Development of a Reading Accessibility Index Using the MNREAD Acuity Chart

Calabrèse, Aurélie; Owsley, Cynthia; McGwin, Gerald; Legge, Gordon E.

doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2015.6097

Cited by 52 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…ACC decreases in adults aged over 40 at a rate of 0.003 units per year, reaching a suggested value of 0.88 by the age of 81 years (Calabrèse, Cheong, et al, 2016). Average ACC values of 0.76 have been noted in a group of observers aged 55-85 years, and of 0.77 for bilateral pseudophakes (Calabrèse, Owsley, et al, 2016).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…ACC represents the reading speed of an observer over a range of relevant print sizes based on a normalised reading speed of 200wpm. Therefore the typical ACC for normally-sighted young adults is 1.0 (Calabrèse, Cheong, et al, 2016;Calabrèse, Owsley, et al, 2016). ACC decreases in adults aged over 40 at a rate of 0.003 units per year, reaching a suggested value of 0.88 by the age of 81 years (Calabrèse, Cheong, et al, 2016).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…The Reading Accessibility Index (ACC) was calculated as the mean reading speed for the print sizes 8-1M, divided by 200. For the clinical ACC measure, the print sizes included in the calculation were those read at the standard working distance of 40cm, and prints read at closer working distances were not considered (Calabrèse, Owsley, et al, 2016). The aided ACC considers the reading of these physical print sizes regardless of the magnification provided by the LVA or the working distance used.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since ACC is a relatively recently proposed parameter, it has previously been determined in only three other samples of observers with some form of visual loss (Table 4). These have been one group with cataract (Calabrèse, Owsley, et al, 2016) and two groups with visual impairment, either from mixed causes of visual loss (Calabrèse et al, 2018), or central field loss specifically (Tarita-Nistor et al, 2018). It is clear that visual impairment has a marked impact on reading accessibility (0.31 -0.36 across studies) as compared to a normative value of 1.0, and also compared to the sample with cataract (0.65).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Different methods of CPS calculation result in different values (Patel, Chen, da Cruz, Rubin, & Tufail, 2011), and variability in reading speed with print size in the low vision observer can mean that standard algorithms fail to identify an appropriate CPS (Calabrèse et al, 2018). A 'Reading Accessibility Index' (ACC) has recently been proposed (Calabrèse, Owsley, McGwin, & Legge, 2016), which is a single value representing an individual's mean reading speed across the 10 largest print sizes on the MNREAD Acuity Chart (1.3-0.4 logMAR at 40cm in angular terms, or 8-1 Sloan M in physical terms), normalised by 200wpm (the average reading speed for normally sighted young adults). ACC values therefore typically range between 0 (unable to read print of these sizes) and 1 (print of these sizes read at 200wpm), with values greater than 1 possible for faster readers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Benefits of low vision aids to reading accessibility

Latham

2018

Vision Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Reading Accessibility Index (ACC) has been proposed as a single-value reading parameter that can capture information on both reading speed and print sizes that can be read. It is defined as the average reading speed across a relevant range of print sizes (1.3-0.4logMAR), normalised by typical young-adult reading speed of 200wpm, and with values typically in the range of 0-1. This study determines the impact of low vision aids (LVAs) on reading by evaluating ACC values for visually impaired observers reading both without and with an optical LVA. A secondary analysis of previously published data obtained from 100 visually impaired observers attending low vision assessments was undertaken. Observers had mixed causes of visual impairment but predominantly macular degeneration (n=55). All used an LVA for reading, with 88% using it 'often' or 'very often'. MNREAD reading parameters, including ACC, were determined both for reading without an LVA (clinical function) and with the LVA habitually used for reading (aided function). There was a significant (p<.001) improvement in ACC from clinical (0.31 (95% CI 0.25, 0.36)) to aided conditions (0.47 (0.41, 0.52)). Average improvement in ACC with an LVA was 0.16 (0.13, 0.18), but the benefits of LVAs in terms of improvement in ACC could not be predicted from clinical visual function. Even with an LVA reading accessibility is, on average, markedly reduced from normal levels. The ACC is a potentially valuable outcome measure for reading rehabilitation interventions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%