Brussee Tamara, van Nispen Ruth M A, Klerkx Edwin M F J, Knol Dirk L, van Rens Ger H M B
Department of Ophthalmology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Ophthalmology, Elkerliek Hospital, Helmond, The Netherlands.
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2015 May;35(3):324-35. doi: 10.1111/opo.12204.
In research and practice, sentences or paragraphs of reading tests may be randomly chosen to assess reading performance. This means that in addition to test reliability, all sentences or paragraphs should be reliable and equally difficult to read. The sentences and paragraphs of five (un-) standardised Dutch reading tests were investigated in this regard.
Tests were performed with 71 normally sighted persons (mean age 55 [18-86] years). All sentences and paragraphs had equal print size. The relative difficulty of sentences and paragraphs from the five Dutch reading tests was tested with linear mixed models (reading speed) and generalised linear models (mistakes).
Reading speed in standard words per min ranged from 179 (Radner) to 142 (De Nederlanders). Reading mistakes per 100 characters ranged from 0.25 (Radner) to 0.40 (Colenbrander). On the Colenbrander charts 7/24 sentences were read significantly faster vs 5/24 read slower (sentence reliability 0.56-0.87); International Reading Speed Texts 3/10 vs 3/10 [0.94-0.97]; Laboratory of Experimental Ophthalmology 14/55 vs 15/55 [0.64-0.92]; De Nederlanders 2/6 vs 3/6 [0.83-0.94]; Radner 4/24 vs 3/24 [0.73-0.87]. Agreement between tests differed from 1 to 36 standard words per minute and 0.01 to 0.14 mistakes per 100 characters.
The Radner, with the highest number of equally difficult sentences, is appropriate to measure reading acuity as well as reading speed in a heterogeneous population; the International Reading Speed Texts, with the highest paragraph reliability, provides long paragraphs to measure reading speed. The Colenbrander and Laboratory of Experimental Ophthalmology are suitable for daily practice; however, for research or inspection purposes, reliable sentences must be chosen. Although the clinical relevance of the differences between the tests is debatable, use of the De Nederlanders as a reading test remains questionable.
在研究和实践中，阅读测试的句子或段落可能会被随机选取以评估阅读表现。这意味着除了测试的可靠性外，所有句子或段落都应可靠且阅读难度相同。本研究就此对五项（非）标准化荷兰语阅读测试的句子和段落进行了调查。
对71名视力正常者（平均年龄55[18 - 86]岁）进行测试。所有句子和段落的字体大小相同。使用线性混合模型（阅读速度）和广义线性模型（错误率）测试了五项荷兰语阅读测试中句子和段落的相对难度。
每分钟标准单词的阅读速度从179（拉德纳测试）到142（《荷兰人》测试）不等。每100个字符的阅读错误率从0.25（拉德纳测试）到0.40（科伦布兰德测试）不等。在科伦布兰德测试图表中，24个句子中有7个阅读速度明显更快，5个阅读速度明显更慢（句子可靠性为0.56 - 0.87）；国际阅读速度文本中，10个段落中有3个阅读速度明显更快，3个阅读速度明显更慢[0.94 - 0.97]；实验眼科学实验室测试中，55个段落中有14个阅读速度明显更快，15个阅读速度明显更慢[0.64 - 0.92]；《荷兰人》测试中，6个段落中有2个阅读速度明显更快，3个阅读速度明显更慢[0.83 - 0.94]；拉德纳测试中，24个段落中有4个阅读速度明显更快，3个阅读速度明显更慢[0.73 - 0.87]。各测试之间的一致性差异为每分钟1至36个标准单词，每100个字符0.01至0.14个错误。
拉德纳测试中难度相同的句子数量最多，适合测量异质人群的阅读敏锐度和阅读速度；国际阅读速度文本段落可靠性最高，提供长段落来测量阅读速度。科伦布兰德测试和实验眼科学实验室测试适用于日常实践；然而，出于研究或检查目的，必须选择可靠的句子。尽管各测试之间差异的临床相关性存在争议，但将《荷兰人》测试用作阅读测试仍值得怀疑。
