Schroeder T L, Rainey B B, Goss D A, Grosvenor T P
School of Optometry, Indiana University, Bloomington, USA.
Optom Vis Sci. 1996 Jun;73(6):389-97. doi: 10.1097/00006324-199606000-00006.
Many methods of heterophoria measurement are available clinically. This paper reviews several studies which have examined the reliability of phoria measurements, and have compared various tests of phoria measurement. Different methods of data analysis make comparison of studies difficult. Two studies indicated 95% limits of agreement of 2 to 4 delta for reliability of modified Thorington, von Graefe, and Maddox rod phoria tests. Studies using correlational analysis to compare different measurement methods have found a high degree of association of the results of these methods. Studies using statistical methods assessing the agreement of test results found a high level of agreement among some tests and a low level of agreement among some tests. Some of the various phoria measurement methods differ in the technique used for dissociation, in the ability to control accommodation adequately, in the level of proximal convergence induced, or in the method by which the phoria is quantified. These differences can result in different phoria measurements on the same patient.
临床上有多种测量隐斜视的方法。本文回顾了几项研究，这些研究检验了隐斜视测量的可靠性，并比较了各种隐斜视测量测试。不同的数据分析方法使得研究之间的比较变得困难。两项研究表明，改良的Thorington、von Graefe和马多克斯杆隐斜视测试的可靠性在2至4棱镜度的95%一致性界限内。使用相关分析来比较不同测量方法的研究发现，这些方法的结果之间存在高度关联。使用统计方法评估测试结果一致性的研究发现，一些测试之间一致性程度高，而一些测试之间一致性程度低。各种隐斜视测量方法中的一些在用于分离的技术、充分控制调节的能力、诱发的近感知性集合水平或量化隐斜视的方法上存在差异。这些差异可能导致对同一患者进行不同的隐斜视测量。
