May 2006
Volume 47, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2006
Responsiveness of Reading Performance and Self–Report Measures to Low Vision Rehabilitation
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • J. Stelmack
    Blind Rehabilitation Center, Hines VA Hospital, Hines, IL
    Illinois College of Optometry, Chicago, IL
  • D. Moran
    Blind Rehabilitation Center, Hines VA Hospital, Hines, IL
  • D. Dean
    Blind Rehabilitation Center, Hines VA Hospital, Hines, IL
  • R.W. Massof
    Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  J. Stelmack, None; D. Moran, None; D. Dean, None; R.W. Massof, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  VA Rehabilitation Research and Development Service Grant C2707I
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2006, Vol.47, 5829. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      J. Stelmack, D. Moran, D. Dean, R.W. Massof; Responsiveness of Reading Performance and Self–Report Measures to Low Vision Rehabilitation . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2006;47(13):5829.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: : Outcome measures are needed for clinical trials to determine which low vision reading programs are most cost–effective and the dose of rehabilitation needed to achieve a treatment response. This study compares the responsiveness of reading performance and self–report measures to the effects of low vision rehabilitation.

Methods: : The Pepper VSRT and VA LV VFQ–48 were administered pre and post rehabilitation to 72 veterans with macular diseases who were participating in a comprehensive blind rehabilitation program at Hines VA Hospital. The MNREAD was also administered to 24 veterans from the original cohort.

Results: : There is a large treatment effect, defined as Cohen’s d= .8 or larger, for the change in difficulty patients self–report performing reading activities on the VA LV VFQ–48 (d= 2.44, p= 4.1x10–29 for paired t–test) and the change in number of words read correctly on the Pepper VSRT (d= 1.18, p=5.26x10–8 for paired t–test). A medium treatment effect, defined as Cohen’s d=.5 or larger but less than .8, exists for the increase in reading speed on the Pepper VSRT (d= .77, p=.0003) and the decrease in critical print size read on the MNREAD (d=.5, p=.04 for paired t–test).

Conclusions: : The reading performance measures are responsive to the effects of rehabilitation, but the self–report measure shows the largest magnitude of change. Effect sizes should be considered when choosing outcome measures and computing sample sizes for clinical trials.

Keywords: clinical (human) or epidemiologic studies: treatment/prevention assessment/controlled clinical trials • low vision • 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.

×