May 2005
Volume 46, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2005
Vision in Preschoolers (VIP) Study: Results of Phase II
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • P.P. Schmidt
    College of Optometry, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
  • V. Dobson
    Department of Ophthalmology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
  • Vision In Preschoolers (VIP) Study Group
    College of Optometry, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  P.P. Schmidt, None; V. Dobson, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  NEI, NIH, DHHS: U10EY12534, U10EY12545, U10EY12547, U10EY12550, U10EY12644, U10EY12647, U10EY12648
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2005, Vol.46, 2354. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      P.P. Schmidt, V. Dobson, Vision In Preschoolers (VIP) Study Group; Vision in Preschoolers (VIP) Study: Results of Phase II . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2005;46(13):2354.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Abstract: : Purpose: To compare the performance of nurse screeners and lay screeners in administering 4 vision screening tests to preschool children. Methods: Nurse screeners and lay screeners, experienced in working with young children, completed training and certification procedures for all tests. Subjects were 1,452 3– to 5–year–old children enrolled in Head Start at the 5 VIP Clinical Centers. Approximately 2/3 of the children had failed the routine Head Start vision screening. Screening tests were the Retinomax Autorefractor, SureSight Vision Screener, crowded Linear Lea Symbols visual acuity (VA) test at 3 m, and Stereo Smile II test. Lay screeners also administered the crowded Single Lea Symbols (VA) test at 1.5 m. Screening results were compared to results from a standardized comprehensive eye examination that were used to classify children as having or not having amblyopia, strabismus, significant refractive error and/or unexplained reduced visual acuity. Results: Screening results for each test were obtained on ≥ 98% of children for both nurse screeners and lay screeners. Completion times for each test were similar for both types of screeners. With specificity set at 0.90, sensitivities for detecting children with > 1 targeted condition differed for nurse screeners and lay screeners for the Retinomax (0.68 vs 0.62, p=0.004) and the crowded Linear Lea Symbols VA test (0.49 vs 0.37, p=0.0004), but not for the SureSight (0.64 vs 0.65, p=0.16) or the Stereo Smile II test (0.45 vs 0.40, p=0.06). However, sensitivity was significantly higher for lay screeners using the crowded Single Lea Symbols VA (1.5 m) compared to nurse screeners using the 3.0 m crowded Linear Lea Symbols visual acuity test (0.61 vs 0.49, p=0.0001). At 0.90 specificity, sensitivity for detection of the targeted conditions of greatest severity (e.g. severe anisometropia, constant strabismus, hyperopia > 4.75 D, astigmatism > 2.25 D, myopia > 6 D) did not differ between nurse screeners and lay screeners for any of the 4 tests. Conclusions: Nurse screeners and lay screeners achieved similar sensitivity for detecting preschool children in need of a comprehensive eye examination when specificity is set at 0.90.

Keywords: screening for ambylopia and strabismus • visual acuity 
×
×

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.

×