Rebuttal to Dr. Radner`s letter: Different use of Radner Reading Charts and no methodological bias influencing the results

n.a.

Standardized ophthalmic tests for evaluating reading parameters: a brief historical review

In the review, the analysis of the most common ophthalmic standardized tests for evaluating reading was carried out: BaileyLovie Word Reading Charts, MNREAD Acuity Chart, Radner reading chart, SmithKettlewell Reading Test (SKread), IReST, Salzburg Reading Desk, Ramulu test, Radner paragraph optotypes, Balsam AlabdulkaderLeat (BAL) chart, Chinese Reading Acuity Charts (C-READ), chart for reading threshold and reading speed evaluation by T.S. Egorova. The following parameters were considered: maximum reading speed, reading threshold, reading acuity, reading accessibility index, threshold reading speed. Recovering the ability to read fluently is one of the criteria for assessing the success of treatment, as well as quality of life for patients of various age groups

Age-related changes in baseline reading acuity and speed as measured using RADNER Reading Charts in healthy eyes with best corrected ETDRS distance acuity

PurposeTo assess age-related differences in baseline measures of reading performance obtained from the RADNER Reading Charts in healthy eyes with best corrected (ETDRS) distance acuity.MethodsCross-sectional study of participants (n=200) aged 25–74 years (n=20 per 5 years age group). Best corrected distance visual acuity was measured monocularly with ETDRS 2000 Charts. Reading performance was evaluated binocularly with the RADNER Reading Charts. Reading acuity (RA), reading acuity score (RA score), mean reading speed (MEAN-RS), maximum reading speed, reading speed with a long paragraph, critical print size (CPS) and the logMAR/logRAD ratio were analysed.ResultsRA, RA score, CPS-1 (last logRAD with normal reading speed) and ETDRS acuity did not change significantly between age 25 and 54 years. Overall, the mean RA was −0.091±0.07 logRAD, and the RA score was −0.069±0.07 logRAD. The mean difference between the RA and best ETDRS acuity was 0.0603±0.055 logMAR (r=0.62; p<0.05). The logMAR/logRAD ratio was 87.75%±11.23%. The MEAN-RS ranged from 189±21.9 words per minute (wpm) for the group aged 70–74 years to 236±22.5 wpm for the group aged 40–44 years and correlated well with the long paragraph results (r=0.87).ConclusionBest corrected RA, reading speed and ETDRS distance acuity were constant until the age of 54 years. An age-related break point was found between the groups aged 50–54 years and 55–59 years; for reading speed, the break point can be assumed to be within the age range of 50–54 years.

Comparison of Oral Reading Errors between Contextual Sentences and Random Words among Schoolchildren

This paper compares the oral reading errors between the contextual sentences and random words among schoolchildren. Two sets of reading materials were developed to test the oral reading errors in 30 schoolchildren (10.00±1.44 years). Set A was comprised contextual sentences while Set B encompassed random words. The schoolchildren were asked to read both contextual sentences and random words reading charts at random order, loudly at normal reading speed. The reading errors were quantified based on the number of mistakes made during reading. The errors were classified into 6 categories; mispronunciations, substitutions, refusals, additions, omissions, and reversals. The results indicated the mean number of errors made by schoolchildren in reading sentence of Set A and Set B were 1.30±0.23 words and 2.70±0.41 words respectively. Random words, Set B, gave a significantly higher number of reading errors compared to contextual sentences, Set A, (U=287, z=-2.46, p=0.01). Reading the random words gave higher number of errors compared to reading the contextual sentences. Mispronunciations and substitutions were the most possible types of errors made when reading Set B (U=234, z=-3.60, p=<0.01 and U=325, z=-2.00, p=0.04 respectively). Schoolchildren tended to mispronounce and substitute some words during reading the random words. In comparing the number of oral reading errors made between schoolchildren and young adults, there was no significant difference. A similar pattern of the type of errors was also found in oral reading errors in both schoolchildren and young adults. Overall findings could be linked to the existence of comprehension during reading the contextual sentences compared to reading the random words.