PURPOSE: To compare the performance of 3- to 5-year-old children on visual acuity screening with HOTV letters vs. Lea symbols as optotypes. METHODS: Subjects included 1253 Head Start children who were aged either 3 or 4 years on September 1 of the school year of testing. The sample over-represented children who had not passed a Head Start screening. Binocular pretesting at 1 m demonstrated the child's ability to identify the optotypes verbally or by matching optotypes on a lap card. Acuity was tested monocularly at 3 m using crowded single lines of optotypes. Lines tested were based on age at the beginning of the school year (September 1) with 3-year-old children tested with lines 10/100, 10/32, 10/25, and 10/20 and 4-year-old children tested with 10/100, 10/25, 10/20, and 10/16. RESULTS: Overall, 99% of children were able to complete the binocular pretest for each test successfully, and there was no difference between the tests (p = 0.83). Children's ability to complete the pretest increased slightly with age. HOTV test scores were slightly worse than Lea symbols test scores (p = 0.047), primarily because more children were unable to pass the monocular 10/100 card for the HOTV test than for the Lea symbols test (2.6% vs. 1.3%). The percentage of identical results on HOTV vs. Lea overall was 67.3% and increased significantly with age. When the results were different, 3-year-old children, but not 4- and 5-year-old children, tended to have worse results on the HOTV letter test. CONCLUSIONS: The vision of nearly all 3- to 5-year-old children can be screened using either HOTV letters or Lea symbols. HOTV letters may be slightly more difficult than Lea symbols for 3- to 5-year-old children, with the largest difference between acuity results on the two tests occurring in 3-year-old children.
PURPOSE: To compare the performance of 3- to 5-year-old children on visual acuity screening with HOTV letters vs. Lea symbols as optotypes. METHODS: Subjects included 1253 Head Start children who were aged either 3 or 4 years on September 1 of the school year of testing. The sample over-represented children who had not passed a Head Start screening. Binocular pretesting at 1 m demonstrated the child's ability to identify the optotypes verbally or by matching optotypes on a lap card. Acuity was tested monocularly at 3 m using crowded single lines of optotypes. Lines tested were based on age at the beginning of the school year (September 1) with 3-year-old children tested with lines 10/100, 10/32, 10/25, and 10/20 and 4-year-old children tested with 10/100, 10/25, 10/20, and 10/16. RESULTS: Overall, 99% of children were able to complete the binocular pretest for each test successfully, and there was no difference between the tests (p = 0.83). Children's ability to complete the pretest increased slightly with age. HOTV test scores were slightly worse than Lea symbols test scores (p = 0.047), primarily because more children were unable to pass the monocular 10/100 card for the HOTV test than for the Lea symbols test (2.6% vs. 1.3%). The percentage of identical results on HOTV vs. Lea overall was 67.3% and increased significantly with age. When the results were different, 3-year-old children, but not 4- and 5-year-old children, tended to have worse results on the HOTV letter test. CONCLUSIONS: The vision of nearly all 3- to 5-year-old children can be screened using either HOTV letters or Lea symbols. HOTV letters may be slightly more difficult than Lea symbols for 3- to 5-year-old children, with the largest difference between acuity results on the two tests occurring in 3-year-old children.
Authors: Tomohiko Yamada; Sarah R Hatt; David A Leske; Pamela S Moke; Nick L Parrucci; J Jeffrey Reese; James B Ruben; Jonathan M Holmes Journal: J AAPOS Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 1.220
Authors: David B Rein; John S Wittenborn; Xinzhi Zhang; Michael Song; Jinan B Saaddine Journal: J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus Date: 2011-08-30 Impact factor: 1.402
Authors: Tzu-Ying Yu; Robert J Jacobs; Nicola S Anstice; Nabin Paudel; Jane E Harding; Benjamin Thompson Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2013-12-30 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Ying Pan; Kristina Tarczy-Hornoch; Susan A Cotter; Ge Wen; Mark S Borchert; Stanley P Azen; Rohit Varma Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 1.973
Authors: Marjean Taylor Kulp; Elise Ciner; Gui-Shuang Ying; T Rowan Candy; Bruce D Moore; Deborah Orel-Bixler Journal: Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila) Date: 2022-01-18