The letter contrast sensitivity test: clinical evaluation of a new design.

PURPOSE To compare the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Mars Letter Contrast Sensitivity (CS) Test to the Pelli-Robson CS Chart. METHODS One eye of 47 normal control subjects, 27 patients with open-angle glaucoma, and 17 with age-related macular degeneration (AMD) was tested twice with the Mars test and twice with the Pelli-Robson test, in random order on separate days. In addition, 17 patients undergoing cataract surgery were tested, once before and once after surgery. RESULTS The mean Mars CS was 1.62 log CS (0.06 SD) for normal subjects aged 22 to 77 years, with significantly lower values in patients with glaucoma or AMD (P<0.001). Mars test-retest 95% limits of agreement (LOA) were +/-0.13, +/-0.19, and +/-0.24 log CS for normal, glaucoma, and AMD, respectively. In comparison, Pelli-Robson test-retest 95% LOA were +/-0.18, +/-0.19, and +/-0.33 log CS. The Spearman correlation between the Mars and Pelli-Robson tests was 0.83 (P<0.001). However, systematic differences were observed, particularly at the upper-normal end of the range, where Mars CS was lower than Pelli-Robson CS. After cataract surgery, Mars and Pelli-Robson effect size statistics were 0.92 and 0.88, respectively. CONCLUSIONS The results indicate the Mars test has test-retest reliability equal to or better than the Pelli-Robson test and comparable responsiveness. The strong correlation between the tests provides evidence the Mars test is valid. However, systematic differences indicate normative values are likely to be different for each test. The Mars Letter CS Test is a useful and practical alternative to the Pelli-Robson CS Chart.

[1]  L L SLOAN,et al.  New test charts for the measurement of visual acuity at far and near distances. , 1959, American journal of ophthalmology.

[2]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[3]  I. Bailey,et al.  Visual Factors and Orientation‐Mobility Performance , 1982, American journal of optometry and physiological optics.

[4]  F. Ferris,et al.  New visual acuity charts for clinical research. , 1982, American journal of ophthalmology.

[5]  R. Sekuler,et al.  Contrast sensitivity throughout adulthood , 1982, Vision Research.

[6]  J E Sheedy,et al.  Visual Acuity and Chart Luminance , 1984, American journal of optometry and physiological optics.

[7]  THE TECHNICAL PROBLEMS OF PRODUCING PHOTOGRAPHIC PRINTS FOR THE MEASUREMENT OF HUMAN CONTRAST THRESHOLDS , 1985, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[8]  C. Schor,et al.  The Glenn A. Fry award lecture: adaptive regulation of accommodative vergence and vergence accommodation. , 1986, American journal of optometry and physiological optics.

[9]  D. Altman,et al.  STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT , 1986, The Lancet.

[10]  J M Bland,et al.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement , 1986 .

[11]  H. Bourgeois,et al.  [Contrast sensitivity]. , 1987, L'Annee therapeutique et clinique en ophtalmologie.

[12]  M Sheridan,et al.  The use of accurate visual acuity measurements in clinical anti‐cataract formulation trials , 1988, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[13]  Denis G. Pelli,et al.  THE DESIGN OF A NEW LETTER CHART FOR MEASURING CONTRAST SENSITIVITY , 1988 .

[14]  B. Brown,et al.  Age-Related Changes in Contrast Sensitivity in Central and Peripheral Retina , 1988, Perception.

[15]  M. Maguire,et al.  Reproducibility of refraction and visual acuity measurement under a standard protocol. The Macular Photocoagulation Study Group. , 1989, Retina.

[16]  L T Chylack,et al.  Lens opacities classification system II (LOCS II) , 1989, Archives of ophthalmology.

