[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
June 1990

Reliability of Automated Perimetric Tests-Reply

Author Affiliations

Sacramento, Calif

Arch Ophthalmol. 1990;108(6):778. doi:10.1001/archopht.1990.01070080019008

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


In Reply.  —Our investigation1 of reliability indexes for normal observers and patients during automated perimetry found results that were more favorable than those previously reported by Katz and Sommer.2 We proposed three possibilities for the differences between the two studies: differences in the composition of the subject populations, differences in the amount of prior experience with automated perimetry, and differences in the degree of technician involvement with the patient. Katz and Sommer feel that the composition of the subject populations is the main factor responsible for the different findings between the two studies. We have no objection to this explanation, although the population from which we drew our normal subjects and patients was far from "elite."Of greater importance to practitioners is how this information pertains to their day-to-day testing of patients with automated perimetry. A third investigation of the reliability of automated perimetry in patient populations has

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