Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2007 Jan;27(1):54-9.
doi: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.2006.00454.x.

Acuity measurements in adult subjects using a preferential looking test

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Acuity measurements in adult subjects using a preferential looking test

J Margaret Woodhouse et al. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2007 Jan.

Abstract

Preferential looking (PL), as a technique for assessing visual acuity, was designed for use with young infants. There are occasions when a practitioner may need to use a PL test with an adult who is unable to participate in acuity measures with conventional optotype tests (such as an adult with learning disabilities, stroke damage or dementia). In preparation for the development of an adult-appropriate PL test, this study compared scores with the Cardiff Acuity Test (CAT, which was designed as a PL test) and a standard LogMAR-based test, the Lea chart. One hundred and one adults with learning disabilities, attending vision screening at Special Olympics, took part in acuity measures with both tests. Athletes subsequently found to have uncorrected refractive errors were excluded and analysis was confined to 72 athletes. There was no significant difference in mean acuity with the two tests, but CAT tended to overestimate scores for poorer acuities. CAT was less sensitive than the Lea chart to interocular acuity differences. Although CAT may be a successful way to assess acuity in patients unable to participate in conventional acuity tests, the practitioner should be cautious in interpreting results. There is the potential with CAT to overestimate acuity and to miss small interocular differences, so criteria for determining 'abnormality' may need to be adjusted.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources