PURPOSE: To examine (1) reproducibility of cycloplegic retinoscopy (C-RNS), cycloplegic autorefraction (C-Autoref), and noncycloplegic autorefraction (NC-Autoref), and (2) validity of C-Autoref and NC-Autoref compared with C-RNS in preschoolers with astigmatism. METHODS: Subjects were 36 Native American preschoolers. Three measurements of right eye refractive error were obtained with each of three methods: C-RNS (by three different retinoscopists), C-Autoref, and NC-Autoref (Nikon Retinomax K+). Vector methods (vector dioptric distance, VDD) were used in the analyses. RESULTS: Mean reproducibility was 0.41 D (SD = 0.18) for C-RNS, 0.25 D (SD = 0.17) for C-Autoref, and 0.37 D (SD = 0.21) for NC-Autoref. Mean agreement between C-Autoref and C-RNS ranged from 0.51 to 0.61 VDD (SD = 0.24 to 0.35), and ranged from 1.66 to 1.74 VDD (SD = 1.11 to 1.25) for agreement between NC-Autoref and C-RNS. Mean bias was -0.07 +0.21 x 149 and -1.33 +0.34 x 178 for C-Autoref and NC-Autoref, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: C-Autoref provided reliable and valid measurements of refractive error in young children. NC-Autoref measurements were reliable within subjects, but there was large variability in validity among subjects.
PURPOSE: To examine (1) reproducibility of cycloplegic retinoscopy (C-RNS), cycloplegic autorefraction (C-Autoref), and noncycloplegic autorefraction (NC-Autoref), and (2) validity of C-Autoref and NC-Autoref compared with C-RNS in preschoolers with astigmatism. METHODS: Subjects were 36 Native American preschoolers. Three measurements of right eye refractive error were obtained with each of three methods: C-RNS (by three different retinoscopists), C-Autoref, and NC-Autoref (Nikon Retinomax K+). Vector methods (vector dioptric distance, VDD) were used in the analyses. RESULTS: Mean reproducibility was 0.41 D (SD = 0.18) for C-RNS, 0.25 D (SD = 0.17) for C-Autoref, and 0.37 D (SD = 0.21) for NC-Autoref. Mean agreement between C-Autoref and C-RNS ranged from 0.51 to 0.61 VDD (SD = 0.24 to 0.35), and ranged from 1.66 to 1.74 VDD (SD = 1.11 to 1.25) for agreement between NC-Autoref and C-RNS. Mean bias was -0.07 +0.21 x 149 and -1.33 +0.34 x 178 for C-Autoref and NC-Autoref, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: C-Autoref provided reliable and valid measurements of refractive error in young children. NC-Autoref measurements were reliable within subjects, but there was large variability in validity among subjects.
Authors: Velma Dobson; Erin M Harvey; Candice E Clifford-Donaldson; Tina K Green; Joseph M Miller Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 1.973
Authors: Erin M Harvey; Joseph M Miller; Howard P Apple; Pavan Parashar; J Daniel Twelker; Mabel Crescioni; Amy L Davis; Tina K Leonard-Green; Irene Campus; Duane L Sherrill Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2014-08-07 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Marjean Taylor Kulp; Gui-Shuang Ying; Jiayan Huang; Maureen Maguire; Graham Quinn; Elise B Ciner; Lynn A Cyert; Deborah A Orel-Bixler; Bruce D Moore Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2014-03-06 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: David K Wallace; Elizabeth L Lazar; Michele Melia; Eileen E Birch; Jonathan M Holmes; Kristine B Hopkins; Raymond T Kraker; Marjean T Kulp; Yi Pang; Michael X Repka; Susanna M Tamkins; Katherine K Weise Journal: J AAPOS Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 1.220
Authors: Mae Millicent W Peterseim; Carrie E Papa; M Edward Wilson; Edward W Cheeseman; Bethany J Wolf; Jennifer D Davidson; Rupal H Trivedi Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2014-08-01 Impact factor: 5.258