IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0147803.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Visual Acuity Testing: Feedback Affects Neither Outcome nor Reproducibility, but Leaves Participants Happier

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Bach
  • Kerstin Schäfer

Abstract

Assessment of visual acuity is a well standardized procedure at least for expert opinions and clinical trials. It is often recommended not giving patients feedback on the correctness of their responses. As this viewpoint has not been quantitatively examined so far, we quantitatively assessed possible effects of feedback on visual acuity testing. In 40 normal participants we presented Landolt Cs in 8 orientations using the automated Freiburg Acuity Test (FrACT, 0.5). The comfort ranking clearly differed, by 2 steps on the Likert scale: the condition (A)–no feedback–was on average “slightly uncomfortable”, the other three conditions were “slightly comfortable” (p

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Bach & Kerstin Schäfer, 2016. "Visual Acuity Testing: Feedback Affects Neither Outcome nor Reproducibility, but Leaves Participants Happier," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-11, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0147803
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0147803
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147803
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147803&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0147803?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0147803. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.