PSYCHOPHYSICS OF READING .13. PREDICTORS OF MAGNIFIER-AIDED READING SPEED IN LOW-VISION
PSYCHOPHYSICS OF READING .13. PREDICTORS OF MAGNIFIER-AIDED READING SPEED IN LOW-VISION
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/0042-6989(94)00293-u
复制
发表时间：
1995-07-01
期刊：
影响因子：
1.8
通讯作者：
LEGGE, GE
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
AHN, SJ;LEGGE, GE
低视力评估的一个关键临床问题是找到可预测现实世界表现的简单测量方法。我们的目的是确定一组临床变量是否可以预测低视力受试者使用放大镜的阅读能力。变量包括斯内伦视力、中心暗点的存在/不存在、眼介质的清澈/混浊、年龄、放大镜类型以及阅读速度标准化测试（明尼苏达低视力阅读测试）的得分。四十名低视力受试者根据使用频率和时间长度、易用性或每个受试者认为重要的任何其他因素，确定了他们最“喜欢”使用的放大镜。所有受试者都对放大镜有丰富的使用经验（使用 3 个月至 21 年）。我们将放大镜分为五类：（1）仅标准校正； (2)手持式放大镜； (3)眼镜式放大镜； （四）闭路电视； (5)立式放大镜。受试者使用他们喜欢的放大镜大声朗读约 150 个单词的印刷段落，并据此计算他们的阅读速度。到目前为止，放大镜辅助阅读速度的最佳预测指标是标准化阅读测试的分数，它占方差的 79.7%，年龄占方差的 43.7%，放大镜类型占方差的 42.3%。斯内伦敏锐度、中央视野状态和眼介质状态与放大镜辅助阅读速度没有显着相关。我们得出的结论是，标准化临床阅读测试可以有效预测低视力患者使用放大镜可能达到的阅读速度。
A key clinical problem in low-vision assessment is finding simple measures that are predictive of real-world performance. Our purpose was to determine whether a set of clinical variables could predict how well low-vision subjects read with their magnifiers. The variables were Snellen acuity, presence/absence of central scotomas, clear/cloudy ocular media, age, magnifier type, and score on a standardized test of reading speed (Minnesota Low-vision Reading Test). Forty low-vision subjects identified the magnifier they most ''preferred'' to use, based on the frequency and length of time used, ease of use, or any other factor considered important by each subject. All subjects were highly experienced with their magnifier (3 months to 21 yr of use). We classified the magnifiers into five categories: (1) standard correction only; (2) hand-held magnifier; (3) spectacle-mounted magnifier; (4) closed-circuit TV; and (5) stand magnifier. Subjects used their preferred magnifiers to read aloud printed paragraphs of about 150 words from which their reading speeds were calculated. By far the best predictor of the magnifier-aided reading speed was the score on the standardized reading test which accounted for 79.7% of the variance, 43.7% of the variance was accounted for by age, and 42.3% by magnifier type. Snellen acuity, central visual field status, and ocular media status were not significantly correlated with magnifier-aided reading speed, We conclude that a standardized clinical reading test can give a valid prediction of the reading speed a low-vision patient is likely to achieve with a magnifier.