Comparison of patient-reported visual outcome methods to quantify the perceptual effects of defocus

Contact Lens and Anterior Eye

Volumn 35, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 213-221

  Kollbaum, Pete S ^a   Jansen, Meredith E ^a   Rickert, Martin E ^a  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Blur; Defocus; Patient response; Questionnaire

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BLURRED VISION; CATEGORICAL RATING SCALE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTACT LENS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; EYE DEFOCUS; EYE DOMINANCE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LENS POWER; NUMERICAL RATING SCALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RATING SCALE; REPRODUCIBILITY; SCORING SYSTEM; SELF REPORT; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STUDY DESIGN; VISION; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE; VISUAL DISORDER; VISUAL SYSTEM EXAMINATION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CONTACT LENSES; DIAGNOSTIC SELF EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); REFRACTIVE ERRORS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VISION TESTS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84866435121     PISSN: 13670484     EISSN: 14765411     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.clae.2012.05.001     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Papas E.B., Decenzo-Verbeten T., Fonn D., et al. Utility of short-term evaluation of presbyopic contact lens performance. Eye & Contact Lens 2009, 35(3):144-148.
2. Carta A., Braccio L., Belpoliti M., et al. Self-assessment of the quality of vision: association of questionnaire score with objective clinical tests. Current Eye Research 1998, 17(5):506-511.
3. Papas E.B., Schultz B.L. Repeatability and comparison of visual analogue and numerical rating scales in the assessment of visual quality. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics 1997, 17(6):492-498.
4. Freyd M. The graphic rating scale. Journal of Educational Psychology 1923, 14:83-102.
5. Ohnhaus E.E., Adler R. Methodological problems in the measurement of pain: a comparison between the verbal rating scale and the visual analogue scale. Pain 1975, 1(4):379-384.
6. Price D.D., McGrath P.A., Rafii A., Buckingham B. The validation of visual analogue scales as ratio scale measures for chronic and experimental pain. Pain 1983, 17(1):45-56.
7. Carlsson A.M. Assessment of chronic pain. I. Aspects of the reliability and validity of the visual analogue scale. Pain 1983, 16(1):87-101.
8. Davies I.A., Davies D.G. Correlation between visual acuity and visual quality in contact lens practice. Contact Lens and Anterior Eye 1992, 15:155-157.
9. McCormack H.M., Horne D.J., Sheather S. Clinical applications of visual analogue scales: a critical review. Psychological Medicine 1988, 18(4):1007-1019.
10. Grunberg S.M., Groshen S., Steingass S., Zaretsky S., Meyerowitz B. Comparison of conditional quality of life terminology and visual analogue scale measurements. Quality of Life Research 1996, 5(1):65-72.
11. Huskisson E.C., Jones J., Scott P.J. Application of visual-analogue scales to the measurement of functional capacity. Rheumatology and Rehabilitation 1976, 15(3):185-187.
12. Seymour R.A., Simpson J.M., Charlton J.E., Phillips M.E. An evaluation of length and end-phrase of visual analogue scales in dental pain. Pain 1985, 21(2):177-185.
13. Guillon M., Schock S.E. Soft contact lens visual performance: a multicenter study. Optometry and Vision Science 1991, 68(2):96-103.
14. Guyatt G.H., Townsend M., Berman L.B., Keller J.L. A comparison of Likert and visual analogue scales for measuring change in function. Journal of Chronic Diseases 1987, 40(12):1129-1133.
15. Grant S., Aitchison T., Henderson E., et al. A comparison of the reproducibility and the sensitivity to change of visual analogue scales, Borg scales, and Likert scales in normal subjects during submaximal exercise. Chest 1999, 116(5):1208-1217.
16. Scott W.L., Rein M.J., Pack L.D. Subjective comparison of 2 daily disposable contact lenses: Focus Dailies with AquaRelease and Proclear 1-Day. Optometry 2010, 81(1):40-46.
17. Dumbleton K., Woods C., Jones L., Richter D., Fonn D. Comfort and vision with silicone hydrogel lenses: effect of compliance. Optometry and Vision Science 2010, 87(6):421-425.
18. Willcox M.D., Phillips B., Ozkan J., et al. Interactions of lens care with silicone hydrogel lenses and effect on comfort. Optometry and Vision Science 2010, 87(11):839-846.
