The Experts below are selected from a list of 300 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Ger H. M. B. Van Rens - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Measurement properties of Reading Tests in subjects with maculopathy
Acta ophthalmologica, 2020Co-Authors: Tamara Brussee, Basel Alagahgi, Ruth M. A. Van Nispen, Ger H. M. B. Van RensAbstract:PURPOSE A reliable Reading test provides a standardized measure of the visual component of Reading performance. This study evaluated reproducibility, agreement and feasibility of five Dutch language continuous text Reading Tests used in clinical practice and research in visually impaired participants. METHODS In 42 participants with macular pathologies (mean age 77 years), the Colenbrander Reading Card (Colenbrander), International Reading Speed Texts (IReST), Laboratory of Experimental Ophthalmology (LEO) charts, 'de Nederlanders' (NED) and the Radner Reading Charts (Radner) were evaluated. The coefficient of repeatability was calculated for different Reading parameters, and agreement between the Reading Tests was determined. RESULTS Between the Reading Tests, the differences found in repeatability for Reading performance were mainly within the limit of one line (0.1 logMAR). Exceptions were the inter-session repeatability for critical print size: Colenbrander (0.35 logMAR), LEO (0.34), Radner (0.23). The highest agreement was found between the LEO and Radner; Reading acuity bias 0.03 logMAR (SD 0.10), CPS 0.03 (0.12). CONCLUSION This study shows that Reading performance results obtained with Reading Tests are not always reliable and Reading parameters could not always be properly assessed in participants with maculopathies. Therefore, choices regarding which Reading test to use especially for research purposes should be based on both the feasibility and reliability of the Reading test. The NED (a historical test) was the least feasible, and it is recommend that this test is no longer used. To allow standardized and comparable analysis of Reading performance a highly standardized Reading test, like the Radner is recommended.
-
comparison of Reading performance Tests concerning difficulty of sentences and paragraphs and their reliability
Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 2015Co-Authors: Tamara Brussee, Ruth M. A. Van Nispen, Edwin M F J Klerkx, Dirk L Knol, Ger H. M. B. Van RensAbstract:Purpose In research and practice, sentences or paragraphs of Reading Tests may be randomly chosen to assess Reading performance. This means that in addition to test reliability, all sentences or paragraphs should be reliable and equally difficult to read. The sentences and paragraphs of five (un-) standardised Dutch Reading Tests were investigated in this regard. Methods Tests were performed with 71 normally sighted persons (mean age 55 [18–86] years). All sentences and paragraphs had equal print size. The relative difficulty of sentences and paragraphs from the five Dutch Reading Tests was tested with linear mixed models (Reading speed) and generalised linear models (mistakes). Results Reading speed in standard words per min ranged from 179 (Radner) to 142 (De Nederlanders). Reading mistakes per 100 characters ranged from 0.25 (Radner) to 0.40 (Colenbrander). On the Colenbrander charts 7/24 sentences were read significantly faster vs 5/24 read slower (sentence reliability 0.56–0.87); International Reading Speed Texts 3/10 vs 3/10 [0.94–0.97]; Laboratory of Experimental Ophthalmology 14/55 vs 15/55 [0.64–0.92]; De Nederlanders 2/6 vs 3/6 [0.83–0.94]; Radner 4/24 vs 3/24 [0.73–0.87]. Agreement between Tests differed from 1 to 36 standard words per minute and 0.01 to 0.14 mistakes per 100 characters. Conclusion The Radner, with the highest number of equally difficult sentences, is appropriate to measure Reading acuity as well as Reading speed in a heterogeneous population; the International Reading Speed Texts, with the highest paragraph reliability, provides long paragraphs to measure Reading speed. The Colenbrander and Laboratory of Experimental Ophthalmology are suitable for daily practice; however, for research or inspection purposes, reliable sentences must be chosen. Although the clinical relevance of the differences between the Tests is debatable, use of the De Nederlanders as a Reading test remains questionable.
