Sharon A Haymes1, Jason Chen. 1. Department of Optometry and Vision Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. s.haymes@optometry.unimelb.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purposes of the study were to investigate the test-retest reliability and the validity of new versions of the Melbourne Edge Test (MET) and the High/Low Contrast Visual Acuity (H/LCVA) chart and to investigate the agreement between the original and new versions. METHODS: The MET original photographic version, MET new light box version, H/LCVA Chart original photographic version, H/LCVA Chart new printed version, and the Pelli-Robson chart were administered twice to one eye of 22 subjects with low vision and 20 soft contact lenses wearers. RESULTS: For the low vision group, the test-retest 95% limits of agreement were +/- 5.2 dB for the MET new light box version and +/- 0.39 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) for the LCVA component of the H/LCVA new printed version. For the soft contact lens group, the test-retest 95% limits of agreement were +/- 2.1 dB for the MET new light box version and +/- 0.26 logMAR for the LCVA component of the H/LCVA new printed version. Moderate to high correlations were obtained between contrast sensitivity tests, thus providing evidence of validity. Scores obtained for the new test versions were significantly higher than the original versions (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Of all the tests administered, the MET original photographic version and the Pelli-Robson Chart had the highest test-retest reliability for the low vision group. For the soft contact lens group, the H/LCVA original version (low contrast letters, 18% Weber) and the Pelli-Robson Chart had the highest reliability.
PURPOSE: The purposes of the study were to investigate the test-retest reliability and the validity of new versions of the Melbourne Edge Test (MET) and the High/Low Contrast Visual Acuity (H/LCVA) chart and to investigate the agreement between the original and new versions. METHODS: The MET original photographic version, MET new light box version, H/LCVA Chart original photographic version, H/LCVA Chart new printed version, and the Pelli-Robson chart were administered twice to one eye of 22 subjects with low vision and 20 soft contact lenses wearers. RESULTS: For the low vision group, the test-retest 95% limits of agreement were +/- 5.2 dB for the MET new light box version and +/- 0.39 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) for the LCVA component of the H/LCVA new printed version. For the soft contact lens group, the test-retest 95% limits of agreement were +/- 2.1 dB for the MET new light box version and +/- 0.26 logMAR for the LCVA component of the H/LCVA new printed version. Moderate to high correlations were obtained between contrast sensitivity tests, thus providing evidence of validity. Scores obtained for the new test versions were significantly higher than the original versions (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Of all the tests administered, the MET original photographic version and the Pelli-Robson Chart had the highest test-retest reliability for the low vision group. For the soft contact lens group, the H/LCVA original version (low contrast letters, 18% Weber) and the Pelli-Robson Chart had the highest reliability.
Authors: Susan L Murphy; James K Richardson; Jennifer Blackwood; Beanna Martinez; Elliot B Tapper Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2020-01-25 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Lisa A Zukowski; Jaclyn E Tennant; Gozde Iyigun; Carol A Giuliani; Prudence Plummer Journal: Exp Gerontol Date: 2021-04-07 Impact factor: 4.253