Cole Barry L, Lian Ka-Yee, Lakkis Carol
Department of Optometry and Vision Sciences, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Aviat Space Environ Med. 2006 Jun;77(6):624-30.
The Farnsworth lantern test has long been used to assess the color vision of those seeking to enter the aviation industry and other occupations that require recognition of signal lights. A new version of the Farnsworth lantern, the Optec 900, is now produced because the original version is no longer manufactured. This paper reports the pass/ fail rates of a production model of the new version compared with an original one.
There were 100 male subjects with abnormal color vision who were given 3 runs with each lantern test. Their color vision deficiency was diagnosed using a battery of tests including the D15 test and the Nagel anomaloscope.
A total of 19% passed the new lantern test compared with 24% for the original Farnsworth using the usual fail criteria. The pass rates become 17% and 21%, respectively, when adjusted for the expected proportions of the types of abnormal color vision. There was agreement between the two lantern tests for 89% of subjects: 8% passed the old Farnsworth and failed the new version, and 3% failed the original Farnsworth and passed the new. There was a practice effect: when one lantern was passed and the other failed, the lantern passed was, with one exception, given second. Both lantern tests passed subjects who made no errors on the first run who subsequently made many errors when given further runs. Only 4% of subjects made no errors on all runs.
The Optec 900 can be considered equivalent to the Farnsworth lantern and might be preferred because it is slightly more stringent, reducing the risk of passing those who will make errors with signal lights. The practice of passing applicants who make no errors on the first run should be abandoned since 10% of those who pass in this way make many errors when additional runs are given.
长期以来，法恩斯沃思灯箱测试一直被用于评估那些希望进入航空业以及其他需要识别信号灯的职业的人员的色觉。由于原始版本的法恩斯沃思灯箱已不再生产，现在生产了一个新版本的法恩斯沃思灯箱，即Optec 900。本文报告了新版本生产型号与原始型号的及格/不及格率。
对100名色觉异常的男性受试者进行了每种灯箱测试3次。使用包括D15测试和纳格尔色盲镜在内的一系列测试对他们的色觉缺陷进行了诊断。
按照通常的不及格标准，共有19%的受试者通过了新灯箱测试，而原始法恩斯沃思灯箱测试的通过率为24%。在根据异常色觉类型的预期比例进行调整后，通过率分别变为17%和21%。两种灯箱测试对89%的受试者的结果一致：8%的受试者通过了旧版法恩斯沃思灯箱测试但未通过新版本测试，3%的受试者未通过原始法恩斯沃思灯箱测试但通过了新版本测试。存在练习效应：当一个灯箱测试通过而另一个未通过时，除了一个例外，通过的灯箱测试总是被排在第二次进行。两种灯箱测试都通过了那些在第一次测试中没有出错但在后续测试中出现很多错误的受试者。只有4%的受试者在所有测试中都没有出错。
Optec 900可以被认为等同于法恩斯沃思灯箱，并且可能更受青睐，因为它稍微更严格一些，降低了让那些在信号灯识别上会出错的人通过测试的风险。应该摒弃让在第一次测试中没有出错的申请者通过的做法，因为以这种方式通过测试的人中有10%在进行额外测试时会出现很多错误。
