The macular mapping test:a reliability study

Background: Age-related macular degeneration (ARMD) is the leading cause of visual disability in people over 60 years of age in the developed world. The success of treatment deteriorates with increased latency of diagnosis. The purpose of this study was to determine the reliability of the macular mapping test (MMT), and to investigate its potential as a screening tool. Methods: The study population comprised of 31 healthy eyes of 31 participants. To assess reliability, four macular mapping test (MMT) measurements were taken in two sessions separated by one hour by two practitioners, with reversal of order in the second session. MMT readings were also taken from 17 age-related maculopathy (ARM), and 12 AMD affected eyes. Results: For the normal cohort, average MMT scores ranged from 85.5 to 100.0 MMT points. Scores ranged from 79.0 to 99.0 for the ARM group and from 9.0 to 92.0 for the AMD group. MMT scores were reliable to within ± 7.0 points. The difference between AMD affected eyes and controls (z = 3.761, p = < 0.001) was significant. The difference between ARM affected eyes and controls was not significant (z = -0.216, p = 0.829). Conclusion: The reliability data shows that a change of 14 points or more is required to indicate a clinically significant change. This value is required for use of the MMT as an outcome measure in clinical trials. Although there was no difference between MMT scores from ARM affected eyes and controls, the MMT has the advantage over the Amsler grid in that it uses a letter target, has a peripheral fixation aid, and it provides a numerical score. This score could be beneficial in office and home monitoring of AMD progression, as well as an outcome measure in clinical research. © 2005 Bartlett et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

Evaluation of Melbourne Edge Test contrast sensitivity measures in the visually impaired

Aim: Contrast sensitivity (CS) provides important information on visual function. This study aimed to assess differences in clinical expediency of the CS increment-matched new back-lit and original paper versions of the Melbourne Edge Test (MET) to determine the CS of the visually impaired. Methods: The back-lit and paper MET were administered to 75 visually impaired subjects (28-97 years). Two versions of the back-lit MET acetates were used to match the CS increments with the paper-based MET. Measures of CS were repeated after 30 min and again in the presence of a focal light source directed onto the MET. Visual acuity was measured with a Bailey-Lovie chart and subjects rated how much difficulty they had with face and vehicle recognition. Results: The back-lit MET gave a significantly higher CS than the paper-based version (14.2 ± 4.1 dB vs 11.3 ± 4.3 dB, p < 0.001). A significantly higher reading resulted with repetition of the paper-based MET (by 1.0 ± 1.7 dB, p < 0.001), but this was not evident with the back-lit MET (by 0.1 ± 1.4 dB, p = 0.53). The MET readings were increased by a focal light source, in both the back-lit (by 0.3 ± 0.81, p < 0.01) and paper-based (1.2 ± 1.7, p < 0.001) versions. CS as measured by the back-lit and paper-based versions of the MET was significantly correlated to patients' perceived ability to recognise faces (r = 0.71, r = 0.85 respectively; p < 0.001) and vehicles (r = 0.67, r = 0.82 respectively; p < 0.001), and with distance visual acuity (both r =-0.64; p < 0.001). Conclusions: The CS increment-matched back-lit MET gives higher CS values than the old paper-based test by approximately 3 dB and is more repeatable and less affected by external light sources. Clinically, the MET score provides information on patient difficulties with visual tasks, such as recognising faces. © 2005 The College of Optometrists.

Uncovering the root cause of ethnic difference in ability testing:differential test functioning, test familiarity and trait optimism as explanations of ethnic group differences

The present research represents a coherent approach to understanding the root causes of ethnic group differences in ability test performance. Two studies were conducted, each of which was designed to address a key knowledge gap in the ethnic bias literature. In Study 1, both the LR Method of Differential Item Functioning (DIF) detection and Mixture Latent Variable Modelling were used to investigate the degree to which Differential Test Functioning (DTF) could explain ethnic group test performance differences in a large, previously unpublished dataset. Though mean test score differences were observed between a number of ethnic groups, neither technique was able to identify ethnic DTF. This calls into question the practical application of DTF to understanding these group differences. Study 2 investigated whether a number of non-cognitive factors might explain ethnic group test performance differences on a variety of ability tests. Two factors – test familiarity and trait optimism – were able to explain a large proportion of ethnic group test score differences. Furthermore, test familiarity was found to mediate the relationship between socio-economic factors – particularly participant educational level and familial social status – and test performance, suggesting that test familiarity develops over time through the mechanism of exposure to ability testing in other contexts. These findings represent a substantial contribution to the field’s understanding of two key issues surrounding ethnic test performance differences. The author calls for a new line of research into these performance facilitating and debilitating factors, before recommendations are offered for practitioners to ensure fairer deployment of ability testing in high-stakes selection processes.