Purchase this article with an account.
Alec Kingsnorth, James Stuart Wolffsohn, Thomas E Drew, Ophthalmic Research Group; Mobile App Reading Speed Test. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2014;55(13):159.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
To validate the accuracy and repeatability of a mobile App reading speed test compared to the traditional paper version
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.
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: 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.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only