Measuring reading performance

被引:117
作者
Rubin, Gary S. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] UCL Inst Ophthalmol, London EC1V 9EL, England
[2] NIHR Moorfields Biomed Res Ctr, London, England
关键词
Reading; Low vision; Visual impairment; Outcome measures; Clinical trials; VISUAL FUNCTION; MACULAR DEGENERATION; PSYCHOPHYSICS; SPEED; COMPREHENSION; VARIABILITY; CONTEXT; MNREAD; ACUITY; TEXTS;
D O I
10.1016/j.visres.2013.02.015
中图分类号
Q189 [神经科学];
学科分类号
071006 ;
摘要
Despite significant changes in the treatment of common eye conditions like cataract and age-related macular degeneration, reading difficulty remains the most common complaint of patients referred for low vision services. Clinical reading tests have been widely used since Jaeger introduced his test types in 1854. A brief review of the major developments in clinical reading tests is provided, followed by a discussion of some of the main controversies in clinical reading assessment. Data for the Salisbury Eye Evaluation (SEE) study demonstrate that standardised clinical reading tests are highly predictive of reading performance under natural, real world conditions, and that discrepancies between self-reported reading ability and measured reading performance may be indicative of people who are at a pre-clinical stage of disability, but are at risk for progression to clinical disability. If measured reading performance is to continue to increase in importance as a clinical outcome measure, there must be agreement on what should be measured (e.g. speed or comprehension) and how it should be measured (e.g. reading silently or aloud). Perhaps most important, the methods for assessing reading performance and the algorithms for scoring reading tests need to be optimised so that the reliability and responsiveness of reading tests can be improved. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:43 / 51
页数:9
相关论文
共 51 条
[1]   CONTRAST SENSITIVITY AND READING THROUGH MULTIFOCAL INTRAOCULAR LENSES [J].
AKUTSU, H ;
LEGGE, GE ;
SHOWALTER, M ;
LINDSTROM, RL ;
ZABEL, RW ;
KIRBY, VM .
ARCHIVES OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 1992, 110 (08) :1076-1080
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1991, Arch Ophthalmol, V109, P1220
[3]  
BAILEY IL, 1980, AM J OPTOM PHYS OPT, V57, P378
[4]  
BALDASARE J, 1986, J VISUAL IMPAIR BLIN, V80, P785
[5]   INTERACTION OF VISUAL AND COGNITIVE EFFECTS IN WORD RECOGNITION [J].
BECKER, CA ;
KILLION, TH .
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-HUMAN PERCEPTION AND PERFORMANCE, 1977, 3 (03) :389-401
[6]   How Effective is Low Vision Service Provision? A Systematic Review [J].
Binns, Alison M. ;
Bunce, Catey ;
Dickinson, Chris ;
Harper, Robert ;
Tudor-Edwards, Rhiannon ;
Woodhouse, Margaret ;
Linck, Pat ;
Suttie, Alan ;
Jackson, Jonathan ;
Lindsay, Jennifer ;
Wolffsohn, James ;
Hughes, Lindsey ;
Margrain, Tom H. .
SURVEY OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2012, 57 (01) :34-65
[7]  
CARVER RP, 1992, J READING, V36, P84
[8]   Nonlinear mixed-effects modeling of MNREAD data [J].
Cheung, Sing-Hang ;
Kallie, Christopher S. ;
Legge, Gordon E. ;
Cheong, Allen M. Y. .
INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE, 2008, 49 (02) :828-835
[9]  
Chung STL, 2002, INVEST OPHTH VIS SCI, V43, P1270
[10]   Psychophysics of reading. XVIII. The effect of print size on reading speed in normal peripheral vision [J].
Chung, STL ;
Mansfield, JS ;
Legge, GE .
VISION RESEARCH, 1998, 38 (19) :2949-2962