[17]  D. Elliott,et al.  Simple Clinical Techniques to Evaluate Visual Function in Patients with Early Cataract , 1990, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[18]  D B Elliott,et al.  The reliability of the Pelli‐Robson contrast sensitivity chart , 1990, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[19]  D. Whitaker,et al.  Differences in the legibility of letters at contrast threshold using the Pelli‐Robson chart , 1990, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[20]  I L Bailey,et al.  Face recognition in age-related maculopathy. , 1991, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[21]  I L Bailey,et al.  Clinical grading and the effects of scaling. , 1991, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[22]  M. Bullimore,et al.  Improving the Reliability of the Pelli-Robson Contrast Sensitivity Test , 1991, Noninvasive Assessment of the Visual System.

[23]  M. Bullimore,et al.  Assessing the reliability, discriminative ability, and validity of disability glare tests. , 1993, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[24]  A. Hill,et al.  Reliability of high‐ and low‐contrast letter charts , 1993, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[25]  R. Beck,et al.  The Pelli-Robson letter chart: normative data for young adults , 1993 .

[26]  S. Whittaker,et al.  Visual Requirements for Reading , 1993, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[27]  L. Laatikainen,et al.  Visual acuity and contrast sensitivity in the elderly. , 2009, Acta ophthalmologica Scandinavica.

[28]  D. Regan,et al.  Test-Retest Variability and Correlations between Tests of Texture Processing, Motion Processing, Visual Acuity, and Contrast Sensitivity , 1995, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[29]  Russell L. Woods,et al.  The role of contrast sensitivity charts and contrast letter charts in clinical practice , 1995 .

[30]  M. Bullimore,et al.  Changes in the lower displacement limit for motion with age , 1995, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[31]  J D Trobe,et al.  Contrast sensitivity and other vision tests in the optic neuritis treatment trial. , 1996, American journal of ophthalmology.

[32]  G S Rubin,et al.  A comprehensive assessment of visual impairment in a population of older Americans. The SEE Study. Salisbury Eye Evaluation Project. , 1997, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[33]  E. Midena,et al.  Macular function impairment in eyes with early age-related macular degeneration. , 1997, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[34]  M. Sloane,et al.  Visual processing impairment and risk of motor vehicle crash among older adults. , 1998, JAMA.

[35]  I L Bailey,et al.  Repeatability of Visual Acuity Measurement , 1998, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[36]  J. Tan,et al.  The effect of neodymium: YAG capsulotomy on contrast sensitivity and the evaluation of methods for its assessment. , 1999, Ophthalmology.

[37]  H. Menz,et al.  Visual contribution to postural stability in older adults , 2000 .

[38]  Jan E. Lovie-Kitchin,et al.  Repeatability and Intercorrelations of Standard Vision Tests as a Function of Age , 2000, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[39]  The Age-Related Eye Disease Study system for classifying age-related macular degeneration from stereoscopic color fundus photographs: the Age-Related Eye Disease Study Report Number 6. , 2001, American journal of ophthalmology.

[40]  M Mäntyjärvi,et al.  Normal values for the Pelli‐Robson contrast sensitivity test , 2001, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[41]  Gary S. Rubin,et al.  How does visual impairment affect performance on tasks of everyday life? SEE project. , 2001 .

[42]  A Carkeet,et al.  Modeling logMAR Visual Acuity Scores: Effects of Termination Rules and Alternative Forced-Choice Options , 2001, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[43]  Kamlesh,et al.  Contrast sensitivity and depth of focus with aspheric multifocal versus conventional monofocal intraocular lens. , 2001, Canadian journal of ophthalmology. Journal canadien d'ophtalmologie.

[44]  P. S. Virdi,et al.  Contrast sensitivity following focal laser photocoagulation in clinically significant macular oedema due to diabetic retinopathy , 2001, Clinical & experimental ophthalmology.

[45]  E. V. van Sonderen,et al.  Statistical significant change versus relevant or important change in (quasi) experimental design: some conceptual and methodological problems in estimating magnitude of intervention-related change in health services research , 2002, International journal of integrated care.

[46]  Karen Bandeen-Roche,et al.  How does visual impairment affect performance on tasks of everyday life? The SEE Project , 2002 .

