Discrimination of paediatric acuity test optotypes by 6‐year‐old children.
Saved in:
| Title: | Discrimination of paediatric acuity test optotypes by 6‐year‐old children. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Hussaindeen, Jameel Rizwana (AUTHOR), Ramakrishnan, Bhavatharini (AUTHOR), Ravi, Aishwarya (AUTHOR), SundarRaj, Monisha (AUTHOR), Rakshit, Archayeeta (AUTHOR), Nosofsky, Robert M. (AUTHOR), Candy, T. Rowan (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics. Sep2023, Vol. 43 Issue 5, p964-971. 8p. 1 Chart, 3 Graphs. |
| Subjects: | Pediatrics, Visual acuity, Vision testing, Performance in children |
| Abstract: | Purpose: To compare the discrimination performance of 6‐year‐old children for optotypes from six paediatric visual acuity tests and to fit Luce's Biased Choice Model to the data to estimate the relative similarities and bias for each optotype. Methods: Full data sets were collected from 20 typically developing 6‐year‐olds who had passed a vision screening. They were presented with single optotypes labelled 6/12 at a distance of 9 m and were asked to identify the optotype using a matching task containing all optotypes from the relevant test. The data were combined to form a confusion matrix for each test and a biased choice model was fitted to the data. Results: Median correct performance varied from 40% to 100% across optotypes, with the HOTV test having the highest values. Estimates of the similarity of each pair of optotypes indicated equal values for all pairs in the Landolt C, HOTV, Lea numbers and Tumbling E tests. The values differed for the picture tests, that is Lea Symbols and Allen figures. The estimates of bias for each individual optotype also indicated different values with the picture tests. Conclusions: Previous studies of the threshold acuity of young children and adults have indicated differences in acuity estimates across paediatric tests. A recognition acuity task typically requires resolving the difference information between optotypes. The performance of the 6‐year‐olds here reveals variance in similarity and bias values for picture tests, particularly for the Allen figures when compared with the Lea Symbols. Ideally, this analysis should be performed when designing new tests, and these results motivate progression from the use of current picture tests to well calibrated letter or number tests at the earliest possible age. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Purpose: To compare the discrimination performance of 6‐year‐old children for optotypes from six paediatric visual acuity tests and to fit Luce's Biased Choice Model to the data to estimate the relative similarities and bias for each optotype. Methods: Full data sets were collected from 20 typically developing 6‐year‐olds who had passed a vision screening. They were presented with single optotypes labelled 6/12 at a distance of 9 m and were asked to identify the optotype using a matching task containing all optotypes from the relevant test. The data were combined to form a confusion matrix for each test and a biased choice model was fitted to the data. Results: Median correct performance varied from 40% to 100% across optotypes, with the HOTV test having the highest values. Estimates of the similarity of each pair of optotypes indicated equal values for all pairs in the Landolt C, HOTV, Lea numbers and Tumbling E tests. The values differed for the picture tests, that is Lea Symbols and Allen figures. The estimates of bias for each individual optotype also indicated different values with the picture tests. Conclusions: Previous studies of the threshold acuity of young children and adults have indicated differences in acuity estimates across paediatric tests. A recognition acuity task typically requires resolving the difference information between optotypes. The performance of the 6‐year‐olds here reveals variance in similarity and bias values for picture tests, particularly for the Allen figures when compared with the Lea Symbols. Ideally, this analysis should be performed when designing new tests, and these results motivate progression from the use of current picture tests to well calibrated letter or number tests at the earliest possible age. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 02755408 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/opo.13167 |
