Measuring recognition visual acuity in young children – testability with the Waterloo Differential Acuity Test (WatDAT)

Leat, Susan J.; Saraf, Aashi; Rose, Kalpana; Christian, Lisa; Irving, Elizabeth L.; Jones, Deborah; McCulloch, Daphne L.

doi:10.1080/08164622.2022.2141101

Cited by 1 publication

(3 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It was designed to make it possible to measure recognition VA in children from the age of 18 months, before they are able to undertake a matching test. 14 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Using the study eye with the best-corrected refraction in place, VA was measured for the following VA tests: Lea Uncrowded and Lea Massachusetts Visual Acuity Test (MassVAT) cards (Good-Lite Vision), Kay Pictures (Kay Pictures), Patti Pics Uncrowded and Patti Pics MassVAT cards (Precision Vision), TAC (Precision Vision), Cardiff Acuity Cards (Good-Lite Vision), ETDRS (Precision Vision), WatDAT with three distractors (WatDAT3), and WatDAT with five distractors (WatDAT5) and with either Face or House/circle symbols. 14 For efficiency, the following tests were paired together: the two Patti Pics tests, the two Lea tests, the PL tests (Teller and Cardiff), WatDAT with three distractors, and WatDAT with five distractors. These paired tests, together with the ETDRS and the Kay Pictures resulted in seven test types.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most young children of 18 months upward were able to undertake the task with the Patti Pics target (Patti Pics house among circle distractors) and children of 22 months upward were able to do the task with a face versus a nonface target. 14 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Validation of the Waterloo Differential Visual Acuity Test (WatDAT) and Comparison With Existing Pediatric Tests of Visual Acuity

Opoku-Yamoah,

Christian,

Irving

et al. 2023

Trans. Vis. Sci. Tech.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The new Waterloo Differential Acuity Test (WatDAT) is designed to allow recognition visual acuity (VA) measurement in children before they can typically undertake matching tests. The study purpose was to validate WatDAT in adults with normal and reduced VA. Methods Eighty adults (18 to <40 years of age) participated (32 normal VA, 12 reduced VA, and 36 simulated reduced VA). Monocular VA was measured on two occasions in random order for WatDAT (versions with 3 and 5 distractors for Faces and Patti Pics house among circles), Lea Symbols, Kay Pictures and Patti Pics matching tests, Teller Acuity Cards, Cardiff Acuity Test, and Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letter chart. Pediatric tests were validated against ETDRS using limits of agreement (LoA), sensitivity, and specificity. The LoA for repeatability were also determined. Results WatDAT showed minimal bias compared with ETDRS, and LoAs, which were similar to pediatric matching tests (0.241–0.250). Both preferential looking tests showed higher bias and LoAs than ETDRS. Matching tests showed good agreement with ETDRS, except for Kay Pictures and Lea Uncrowded test, which overestimated VA. WatDAT showed high sensitivity (>0.96) and specificity (>0.79), which improved with criterion adjustment and were significantly higher than for the preferential looking tests. LoA for repeatability for WatDAT 3 Faces and WatDAT 5 Faces were comparable with the ETDRS. Conclusions WatDAT demonstrates good agreement and repeatability compared with the gold-standard ETDRS letter chart, and performed better than preferential looking tests, the alternative until a child can undertake a matching VA test. Translational Relevance Good validity of the Waterloo Differential Acuity Test was demonstrated in adults as a first step to showing its potential for detecting childhood visual disorders.

show abstract

“…It was designed to make it possible to measure recognition VA in children from the age of 18 months, before they are able to undertake a matching test. 14 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%