Development of a clinically feasible logMAR alternative to the Snellen chart: Performance of the "compact reduced logMAR" visual acuity chart in amblyopic children

British Journal of Ophthalmology

Volumn 87, Issue 10, 2003, Pages 1232-1234

  Laidlaw, D A H ^a,b   Abbott, A ^b   Rosser, D A ^c  

^a ST THOMAS HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b Kent County Ophthalmic and Aural Hospital   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; AMBLYOPIA; ARTICLE; CHILD; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEVICE; FEASIBILITY STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMATION; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LOGMAR CHART; MALE; MEASUREMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCORING SYSTEM; SNELLEN TEST TYPE; TIME; VISUAL ACUITY;

AMBLYOPIA; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; OBSERVER VARIATION; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; VISION TESTS; VISUAL ACUITY;

EID: 0141636515     PISSN: 00071161     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bjo.87.10.1232     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Bailey I, Lovie J. New design principles for visual acuity letter charts. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1976;53:740-5.
2. Elliott DB, Sheridan M. The use of accurate visual acuity measurements in clinical anti-cataract formulation trials. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1988;8:397-401.
3. Ferris FL, Kassoff A, Bresnick GH, et al. New visual acuity charts for clinical research. Am J Ophthalmol 1982;94:91-6.
4. Sloan LL. New test charts for the measurement of visual acuity at near and far distances. Am J Ophthalmol 1959;48:807-13.
5. Rosser DA, Laidlaw DA, Murdoch IE. The development of a "reduced logMAR" visual acuity chart for use in routine clinical practice. Br J Ophthalmol 2001;85:432-6.
6. National Acadamy of Sciences-National Research Council Committee on Vision. Report of working group 39: recommended standard procedures for the clinical measurement and specification of visual acuity. Adv Ophthalmol 1980;41:103.
7. Vanden Bosch ME, Wall M. Visual acuity scored by the letter-by-letter or probit methods has lower retest variability than the line assignment method. Eye 1997;11:411-17.
8. Bailey IL, Bullimore MA, Raasch TW, et al. Clinical grading and the effects of scaling. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1991;32:422-32.
9. Arditi A, Cagenello R. On the statistical reliability of letter-chart visual acuity measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1993;34:120-9.
10. Bland J, Altman D. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;i:307-10.
11. Ferris FL, Bailey I. Standardizing the measurement of visual acuity for clinical research studies: Guidelines from the Eye Care Technology Forum. Ophthalmology 1996;103:181-2.
12. Lovie Kitchin JE. Validity and reliability of visual acuity measurements. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1988;8:363-70.
13. Reeves B, Wood J, Hill A. Vistech VCTS 6500 charts, within- and between-session reliability. Optom Vis Sci 1991;68:728-37.
14. Siderov J, Tiu AL. Variability of measurements of visual acuity in a large eye clinic. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1999;77:673-6.
15. Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 1999;8:135-60.
16. Fern KD, Manny RE, Davis JR, et al. Contour interaction in the preschool child. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1986;63:313-8.
17. Simmers AJ, Gray LS, McGraw PV, et al. Contour interaction for high and low contrast optotypes in normal and amblyopic observers. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1999;19:253-60.
18. Stager DR, Everett ME, Birch EE. Comparison of linear and optotype acuity in amblyopia. Am Orthopt J 1990;40:51-6.
19. McGraw PV, Winn B, Gray LS, et al. Improving the reliability of visual acuity measures in young children. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2000;20:173-84.