Literature DB >> 22797510

Reliability of the CSV-1000 in adults and children.

Susan A Kelly1, Yi Pang, Stephanie Klemencic.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Test-retest reliability of the CSV-1000 (Vector Vision) has only been reported for one adult sample. We measured the reliability of this instrument in both children and adults and also investigated the effect of changing the examiner on test-retest reliability.
METHODS: Test-retest log contrast sensitivity (CS) measurements were obtained for 19 young adults and 15 children by the same examiner. Test-retest log CS data were obtained from 21 young adults with different examiners. Reliability was calculated using the Bland-Altman limits of agreement, the coefficient of repeatability (COR), and the intraclass correlation coefficient.
RESULTS: All three estimates of reliability for the CSV-1000 chart are low for both children and adults using the standard recommended testing protocol. If the test-retest log CS data are obtained from the same examiner then the reliability is improved, but not significantly so.
CONCLUSIONS: The reliability of the CSV-1000 is low, even if the same examiner obtains test-retest data. The data indicate that this test is unlikely to be sensitive enough to provide useful information for the clinician as is, but we suggest modifications of the procedure that may significantly increase test reliability.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22797510     DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e318264097b

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Optom Vis Sci        ISSN: 1040-5488            Impact factor:   1.973


  9 in total

1.  Effects of upper lid blepharoplasty on visual quality in patients with lash ptosis and dermatochalasis.

Authors:  Seoung Hyun An; Sang Wook Jin; Yoon Hyung Kwon; Won Yeol Ryu; Woo Jin Jeong; Hee Bae Ahn
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-09-18       Impact factor: 1.779

2.  Active Learning of Contrast Sensitivity to Assess Visual Function in Macula-off Retinal Detachment.

Authors:  Merina Thomas; Rebecca F Silverman; Filippos Vingopoulos; Megan Kasetty; Gina Yu; Esther L Kim; Amro A Omari; Katherine A Joltikov; Eun Y Choi; Leo A Kim; David N Zacks; John B Miller
Journal:  J Vitreoretin Dis       Date:  2020-11-05

3.  Comparison of Two Different Contrast Sensitivity Testing Methods in Patients with Low Vision.

Authors:  Deniz Altinbay; Esra Sahli; Aysun Idil
Journal:  J Curr Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-04-16

4.  Test-retest Repeatability of the Ohio Contrast Cards.

Authors:  Mawada Osman; Stevie M Njeru; Gregory R Hopkins; Angela M Brown
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2021-09-01       Impact factor: 2.106

5.  Predicting individual contrast sensitivity functions from acuity and letter contrast sensitivity measurements.

Authors:  Steven M Thurman; Pinakin Gunvant Davey; Kaydee Lynn McCray; Violeta Paronian; Aaron R Seitz
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2016-12-01       Impact factor: 2.240

6.  Sensitivity and Stability of Functional Vision Tests in Detecting Subtle Changes Under Multiple Simulated Conditions.

Authors:  Zhipeng Chen; Yijing Zhuang; Zixuan Xu; Lily Y L Chan; Shenglan Zhang; Qingqing Ye; Lei Feng; Zhong-Lin Lu; Jinrong Li
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 3.283

7.  Contrast Sensitivity Abnormalities in Deaf Individuals.

Authors:  Masoud Khorrami-Nejad; Javad Heravian; Farshad Askarizadeh; Davood Sobhani-Rad
Journal:  J Ophthalmic Vis Res       Date:  2018 Apr-Jun

8.  Contrast sensitivity function with soft contact lens wear.

Authors:  Kishor Sapkota; Sandra Franco; Madalena Lira
Journal:  J Optom       Date:  2020-02-13

9.  A New Contrast Sensitivity Test for Pediatric Patients: Feasibility and Inter-Examiner Reliability in Ocular Disorders and Cerebral Visual Impairment.

Authors:  D Luisa Mayer; Christopher Patrick Taylor; Barry S Kran
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2020-08-20       Impact factor: 3.283

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.