Contrast Sensitivity and Vision-Related Quality of Life Assessment in the Pediatric Low Vision Setting
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Contrast Sensitivity and Vision-Related Quality of Life Assessment in the Pediatric Low Vision Setting THESIS Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Gregory Robert Hopkins, II Graduate Program in Vision Science The Ohio State University 2014 Master's Examination Committee: Angela M. Brown, PhD, Adviser Roanne E. Flom, OD Thomas W. Raasch, OD, PhD Copyright by Gregory Robert Hopkins, II 2014 Abstract A new test of contrast sensitivity (CS), the Stripe Card Contrast Sensitivity (SCCS) test, could serve as a simple and efficient means for estimating the maximum contrast sensitivity value of a given patient without having to use multiple spatial frequency gratings, and without knowing the spatial frequency at which maximum sensitivity occurs. This test could be useful for a wide range of patients with various levels of visual acuity (VA), ages, and diagnoses. We measured VA [Bailey-Lovie (BL), Teller Acuity Cards (TAC)] and CS [Pelli- Robson (PR), SCCS, Berkeley Discs (BD)] in counterbalanced order with subjects at the Ohio State School for the Blind (OSSB). Thus, we tested VA and CS using letter charts (B-L, P-R), grating cards (TAC, SCCS) and a chart with shapes (BD). Vision-related quality of life (QoL) surveys [The Impact of Visual Impairment in Children (IVI_C) and Low Vision Prasad Functional Vision Questionnaire (LVP-FVQ)] were used following vision testing. Additionally, we obtained Michigan Orientation & Mobility (O&M) Severity Rating Scale (OMSRS) severity of need scores for some participants. Testing was performed over a two-year period for 51 participants at OSSB. We have organized our work into three experiments: Experiment I was performed in the 2012-13 school year and included 27 participants who were tested monocularly using the ii patient’s preferred eye. The following year, we returned for repeat testing of 11 participants from the first year (“Experiment IIa”) and additional testing of 24 new participants (“Experiment IIb”). Those assessments were performed on each eye monocularly (where possible) rather than just with the preferred eye. QoL and O&M results were obtained during both years of testing and are detailed in Experiment III. Vision tests on the better eyes correlated positively and significantly with one another, except for a non-significant correlation between the B-L and SCCS. The IVI_C correlated significantly with all vision tests, except B-L acuity, with better visual function always correlating with higher quality of life. The LVP-FVQ correlated significantly with all metrics employed. The OMSRS scores did not correlate significantly with any of our metrics, except the LVP-FVQ, probably because so few subjects provided data for the OMSRS. Both of the grating tests (SCCS and TAC) and the BD indicated better visual performance than the corresponding letter acuity and contrast charts for subjects with reduced vision. For measuring contrast sensitivity in those with reduced vision, the simpler task and bolder patterns of the SCCS and BD may make them more likely to reveal the maximum performance that a given patient can achieve. iii Dedication This document is dedicated to Katya, my wife, and our two daughters: Adelaide and Matilda. iv Acknowledgements Angela Brown has been a brilliant and gentle mentor to me throughout this process and I have been fortunate to have had the opportunity to develop a deeper understanding of vision science as a result of her attention and support. I am truly fortunate to join a lineage of recognized field leaders by training with Dr. Roanne Flom. It has been a privilege to have the opportunity to discuss low vision history, practice, and research with Dr. Thomas Raasch. I must thank the teachers and staff at The Ohio State School for the Blind, particularly Nurse Judith Babka, Principals Marcom and Miller, and orientation & mobility instructors Phil Northup and Mary Swartwout. I’d also like to acknowledge Ian L. Bailey, OD, DSc(hc), FCOptom, FAAO, professor at the University of California, Berkeley School of Optometry for providing the spark from which this work was lit. Finally, I’d like to acknowledge the substantial contributions Bradley E. Dougherty, OD, PhD has made towards the analysis of the patient-reported outcome and quality of life measures in my study. I would also like to thank him for the overall role he has played in development of my career from a third year optometry student up through post-graduate advanced practice fellowship work. v Vita June 2002 .......................................................Moeller High School 2006................................................................Biology, The Ohio State University 2010................................................................O.D., The Ohio State University 2012 to present ..............................................Advanced Practice Fellow in Low Vision Rehabilitation, College of Optometry, The Ohio State University Publications Hopkins, G.R., & Flom, R.E. (2013, October). Disability Determination: More Within Our Means Now Than Ever. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Optometry, Seattle, WA. Hopkins, G.R., & Brown, A.M. (2013, May). Contrast Sensitivity Measurement in the Pediatric Low Vision Setting. Poster presented at the annual meeting of Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Seattle, WA. Fields of Study Major Field: Vision Science vi Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii Dedication .......................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. v Vita ..................................................................................................................................... vi List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... xi List of Figures ................................................................................................................... xii List of Frequently Used Abbreviations ............................................................................. xv Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................ 1 Visual Acuity Measurement ........................................................................................... 2 Significance of Acuity Measurement .......................................................................... 2 Development of Acuity Measurement ........................................................................ 2 Grating Acuity Measurement. ..................................................................................... 7 Contrast Sensitivity Measurement ................................................................................ 10 Definition .................................................................................................................. 10 vii Development of Contrast Sensitivity Testing ........................................................... 11 Techniques for Contrast Sensitivity Measurement ................................................... 15 Significance of Contrast Sensitivity Measurement ................................................... 22 Vision-Related Quality of Life Assessment ................................................................. 23 The IVI_C ................................................................................................................. 25 The LVP-FVQ .......................................................................................................... 26 Orientation and Mobility Assessment ........................................................................... 27 The Michigan Orientation and Mobility Severity Rating Scale ............................... 28 Experiment Overview. .................................................................................................. 29 Ethics............................................................................................................................. 31 Recruitment ................................................................................................................... 31 Participant Characteristics ............................................................................................ 33 Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 37 Experiment I...................................................................................................................... 38 Study Design ................................................................................................................. 38 Study Methods .............................................................................................................. 38 Letter Acuity Procedure ............................................................................................ 39 Grating Acuity Procedure ........................................................................................