contrast sensitivity test in children
title_short Evaluation of the SpotChecks contrast sensitivity test in children
title_sort evaluation of the spotchecks contrast sensitivity test in children
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10087722/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36164764
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/opo.13054
work_keys_str_mv AT andersonheathera evaluationofthespotcheckscontrastsensitivitytestinchildren
AT mathewanusharachel evaluationofthespotcheckscontrastsensitivitytestinchildren
AT chenghan evaluationofthespotcheckscontrastsensitivitytestinchildren