Cargando…

Test-retest Variability of a Standardized Low Vision Lighting Assessment

SIGNIFICANCE: Systematic lighting assessments should be part of low vision evaluations. The LuxIQ has gained popularity as an assessment tool, but its reliability has not been examined independently and is necessary for evidence-based vision rehabilitation. PURPOSE: Besides magnification, improved l...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wittich, Walter, St. Amour, Lorie, Jarry, Jonathan, Seiple, William
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6133227/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30153238
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000001275
_version_ 1783354480631218176
author Wittich, Walter
St. Amour, Lorie
Jarry, Jonathan
Seiple, William
author_facet Wittich, Walter
St. Amour, Lorie
Jarry, Jonathan
Seiple, William
author_sort Wittich, Walter
collection PubMed
description SIGNIFICANCE: Systematic lighting assessments should be part of low vision evaluations. The LuxIQ has gained popularity as an assessment tool, but its reliability has not been examined independently and is necessary for evidence-based vision rehabilitation. PURPOSE: Besides magnification, improved lighting levels are a common intervention in reading rehabilitation for individuals with low vision. Determining the appropriate lighting can be a complex and time-consuming task. The LuxIQ is a portable lighting assessment tool that can be used to systematically measure lighting preferences; however, there is little independent evidence to support its reliability in low vision rehabilitation. METHODS: One hundred nine control subjects (age, 18 to 85 years) and 64 individuals with low vision (age, 27 to 99 years) adjusted both the luminance and color temperature parameters on the LuxIQ while viewing a sentence on the MNREAD at their preferred print size for continuous reading. After 30 minutes, they were asked to repeat the same measurements. RESULTS: Using Bland-Altman plots, test-retest variability was calculated using the limits of agreement (LOAs). For illuminance, the LOA width was 2806 lux for control subjects and 2657 lux for visually impaired participants. For color temperature, the LOA width was 2807 K for control subjects and 2364 K for those with a visual impairment. Difference scores were centered near zero, indicating overall accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: The measurement of lighting preference lacks the precision necessary for clinical utility, given that the LOA for luminance ranged more than 2600 lux, with normally sighted and low vision participants. Such variability translates into a range of approximately ±40 or 50 W in an incandescent light bulb, depending on the luminance level, making it clinically difficult to narrow down the options for evidence-based lighting recommendations. Next steps are to examine whether the reading behavior of low vision clients is positively affected by interventions that are based on LuxIQ recommendations.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6133227
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61332272018-09-20 Test-retest Variability of a Standardized Low Vision Lighting Assessment Wittich, Walter St. Amour, Lorie Jarry, Jonathan Seiple, William Optom Vis Sci Original Investigations SIGNIFICANCE: Systematic lighting assessments should be part of low vision evaluations. The LuxIQ has gained popularity as an assessment tool, but its reliability has not been examined independently and is necessary for evidence-based vision rehabilitation. PURPOSE: Besides magnification, improved lighting levels are a common intervention in reading rehabilitation for individuals with low vision. Determining the appropriate lighting can be a complex and time-consuming task. The LuxIQ is a portable lighting assessment tool that can be used to systematically measure lighting preferences; however, there is little independent evidence to support its reliability in low vision rehabilitation. METHODS: One hundred nine control subjects (age, 18 to 85 years) and 64 individuals with low vision (age, 27 to 99 years) adjusted both the luminance and color temperature parameters on the LuxIQ while viewing a sentence on the MNREAD at their preferred print size for continuous reading. After 30 minutes, they were asked to repeat the same measurements. RESULTS: Using Bland-Altman plots, test-retest variability was calculated using the limits of agreement (LOAs). For illuminance, the LOA width was 2806 lux for control subjects and 2657 lux for visually impaired participants. For color temperature, the LOA width was 2807 K for control subjects and 2364 K for those with a visual impairment. Difference scores were centered near zero, indicating overall accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: The measurement of lighting preference lacks the precision necessary for clinical utility, given that the LOA for luminance ranged more than 2600 lux, with normally sighted and low vision participants. Such variability translates into a range of approximately ±40 or 50 W in an incandescent light bulb, depending on the luminance level, making it clinically difficult to narrow down the options for evidence-based lighting recommendations. Next steps are to examine whether the reading behavior of low vision clients is positively affected by interventions that are based on LuxIQ recommendations. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2018-09 2018-08-27 /pmc/articles/PMC6133227/ /pubmed/30153238 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000001275 Text en Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Optometry. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.
spellingShingle Original Investigations
Wittich, Walter
St. Amour, Lorie
Jarry, Jonathan
Seiple, William
Test-retest Variability of a Standardized Low Vision Lighting Assessment
title Test-retest Variability of a Standardized Low Vision Lighting Assessment
title_full Test-retest Variability of a Standardized Low Vision Lighting Assessment
title_fullStr Test-retest Variability of a Standardized Low Vision Lighting Assessment
title_full_unstemmed Test-retest Variability of a Standardized Low Vision Lighting Assessment
title_short Test-retest Variability of a Standardized Low Vision Lighting Assessment
title_sort test-retest variability of a standardized low vision lighting assessment
topic Original Investigations
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6133227/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30153238
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000001275
work_keys_str_mv AT wittichwalter testretestvariabilityofastandardizedlowvisionlightingassessment
AT stamourlorie testretestvariabilityofastandardizedlowvisionlightingassessment
AT jarryjonathan testretestvariabilityofastandardizedlowvisionlightingassessment
AT seiplewilliam testretestvariabilityofastandardizedlowvisionlightingassessment