Ophthalmology, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ophthalmology, Elkerliek Hospital, Helmond, The Netherlands.
Acta Ophthalmol. 2021 May;99(3):275-287. doi: 10.1111/aos.14574. Epub 2020 Aug 24.
A reliable reading test provides a standardized measure of the visual component of reading performance. This study evaluated reproducibility, agreement and feasibility of five Dutch language continuous text reading tests used in clinical practice and research in visually impaired participants.
In 42 participants with macular pathologies (mean age 77 years), the Colenbrander Reading Card (Colenbrander), International Reading Speed Texts (IReST), Laboratory of Experimental Ophthalmology (LEO) charts, 'de Nederlanders' (NED) and the Radner Reading Charts (Radner) were evaluated. The coefficient of repeatability was calculated for different reading parameters, and agreement between the reading tests was determined.
Between the reading tests, the differences found in repeatability for reading performance were mainly within the limit of one line (0.1 logMAR). Exceptions were the inter-session repeatability for critical print size: Colenbrander (0.35 logMAR), LEO (0.34), Radner (0.23). The highest agreement was found between the LEO and Radner; Reading acuity bias 0.03 logMAR (SD 0.10), CPS 0.03 (0.12).
This study shows that reading performance results obtained with reading tests are not always reliable and reading parameters could not always be properly assessed in participants with maculopathies. Therefore, choices regarding which reading test to use especially for research purposes should be based on both the feasibility and reliability of the reading test. The NED (a historical test) was the least feasible, and it is recommend that this test is no longer used. To allow standardized and comparable analysis of reading performance a highly standardized reading test, like the Radner is recommended.
可靠的阅读测试可提供阅读表现的视觉成分的标准化衡量标准。本研究评估了在视力障碍参与者的临床实践和研究中使用的五种荷兰语连续文本阅读测试的重现性、一致性和可行性。
在 42 名患有黄斑病变的参与者(平均年龄 77 岁)中,评估了科伦布兰德阅读卡(Colenbrander)、国际阅读速度文本(IReST)、实验眼科实验室(LEO)图表、“荷兰人”(NED)和拉德纳阅读图表(Radner)。为不同的阅读参数计算了重复性系数,并确定了阅读测试之间的一致性。
在阅读测试之间,阅读表现的重复性差异主要在一条线(0.1 logMAR)的范围内。临界印刷尺寸的组间重复性是例外:科伦布兰德(0.35 logMAR)、LEO(0.34)、拉德纳(0.23)。LEO 和拉德纳之间的一致性最高;阅读视力偏差 0.03 logMAR(标准差 0.10),CPS 0.03(0.12)。
本研究表明,使用阅读测试获得的阅读表现结果并不总是可靠的,并且在患有黄斑病变的参与者中,阅读参数并不总是可以正确评估。因此,特别是对于研究目的,选择使用哪种阅读测试应基于阅读测试的可行性和可靠性。NED(历史测试)的可行性最低,建议不再使用该测试。为了允许对阅读表现进行标准化和可比的分析,建议使用高度标准化的阅读测试,如拉德纳。