[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
June 1990

Reliability of Automated Perimetric Tests

Author Affiliations

Baltimore, Md

Arch Ophthalmol. 1990;108(6):777-778. doi:10.1001/archopht.1990.01070080019007

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


To the Editor.  —Nelson-Quigg et al1 have suggested that technician involvement during automated perimetric testing is crucial to the reliability of test results. We agree with this sentiment entirely. They also suggest that one reason their patients had fewer false-positive and false-negative responses than ours2 was the difference in technician involvement between the two studies. As with their study, ours is part of a careful, prospective investigation of visual loss in ocular hypertension and early glaucoma. The technician constantly monitored the patient responses. For those who had difficulty fixating or staying awake, the test was stopped and restarted after a rest period. The fact that fixation losses were quite similar in their patients and ours suggests that technician involvement is unlikely to explain why their group had fewer false-positive and false-negative responses than ours.It is possible that patients may "learn" over time with regard to reliability measures.

Nelson-Quigg J, Twelker JD, Johnson CA.  Response properties of normal observers and patients during automated perimetry . Arch Ophthalmol . 1989;107:1612-1615.Article
Katz J, Sommer A.  Reliability indexes of automated perimetric tests . Arch Ophthalmol . 1988;106:1252-1254.Article
Bickler-Bluth M, Trick GL, Kolker AE, Cooper DG.  Assessing the utility of reliability indices for automated visual fields: testing ocular hypertensives . Ophthalmology . 1989;96:616-619.Article