Optometry - Journal of the American Optometric Association
Volume 75, Issue 4 , Pages 231-240, April 2004

Comparisons of dynamic retinoscopy measurements with a print card, a video display terminal, and a PRIO® System Tester as test targets

  • Douglas K. Penisten, O.D., Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • College of Optometry, Northeastern State University, Tahlequah, Oklahoma
    • ,
  • David A. Goss, O.D., Ph.D., FCOVDR

      Affiliations

    • School of Optometry, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author: Indiana University School of Optometry 800 East Atwater Avenue Bloomington, Indiana 47405.
    • ,
  • Greg Philpott, O.D.

      Affiliations

    • College of Optometry, Northeastern State University, Tahlequah, Oklahoma
    • ,
  • Anthony Pham, O.D.

      Affiliations

    • College of Optometry, Northeastern State University, Tahlequah, Oklahoma
    • ,
  • Roger W. West, O.D., Ph.D.

      Affiliations

    • College of Optometry, Northeastern State University, Tahlequah, Oklahoma

Article Outline

Background

Dynamic retinoscopy is a common clinical test for assessment of visual function in patients with symptoms related to computer use. It has been suggested that performing dynamic retinoscopy with a fixation target resembling a computer screen may be valuable in the examination of computer users. However, such targets differ in luminance and other characteristics from the printed paper test cards typically used for dynamic retinoscopy.

Method

To address the effect of varying test targets on dynamic retinoscopy results, this study compared lag of accommodation results from dynamic retinoscopy with three different fixation targets: (a) a printed paper target, (b) a video display terminal, and (c) the PRIO® vision testing device, which is designed to simulate a computer screen. MEM (monocular estimate method) dynamic retinoscopy was performed with the print target and with the PRIO device.

Results

The difference between results with the different test conditions were generally small, with a statistically significant 0.32 D lower lag found on MEM retinoscopy with the PRIO target (MEM–PRIO) than on MEM retinoscopy with a print target (MEM–PRINT). Mean lag measurements on MEM with a print target and on Nott retinoscopy with the video display terminal (NOTT–VDT) were only 0.04 D different. The 95% limits of agreement for the difference between MEM–PRINT and MEM–PRIO (±0.6 D) was similar to the 95% limits of agreement for the interexaminer reliability of the two procedures (±0.6 D for MEM–PRINT and ±0.7 D for MEM–PRIO).

Conclusion

There was a small but statistically significant difference in lag of accommodation measured with MEM dynamic retinoscopy on the PRIO testing device when compared to a print card.

Key Words: Accommodation, computer vision, dynamic retinoscopy, video display terminal

No full text is available. To read the body of this article, please view the PDF online.

 

Back to Article Outline

References 

  1. Sheedy JE. Vision problems at video display terminals: a survey of optometrists. J AM OPTOM ASSOC. 1992;63:687–692
  2. Sheedy JE, Parsons SD. The video display terminal eye clinic: clinical report. Optom Vis Sci. 1990;67:622–626
  3. Scheiman M. Accommodative and binocular vision disorders associated with video display terminals: diagnosis and management issues. J AM OPTOM ASSOC. 1996;67:531–539
  4. Daum KM. Accommodative response. In:  Eskridge JB,  Amos JF,  Bartlett JD editor. Clinical procedures in optometry. Philadelphia: Lippincott; 1991;p. 677–686
  5. Rouse MW, London R, Allen DC. An evaluation of the monocular estimate method of dynamic retinoscopy. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1982;59:234–239
  6. Haynes HM. Clinical approaches to nearpoint power determination. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1985;62:375–385
  7. Goss DA. Clinical accommodation testing. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 1992;3:78–82
  8. Carlson NB, Kurtz D, Heath DA, et al. Clinical procedures for ocular examination. 2nd ed.. Stamford, Conn.: Appleton & Lange; 1996;198-200
  9. Salibello C. Comparing a printed image and a Gaussian image diagnostic system. J Behav Optom. 1994;5(59-61):67
  10. Burns DH. Characteristics of visual display units that may cause visual difficulties. Ophthal Physiol Opt. 1995;15:99–104
  11. Kolker D, Hutchinson R, Nilsen E. Comparison of tests of accommodation for computer users. Optometry. 2002;73:212–220
  12. Wick B, Morse S. Accommodative accuracy to video display monitors. Optom Vis Sci. 2002;79(12s):218
  13. Sorkin RE, Reich LN, Pizzimenti J. Accommodative response to PRIO® Computer Vision Tester versus printed text. Optometry. 2003;74:782–786
  14. Sheedy JE, Shaw-McMinn PG. Diagnosing and treating computer-related vision problems. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2003;185
  15. Locke LC, Somers W. A comparison study of dynamic retinoscopy techniques. Optom Vis Sci. 1989;66:540–544
  16. del Pilar Cacho M, García-Munoz A, García-Bernabeu JR, et al. Comparison between MEM and Nott dynamic retinoscopy. Optom Vis Sci. 1999;76:650–656
  17. García A, Cacho P. MEM and Nott dynamic retinoscopy in patients with disorders of vergence and accommodation. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2002;22:214–220
  18. McKee GW. Reliability of monocular estimate method retinoscopy. Optom Monthly. 1981;72(12):30–31
  19. McClelland JF, Saunders KJ. The repeatability and validity of dynamic retinoscopy in assessing the accommodative response. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2003;23:243–250
  20. Rosenfield M, Portello JK, Blustein GH, et al. Comparison of clinical techniques to assess the near accommodative response. Optom Vis Sci. 1996;73:382–388
  21. Cooper S. Normative analysis. Lecture note outline. Pacific University; 2003;
  22. Jackson TW, Goss DA. Variation and correlation of clinical tests of accommodative function in a sample of school-age children. J AM OPTOM ASSOC. 1991;62:857–866

PII: S1529-1839(04)70050-0

doi:10.1016/S1529-1839(04)70050-0

Optometry - Journal of the American Optometric Association
Volume 75, Issue 4 , Pages 231-240, April 2004

Article Tools