-
measurement properties of continuous text Reading performance Tests
Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 2014Co-Authors: Tamara Brussee, Ruth M. A. Van Nispen, Ger H. M. B. Van RensAbstract:Purpose Measurement properties of Tests to assess Reading acuity or Reading performance have not been extensively evaluated. This study aims to provide an overview of the literature on available continuous text Reading Tests and their measurement properties. Methods A literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase and PsycInfo. Subsequently, information on design and content of Reading Tests, study design and measurement properties were extracted using consensus-based standards for selection of health measurement instruments. Quality of studies, Reading Tests and measurement properties were systematically assessed using pre-specified criteria. Results From 2334 identified articles, 20 relevant articles were found on measurement properties of three Reading Tests in various languages: IReST, MNread Reading Test and Radner Reading Charts. All three Reading Tests scored high on content validity. Reproducibility studies (repeated measurements between different testing sessions) of the IReST and MNread of commercially available Reading Tests in different languages were missing. The IReST scored best on inter-language comparison, the MNread scored well in repeatability studies (repeated measurements under the same conditions) and the Radner showed good reproducibility in studies. Conclusions Although in daily practice there are other continuous text Reading Tests available meeting the criteria of this review, measurement properties were described in scientific studies for only three of them. Of the few available studies, the quality and content of study design and methodology used varied. For testing existing Reading Tests and the development of new ones, for example in other languages, we make several recommendations, including careful description of patient characteristics, use of objective and subjective lighting levels, good control of working distance, documentation of the number of raters and their training, careful documentation of scoring rules and the use of Bland-Altman analyses or similar for reproducibility and repeatability studies.
Tamara Brussee - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Measurement properties of Reading Tests in subjects with maculopathy
Acta ophthalmologica, 2020Co-Authors: Tamara Brussee, Basel Alagahgi, Ruth M. A. Van Nispen, Ger H. M. B. Van RensAbstract:PURPOSE A reliable Reading test provides a standardized measure of the visual component of Reading performance. This study evaluated reproducibility, agreement and feasibility of five Dutch language continuous text Reading Tests used in clinical practice and research in visually impaired participants. METHODS In 42 participants with macular pathologies (mean age 77 years), the Colenbrander Reading Card (Colenbrander), International Reading Speed Texts (IReST), Laboratory of Experimental Ophthalmology (LEO) charts, 'de Nederlanders' (NED) and the Radner Reading Charts (Radner) were evaluated. The coefficient of repeatability was calculated for different Reading parameters, and agreement between the Reading Tests was determined. RESULTS Between the Reading Tests, the differences found in repeatability for Reading performance were mainly within the limit of one line (0.1 logMAR). Exceptions were the inter-session repeatability for critical print size: Colenbrander (0.35 logMAR), LEO (0.34), Radner (0.23). The highest agreement was found between the LEO and Radner; Reading acuity bias 0.03 logMAR (SD 0.10), CPS 0.03 (0.12). CONCLUSION This study shows that Reading performance results obtained with Reading Tests are not always reliable and Reading parameters could not always be properly assessed in participants with maculopathies. Therefore, choices regarding which Reading test to use especially for research purposes should be based on both the feasibility and reliability of the Reading test. The NED (a historical test) was the least feasible, and it is recommend that this test is no longer used. To allow standardized and comparable analysis of Reading performance a highly standardized Reading test, like the Radner is recommended.
