PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness of the Lea Symbols and the HOTV distance visual acuity tests, presented monocularly in linear, crowded formats at 3 m, as vision screening tests to identify 3- to 5-year-old children in need of eye care. METHODS: Subjects were 1,142 3- to 5-year-old Head Start children who completed a comprehensive eye examination, used to determine if the child had one or more targeted conditions: amblyopia, strabismus, significant refractive error, or unexplained reduced visual acuity. Each child was tested on both tests by masked examiners, with test order determined randomly. The optotype sizes administered were age-based according to the child's age at school entry on September 1. Children of age 3 were tested with 10/100, 10/32, 10/25, and 10/20 optotypes whereas those who were 4 were tested with 10/100, 10/25, 10/20, and 10/16 optotypes. RESULTS: Most children (>95%) completed both tests, with no statistically significant differences. Pass/fail cut-offs were set to yield specificities as close as possible to 90%. The largest sensitivity differences observed were in the 3-year-old group (mean age, 45.3 months), where the sensitivity for detection of > or =1 targeted conditions was 61% for the Lea Symbols and was 46% for the HOTV letters (difference 15%, 95% confidence interval: -0.01 to 0.30) and the sensitivity for detection of group 1 conditions was 83% for the Lea Symbols and 57% for the HOTV letters (difference 26%, 95% confidence interval: -0.01 to 0.49). However, neither these differences nor any of the other age group sensitivity differences were statistically significant. For the 3-year-old children, the pass/fail criterion was one line larger for the HOTV letters than for the Lea Symbols. CONCLUSIONS: Most children completed both tests. Although the 3-year-old children achieved better acuity scores with the Lea Symbols test, there were no statistically significant differences in sensitivity between tests for any age group.
PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness of the Lea Symbols and the HOTV distance visual acuity tests, presented monocularly in linear, crowded formats at 3 m, as vision screening tests to identify 3- to 5-year-old children in need of eye care. METHODS: Subjects were 1,142 3- to 5-year-old Head Start children who completed a comprehensive eye examination, used to determine if the child had one or more targeted conditions: amblyopia, strabismus, significant refractive error, or unexplained reduced visual acuity. Each child was tested on both tests by masked examiners, with test order determined randomly. The optotype sizes administered were age-based according to the child's age at school entry on September 1. Children of age 3 were tested with 10/100, 10/32, 10/25, and 10/20 optotypes whereas those who were 4 were tested with 10/100, 10/25, 10/20, and 10/16 optotypes. RESULTS: Most children (>95%) completed both tests, with no statistically significant differences. Pass/fail cut-offs were set to yield specificities as close as possible to 90%. The largest sensitivity differences observed were in the 3-year-old group (mean age, 45.3 months), where the sensitivity for detection of > or =1 targeted conditions was 61% for the Lea Symbols and was 46% for the HOTV letters (difference 15%, 95% confidence interval: -0.01 to 0.30) and the sensitivity for detection of group 1 conditions was 83% for the Lea Symbols and 57% for the HOTV letters (difference 26%, 95% confidence interval: -0.01 to 0.49). However, neither these differences nor any of the other age group sensitivity differences were statistically significant. For the 3-year-old children, the pass/fail criterion was one line larger for the HOTV letters than for the Lea Symbols. CONCLUSIONS: Most children completed both tests. Although the 3-year-old children achieved better acuity scores with the Lea Symbols test, there were no statistically significant differences in sensitivity between tests for any age group.
Authors: E E Hartmann; V Dobson; L Hainline; W Marsh-Tootle; G E Quinn; M S Ruttum; P P Schmidt; K Simons Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: P S Moke; A H Turpin; R W Beck; J M Holmes; M X Repka; E E Birch; R W Hertle; R T Kraker; J M Miller; C A Johnson Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Velma Dobson; Candice E Clifford-Donaldson; Joseph M Miller; Katherine A Garvey; Erin M Harvey Journal: J AAPOS Date: 2009-04-05 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: 2014-06 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
Authors: Maya Tsao Wu; M Diane Armitage; Claire Trujillo; Anna Trujillo; Laura E Arnold; Lauren Tsao Wu; Robert W Arnold Journal: BMC Ophthalmol Date: 2017-12-04 Impact factor: 2.209