19. Winn B., Whitaker D., Elliott D.B., Phillips N.J. Factors affecting light-adapted pupil size in normal human subjects. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 1994, 35(3):1132-1137.
20. Harville D.A. Maximum likelihood approaches to variance component estimation and to related problems. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1977, 72(358):320-338.
21. Lindstrom M.J., Bates D.M. Newton-Raphson and Em algorithms for linear mixed-effects models for repeated-measures data. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1988, 83(404):1014-1022.
22. British Standards Institution. Precision of test methods, Part 1. Guide for the determination of repeatability and reproducibility for a standard test method. BS5497, Part 1. London; 1979.
23. Bland J.M., Altman D.G. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986, 1(8476):307-310.
24. Nietert P.J., Wessell A.M., Feifer C., Ornstein S.M. Effect of terminal digit preference on blood pressure measurement and treatment in primary care. American Journal of Hypertension 2006, 19(2):147-152.
25. Hayes S.J. Does terminal digit preference occur in pathology?. Journal of Clinical Pathology 2008, 61(8):975.
26. Atchison D.A., Schmid K.L., Edwards K.P., Muller S.M., Robotham J. The effect of under and over refractive correction on visual performance and spectacle lens acceptance. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics 2001, 21(4):255-261.
27. Eser I., Durrie D.S., Schwendeman F., Stahl J.E. Association between ocular dominance and refraction. Journal of Refractive Surgery 2008, 24(7):685-689.
28. Malott L.E.C.D., Lowther G.E. Ocular dominance testing. International Contact Lens Clinic 1996, 23.
29. Thibos L.N., Hong X., Bradley A., Cheng X. Statistical variation of aberration structure and image quality in a normal population of healthy eyes. Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, Image Science, and Vision 2002, 19(12):2329-2348.
30. Breivik E.K., Skoglund L.A. Comparison of present pain intensity assessments on horizontally and vertically oriented visual analogue scales. Methods and Findings in Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology 1998, 20(8):719-724.
31. Scott J., Huskisson E.C. Vertical or horizontal visual analogue scales. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 1979, 38(6):560.
32. Wang Y.Z., Thibos L.N., Bradley A. Effects of refractive error on detection acuity and resolution acuity in peripheral vision. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 1997, 38(10):2134-2143.
33. Yang J., Schonfeld D. Virtual focus and depth estimation from defocused video sequences. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 2010, 19(3):668-679.
34. Peyre C., Fumery L., Gatinel D. Comparison of high-order optical aberrations induced by different multifocal contact lens geometries. Journal Francais d Ophtalmologie 2005, 28(6):599-604.
35. Rosenfield M., Chiu N.N. Repeatability of subjective and objective refraction. Optometry and Vision Science 1995, 72(8):577-579.
36. Sheedy J., Schanz P., Bullimore M. Evaluation of an automated subjective refractor. Optometry and Vision Science 2004, 81(5):334-340.
37. Bullimore M.A., Fusaro R.E., Adams C.W. The repeatability of automated and clinician refraction. Optometry and Vision Science 1998, 75(8):617-622.
38. Campbell F.W. A method for measuring the depth of field of the human eye. Journal of Physiology 1954, 125(1):11P.
39. Miles P.W. Depth of focus and amplitude of accommodation through trifocal glasses. Archives of Ophthalmology 1953, 49(3):271-279.
40. Jacobs R.J., Smith G., Chan C.D. Effect of defocus on blur thresholds and on thresholds of perceived change in blur: comparison of source and observer methods. Optometry and Vision Science 1989, 66(8):545-553.
41. Smith G., Jacobs R.J., Chan C.D. Effect of defocus on visual acuity as measured by source and observer methods. Optometry and Vision Science 1989, 66(7):430-435.
42. Webster M.A., Georgeson M.A., Webster S.M. Neural adjustments to image blur. Nature Neuroscience 2002, 5(9):839-840.
43. Mon-Williams M., Tresilian J.R., Strang N.C., Kochhar P., Wann J.P. Improving vision: neural compensation for optical defocus. Proceedings. Biological Sciences 1998, 265(1390):71-77.
44. Pesudovs K., Brennan N.A. Decreased uncorrected vision after a period of distance fixation with spectacle wear. Optometry and Vision Science 1993, 70(7):528-531.
45. Rosenfield M., Hong S.E., George S. Blur adaptation in myopes. Optometry and Vision Science 2004, 81(9):657-662.