April 2014
Volume 55, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   April 2014
Mobile App Reading Speed Test
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Alec Kingsnorth
    Life and Health Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, United Kingdom
  • James Stuart Wolffsohn
    Life and Health Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, United Kingdom
  • Thomas E Drew
    Life and Health Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, United Kingdom
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Alec Kingsnorth, None; James Wolffsohn, None; Thomas Drew, None
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science April 2014, Vol.55, 159. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Alec Kingsnorth, James Stuart Wolffsohn, Thomas E Drew, ; Mobile App Reading Speed Test. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2014;55(13):159.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: To validate the accuracy and repeatability of a mobile App reading speed test compared to the traditional paper version

Methods: Twenty-one subjects aged 20-30 years (average 22.2 ± 2.9 years) wearing their full refractive correction read 14 sentences of decreasing print size between 1.0 and -0.3 logMAR, each consisting of 14 words (Radner reading speed test) at 40cm with a paper based chart and twice on iPad 2 charts in randomised order. The mobile app and paper charts used the same sentences, selected at random for each print size, but never repeated. The time to read each sentence was recorded with a stop watch for the paper chart, but quantified objectively with the mobile app charts using voice recognition and allowed correction for incorrect word recognition. Critical print size (CPS) was defined when a fitted least squares exponential curve reached 90% of its maximum value and optimal reading speed as the mean reading speed up to the CPS, which could be performed automatically for the mobile app chart.

Results: The mean reading speed was higher for the mobile app charts (194 ± 29wpm chart 1; 195 ± 25wpm chart 2) compared to the paper chart (166 ± 20wpm; F = 57.000, p < 0.001). The mobile app test had a mean difference repeatability of 0.3 ± 22.5wpm, with correlation r = 0.917. The CPS was lower for the mobile app charts (0.17 ± 0.20 logMAR chart 1; 0.18 ± 0.17 logMAR chart 2) compared to the paper chart (0.25 ± 0.17 logMAR; F = 5.406, p = 0.009). The mobile app test had a mean difference repeatability of 0.0 ± 0.2 logMAR, with correlation r = 0.769.

Conclusions: Conclusions: The Mobile App Reading test suggested a better reading performance than the paper based test, probably due to the reaction time involved in manual timing. However, the repeatability is as good (reading speed) or better (CPS) than previous studies on the paper test. The mobile app also has the advantages of controlled illumination, can monitor working distance and compensate through scaling and reduces testing/scoring time.

Keywords: 672 reading  
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×