PURPOSE: To compare the performance of nurse screeners with that of lay screeners in administering preschool vision screening tests. METHODS: Trained nurse and lay screeners administered the Retinomax Autorefractor (Right Manufacturing, Virginia Beach, VA), SureSight Vision Screener (Welch Allyn, Inc., Skaneateles Falls, NY), crowded Linear Lea Symbols visual acuity (VA) test at 10 ft (Precision Vision, Inc., La Salle, IL), and Stereo Smile II test (Stereo Optical, Inc., Chicago, IL) to 3- to 5-year-old Head Start participants. Lay screeners also administered a crowded Single Lea Symbols VA test at 5 ft (Good-Lite, Inc.). Screening results were compared with the classification of the children according to the presence of one or more of four conditions (amblyopia, strabismus, significant refractive error, and unexplained reduced VA) based on the results of a gold standard eye examination by study-certified optometrists and ophthalmologists. The primary outcome measure was sensitivity for detecting children with one or more targeted conditions at 0.90 specificity. RESULTS: Nurse screeners achieved slightly higher sensitivities with the Retinomax, SureSight, and Stereo Smile II tests than did lay screeners; however, most differences were small and not statistically significant. Nurse screeners achieved significantly higher sensitivity with the Linear Lea Symbols VA test than did lay screeners. Lay screeners achieved strikingly higher sensitivity with the Single Lea Symbols VA test than did nurse or lay screeners using the Linear Lea Symbols VA test. Combining the Stereo Smile II test with each of the other tests did not result in improved sensitivities for detecting one or more targeted conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Nurse and lay screeners can achieve similar sensitivity, when specificity is set at 0.90, for detecting preschool children in need of a comprehensive eye examination.
PURPOSE: To compare the performance of nurse screeners with that of lay screeners in administering preschool vision screening tests. METHODS: Trained nurse and lay screeners administered the Retinomax Autorefractor (Right Manufacturing, Virginia Beach, VA), SureSight Vision Screener (Welch Allyn, Inc., Skaneateles Falls, NY), crowded Linear Lea Symbols visual acuity (VA) test at 10 ft (Precision Vision, Inc., La Salle, IL), and Stereo Smile II test (Stereo Optical, Inc., Chicago, IL) to 3- to 5-year-old Head Start participants. Lay screeners also administered a crowded Single Lea Symbols VA test at 5 ft (Good-Lite, Inc.). Screening results were compared with the classification of the children according to the presence of one or more of four conditions (amblyopia, strabismus, significant refractive error, and unexplained reduced VA) based on the results of a gold standard eye examination by study-certified optometrists and ophthalmologists. The primary outcome measure was sensitivity for detecting children with one or more targeted conditions at 0.90 specificity. RESULTS: Nurse screeners achieved slightly higher sensitivities with the Retinomax, SureSight, and Stereo Smile II tests than did lay screeners; however, most differences were small and not statistically significant. Nurse screeners achieved significantly higher sensitivity with the Linear Lea Symbols VA test than did lay screeners. Lay screeners achieved strikingly higher sensitivity with the Single Lea Symbols VA test than did nurse or lay screeners using the Linear Lea Symbols VA test. Combining the Stereo Smile II test with each of the other tests did not result in improved sensitivities for detecting one or more targeted conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Nurse and lay screeners can achieve similar sensitivity, when specificity is set at 0.90, for detecting preschool children in need of a comprehensive eye examination.
Authors: Wendy L Marsh-Tootle; Gerald McGwin; Connie L Kohler; Robert E Kristofco; Raju V Datla; Terry C Wall Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2011-09-09 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: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 1.973
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: 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: Elise B Ciner; Gui-Shuang Ying; Marjean Taylor Kulp; Maureen G Maguire; Graham E Quinn; Deborah Orel-Bixler; Lynn A Cyert; Bruce Moore; Jiayan Huang Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 1.973
Authors: Erin M Harvey; Velma Dobson; Joseph M Miller; Candice E Clifford-Donaldson; Tina K Green; Dawn H Messer; Katherine A Garvey Journal: J AAPOS Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 1.220