Comparative Study
Journal Article
Validation Study
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Validation of an iPad test of letter contrast sensitivity.

PURPOSE: An iPad-based letter contrast sensitivity test was developed (ridgevue.com) consisting of two letters on each page of an iBook. The contrast decreases from 80% (logCS = 0.1) to 0.5% (logCS = 2.3) by 0.1 log units per page. The test was compared to the Pelli-Robson Test and the Freiburg Acuity and Contrast Test.

METHODS: Twenty normally sighted subjects and 20 low-vision subjects were tested monocularly at 1 m using each test wearing their habitual correction. After a 5-minute break, subjects were retested with each test in reverse order. Two different letter charts were used for both the Pelli-Robson and iPad tests, and the order of testing was varied systematically. For the Freiburg test, the target was a variable contrast Landolt C presented at eight possible orientations and used a 30-trial Best PEST procedure. Repeatability and agreement were assessed by determining the 95% limits of agreement (LoA) ± 1.96 SD of the differences between administrations or tests.

RESULTS: All three tests showed good repeatability in terms of the 95% LoA: iPad = ± 0.19, Pelli-Robson = ± 0.19, and Freiburg = ± 0.15. The iPad test showed good agreement with the Freiburg test with similar mean (± SD) logCS (iPad = 1.98 ± 0.11, Freiburg = 1.96 ± 0.06) and with narrow 95% LoA (± 0.24), but the Pelli-Robson test gave significantly lower values (1.65 ± 0.04). Low-vision subjects had slightly poorer repeatability (iPad = ± 0.24, Pelli-Robson = ± 0.23, Freiburg = ± 0.21). Agreement between the iPad and Freiburg tests was good (iPad = 1.45 ± 0.40, Freiburg = 1.54 ± 0.37), but the Pelli-Robson test gave significantly lower values (1.30 ± 0.30).

CONCLUSIONS: The iPad test showed similar repeatability and may be a rapid and convenient alternative to some existing measures. The Pelli-Robson test gave lower values than the other tests.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app