J Korean Ophthalmol Soc.  2017 Feb;58(2):203-207. 10.3341/jkos.2017.58.2.203.

Repeatability and Validity of the VAA-2000 Automated Self Vision Tester

• Kee HJ
• Yang HK

• KMID: 2369469
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3341/jkos.2017.58.2.203

Abstract

PURPOSE
To evaluate the test-retest reliability and validity of the VAA-2000 Self Vision Tester.
METHODS
A total of 108 eyes of 108 adults (55 men and 53 women) who visited Seoul National University Bundang Hospital from March to December 2015 and who had best corrected visual acuities of 20/200 or better, according to both Hahn's visual acuity test (using numbers and Landolt rings) and the VAA-2000 Self Vision Tester, were included. The test-retest reliability and validity of the VAA-2000 Self Vision Tester were assessed and compared with Hahn's visual acuity test performed using numbers and Landolt rings. The intraclass correlation, Pearson correlation, Bland-Altman plots, and Deming regression between the different tests were analyzed.
RESULTS
The average best corrected visual acuity was 0.12 ± 0.17 logMAR measured with the VAA-2000 Self Vision Tester, and was 0.08 ± 0.20 logMAR with Hahn's visual acuity test using numbers and 0.08 ± 0.30 logMAR using Landolt rings. The VAA-2000 Self Vision Tester demonstrated high test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.903, p < 0.001) and acceptable validity when compared with Hahn's visual acuity test using numbers (r = 0.767, p < 0.001) and Landolt rings (r= 0.727, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
The VAA-2000 Self Vision Tester possesses good reliability and acceptable validity when compared to Hahn's visual acuity test using numbers and Landolt rings.

Keyword

Automated visual acuity test; Hahn's visual acuity test; VAA-2000; Validity

MeSH Terms

Adult
Humans
Male
Reproducibility of Results
Seoul
Vision Tests*
Visual Acuity

Figure

• 

  Figure 1. VAA-2000 Self Vision Tester. (A) Overall view. (B) Joy stick of the VAA-2000 Self Vision Tester.

• 

  Figure 2. Test– retest variability represented as Bland– Altman plots. Upper and lower dotted lines show 95% limits of agreement with 95% confidence intervals. (A) Bland-Altman plots for comparison between initial and repeated tests (test-retest agreement) of the VAA-2000 Self Vision Tester. (B) Bland-Altman plots for comparison between visual acuities measured by the Hahn’s number chart and the VAA-2000 Self Vision Tester. (C) Bland-Altman plots for comparison between visual acuities measured by the Landolt Ring visual acuity chart and the VAA-2000 Self Vision Tester. SD = standard deviation.

Reference

References

1. Yun DH, Rhee SW, Choi O. Ophthalmology. 6th ed. Seoul: Ilchokak;2002. p. 61–2.

2. Bertuzzi F, Orsoni JG, Porta MR. . Sensitivity and specificity of a visual acuity screening protocol performed with the Lea Symbols 15-line folding distance chart in preschool children. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2006; 84:807–11.

3. Bach M. The Freiburg Visual Acuity test-Automatic measurement of visual acuity. Optom Vis Sci. 1996; 73:49–53.

4. Reading VM, Weale RA. Self-administered automatic sight-testing. A feasibility study. Doc Ophthalmol. 1993; 83:43–54.

5. Ruamviboonsuk P, Tiensuwan M, Kunawut C, Masayaanon P. Repeatability of an automated Landolt C test, compared with the early treatment of diabetic retinopathy study (ETDRS) chart testing. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003; 136:662–9.

6. Beck RW, Moke PS, Turpin AH. . A computerized method of visual acuity testing: adaptation of the early treatment of diabetic retinopathy study testing protocol. Am J Ophthalmol. 2003; 135:194–205.

7. Ma DJ, Yang HK, Hwang JM. Reliability and validity of an auto-mated computerized visual acuity and stereoacuity test in children using an interactive video game. Am J Ophthalmol. 2013; 156:195–201. e1.

8. Gofin R, Falk M. Comparison of the automated vision screening test to the Snellen test. Public Health. 1991; 105:139–44.

9. Oum BS. Eye Exam. 3rd ed. Goyang: Naewae Haksool;2013; 51–2.