RELIABILITY AND SENSITIVITY OF CLINICAL CONTRAST SENSITIVITY TESTS

3. Test-retest reliability was generally lower with the Vistech grating chart (average intracJass correlation = 0.52 for normal subjects, 0.60 for patients) than with the CRT-based test (average intracJass correlation = 0.62 for normal subjects, 0.86 for patients). The difference was especially marked at low spatial frequencies (Vistech correlation = 0.33, CRT correlation = 0.87 for patients at the lowest spatial frequency tested). The Pelli-Robson letter chart had very high test-retest reliabilities (0.98 for normal subjects, 0.86 for patients). 4. The Vistech chart was twice as likely as the CRT test to produce anomalous CSFs. Twenty-four observers-IS normal, 9 patient-had a significant "notch" or low frequency specific loss on one Vistech test that did not appear on the other Vistech test. Twelve observers-5 normal, 7 patient-had anomalous CSFs with the CRT test. 5. A single measure of visual acuity was as good a predictor of CRT contrast sensitivity at each spatial frequency as was Vistech contrast sensitivity.

[1]  H. Spekreijse,et al.  Origin of notches in CSF: optical or neural? , 1987, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[2]  L. Hyvärinen,et al.  Contrast sensitivity in amblyopia IV. Assessment of vision using vertical and horizontal gratings and optotypes at different contrast levels , 1986, Acta ophthalmologica.

[3]  Verbaken Jh,et al.  Population norms for edge contrast sensitivity. , 1986 .

[4]  K E Higgins,et al.  Spatial contrast sensitivity. Importance of controlling the patient's visibility criterion. , 1984, Archives of ophthalmology.

[5]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  An anticipated threshold technique for measuring contrast sensitivity. , 1984, American journal of optometry and physiological optics.

[6]  A P Ginsburg,et al.  Large‐Sample Norms for Contrast Sensitivity , 1984, American journal of optometry and physiological optics.

[7]  G. Woo,et al.  An evaluation of the Arden grating test. , 1983, Journal of the American Optometric Association.

[8]  D Regan,et al.  Low-contrast letter charts as a test of visual function. , 1983, Ophthalmology.

[9]  A P Ginsburg,et al.  Comparison of three methods for rapid determination of threshold contrast sensitivity. , 1983, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[10]  Vaegan,et al.  A forced-choice test improves clinical contrast sensitivity testing. , 1982, The British journal of ophthalmology.

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

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

[13]  A. Moskowitz,et al.  Utility of the Arden grating test in glaucoma screening: high false-positive rate in normals over 50 years of age. , 1980, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[14]  Seymour Geisser,et al.  Statistical Principles in Experimental Design , 1963 .

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

[16]  G. Legge,et al.  Predicting the contrast sensitivity of low vision observers , 1986, Annual Meeting Optical Society of America.

[17]  G B Arden,et al.  A simple grating test for contrast sensitivity: preliminary results indicate value in screening for glaucoma. , 1978, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[18]  D Regan,et al.  Visual acuity and contrast sensitivity in multiple sclerosis--hidden visual loss: an auxiliary diagnostic test. , 1977, Brain : a journal of neurology.