[47]  W. Sponsel,et al.  Comparative effects of latanoprost (Xalatan) and unoprostone (Rescula) in patients with open-angle glaucoma and suspected glaucoma. , 2002, American journal of ophthalmology.

[48]  William J Feuer,et al.  Impact of visual function on computer task accuracy and reaction time in a cohort of patients with age-related macular degeneration. , 2002, American journal of ophthalmology.

[49]  R. Snowden,et al.  Psychophysical characterisation of early functional loss in glaucoma and ocular hypertension , 2002, The British journal of ophthalmology.

[50]  S. Haymes,et al.  Relationship between vision impairment and ability to perform activities of daily living , 2002, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[51]  G. Rubin,et al.  Visual acuity and contrast sensitivity in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration , 2003, Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology.

[52]  J. Wood,et al.  Letter contrast sensitivity changes in early diabetic retinopathy , 2003, Clinical & experimental optometry.

[53]  G. Rubin,et al.  Visual acuity and contrast sensitivity in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Results from the Radiation Therapy for Age-Related Macular Degeneration (RAD-) Study. , 2003, Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie.

[54]  C. Owsley,et al.  Impact of cataract surgery on self‐reported visual difficulties: Comparison with a no‐surgery reference group , 2003, Journal of cataract and refractive surgery.

[55]  Ü. Kamış,et al.  Do Daily Wear Opaquely Tinted Hydrogel Soft Contact Lenses Affect Contrast Sensitivity Function at One Meter? , 2003, Eye & contact lens.

[56]  Kenneth R Alexander,et al.  Comparison of Contrast Sensitivity, Visual Acuity, and Humphrey Visual Field Testing in Patients with Glaucoma , 2003, Journal of glaucoma.

[57]  T. Oshika,et al.  A prospective, randomised comparison of single and three piece acrylic foldable intraocular lenses , 2004, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

[58]  S. Cousens,et al.  The effect of optical defocus on the test-retest variability of visual acuity measurements. , 2004, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[59]  C. Sánchez-Ramos,et al.  Normal values for photopic and mesopic letter contrast sensitivity. , 2004, Journal of refractive surgery.

[60]  A prospective controlled trial to evaluate the adjunctive role of posterior subtenon triamcinolone in the treatment of diffuse diabetic macular edema. , 2004, Journal of ocular pharmacology and therapeutics : the official journal of the Association for Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics.

[61]  S. Haymes,et al.  Reliability and Validity of the Melbourne Edge Test and High/Low Contrast Visual Acuity Chart , 2004, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[62]  Kazunori Miyata,et al.  Ocular higher-order aberrations and contrast sensitivity after conventional laser in situ keratomileusis. , 2004, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[63]  G. Haegerstrom‐Portnoy.  The Glenn A. Fry Award Lecture 2003: Vision in Elders—Summary of Findings of the SKI Study , 2005, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[64]  A. Arditi.  Improving the design of the letter contrast sensitivity test. , 2005, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[65]  MICHAEL D. CROSSLAND,et al.  Predicting Reading Fluency in Patients with Macular Disease , 2005, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[66]  Gislin Dagnelie,et al.  Reliability and Consistency of Visual Acuity and Contrast Sensitivity Measures in Advanced Eye Disease , 2005, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[67]  G S Rubin,et al.  Contrast sensitivity as an outcome measure in patients with subfoveal choroidal neovascularisation due to age-related macular degeneration , 2005, Eye.

[68]  L. Cimino,et al.  Improvement of spatial contrast sensitivity threshold after surgical reduction of intraocular pressure in unilateral high-tension glaucoma. , 2009, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[69]  Bradley E. Dougherty,et al.  An Evaluation of the Mars Letter Contrast Sensitivity Test , 2005, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[70]  S. Lord,et al.  Visual Risk Factors for Falls in Older People , 2001, Age and ageing.