Abstract
A reliable reading test provides a standardized measure of the visual component of reading performance. This study evaluated reproducibility, agreement and feasibility of five Dutch language continuous text reading tests used in clinical practice and research in visually impaired participants. In 42 participants with macular pathologies (mean age 77years), the Colenbrander Reading Card (Colenbrander), International Reading Speed Texts (IReST), Laboratory of Experimental Ophthalmology (LEO) charts, 'de Nederlanders' (NED) and the Radner Reading Charts (Radner) were evaluated. The coefficient of repeatability was calculated for different reading parameters, and agreement between the reading tests was determined. Between the reading tests, the differences found in repeatability for reading performance were mainly within the limit of one line (0.1 logMAR). Exceptions were the inter-session repeatability for critical print size: Colenbrander (0.35 logMAR), LEO (0.34), Radner (0.23). The highest agreement was found between the LEO and Radner; Reading acuity bias 0.03 logMAR (SD 0.10), CPS 0.03 (0.12). This study shows that reading performance results obtained with reading tests are not always reliable and reading parameters could not always be properly assessed in participants with maculopathies. Therefore, choices regarding which reading test to use especially for research purposes should be based on both the feasibility and reliability of the reading test. The NED (a historical test) was the least feasible, and it is recommend that this test is no longer used. To allow standardized and comparable analysis of reading performance a highly standardized reading test, like the Radner is recommended.
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call