Evaluation of the SpotChecks contrast sensitivity test in children

8Citations
Citations of this article
12Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine intrasession repeatability of a worksheet style contrast sensitivity test (SpotChecks) in children and agreement with an established contrast sensitivity test (Pelli–Robson). Methods: Forty-three children aged 4 to 12 years participated in this single visit study that included two administrations of the SpotChecks binocularly, a single administration of the Pelli–Robson test and other measures of visual performance such as high-contrast visual acuity. Test order was randomised, and participants wore their habitual correction (39 unaided, 4 wearing glasses) for testing. Bland–Altman plots were used to assess the test–retest repeatability of SpotChecks and its agreement with the Pelli–Robson test. Multiple linear regressions were performed to evaluate whether contrast sensitivity was related to participant characteristics such as age, sex and near binocular visual acuity. Results: The mean difference in log contrast sensitivity (logCS) between two administrations of the SpotChecks was 0.01, with a coefficient of repeatability (1.96*SD of differences) of 0.14 logCS. The mean difference between SpotChecks and Pelli–Robson was 0.00 logCS with 95% limits of agreement of −0.19 to +0.20. For both tests, a statistically significant increase in logCS was associated with age (slopes were 0.02 logCS/year, p < 0.001 and 0.01 logCS/year, p = 0.02 for the SpotChecks and Pelli–Robson tests, respectively). Conclusions: The SpotChecks test shows good intrasession repeatability and excellent agreement with the Pelli–Robson test in children. Contrast sensitivity showed an increase in logCS with age in children for both tests.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Anderson, H. A., Mathew, A. R., & Cheng, H. (2023). Evaluation of the SpotChecks contrast sensitivity test in children. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 43(1), 64–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/opo.13054

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free