-
comparison of Reading performance Tests concerning difficulty of sentences and paragraphs and their reliability
Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 2015Co-Authors: Tamara Brussee, Ruth M. A. Van Nispen, Edwin M F J Klerkx, Dirk L Knol, Ger H. M. B. Van RensAbstract:Purpose In research and practice, sentences or paragraphs of Reading Tests may be randomly chosen to assess Reading performance. This means that in addition to test reliability, all sentences or paragraphs should be reliable and equally difficult to read. The sentences and paragraphs of five (un-) standardised Dutch Reading Tests were investigated in this regard. Methods Tests were performed with 71 normally sighted persons (mean age 55 [18–86] years). All sentences and paragraphs had equal print size. The relative difficulty of sentences and paragraphs from the five Dutch Reading Tests was tested with linear mixed models (Reading speed) and generalised linear models (mistakes). Results Reading speed in standard words per min ranged from 179 (Radner) to 142 (De Nederlanders). Reading mistakes per 100 characters ranged from 0.25 (Radner) to 0.40 (Colenbrander). On the Colenbrander charts 7/24 sentences were read significantly faster vs 5/24 read slower (sentence reliability 0.56–0.87); International Reading Speed Texts 3/10 vs 3/10 [0.94–0.97]; Laboratory of Experimental Ophthalmology 14/55 vs 15/55 [0.64–0.92]; De Nederlanders 2/6 vs 3/6 [0.83–0.94]; Radner 4/24 vs 3/24 [0.73–0.87]. Agreement between Tests differed from 1 to 36 standard words per minute and 0.01 to 0.14 mistakes per 100 characters. Conclusion The Radner, with the highest number of equally difficult sentences, is appropriate to measure Reading acuity as well as Reading speed in a heterogeneous population; the International Reading Speed Texts, with the highest paragraph reliability, provides long paragraphs to measure Reading speed. The Colenbrander and Laboratory of Experimental Ophthalmology are suitable for daily practice; however, for research or inspection purposes, reliable sentences must be chosen. Although the clinical relevance of the differences between the Tests is debatable, use of the De Nederlanders as a Reading test remains questionable.
-
measurement properties of continuous text Reading performance Tests
Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 2014Co-Authors: Tamara Brussee, Ruth M. A. Van Nispen, Ger H. M. B. Van RensAbstract:Purpose Measurement properties of Tests to assess Reading acuity or Reading performance have not been extensively evaluated. This study aims to provide an overview of the literature on available continuous text Reading Tests and their measurement properties. Methods A literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase and PsycInfo. Subsequently, information on design and content of Reading Tests, study design and measurement properties were extracted using consensus-based standards for selection of health measurement instruments. Quality of studies, Reading Tests and measurement properties were systematically assessed using pre-specified criteria. Results From 2334 identified articles, 20 relevant articles were found on measurement properties of three Reading Tests in various languages: IReST, MNread Reading Test and Radner Reading Charts. All three Reading Tests scored high on content validity. Reproducibility studies (repeated measurements between different testing sessions) of the IReST and MNread of commercially available Reading Tests in different languages were missing. The IReST scored best on inter-language comparison, the MNread scored well in repeatability studies (repeated measurements under the same conditions) and the Radner showed good reproducibility in studies. Conclusions Although in daily practice there are other continuous text Reading Tests available meeting the criteria of this review, measurement properties were described in scientific studies for only three of them. Of the few available studies, the quality and content of study design and methodology used varied. For testing existing Reading Tests and the development of new ones, for example in other languages, we make several recommendations, including careful description of patient characteristics, use of objective and subjective lighting levels, good control of working distance, documentation of the number of raters and their training, careful documentation of scoring rules and the use of Bland-Altman analyses or similar for reproducibility and repeatability studies.
Ruth M. A. Van Nispen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Measurement properties of Reading Tests in subjects with maculopathy
Acta ophthalmologica, 2020Co-Authors: Tamara Brussee, Basel Alagahgi, Ruth M. A. Van Nispen, Ger H. M. B. Van RensAbstract:PURPOSE A reliable Reading test provides a standardized measure of the visual component of Reading performance. This study evaluated reproducibility, agreement and feasibility of five Dutch language continuous text Reading Tests used in clinical practice and research in visually impaired participants. METHODS In 42 participants with macular pathologies (mean age 77 years), the Colenbrander Reading Card (Colenbrander), International Reading Speed Texts (IReST), Laboratory of Experimental Ophthalmology (LEO) charts, 'de Nederlanders' (NED) and the Radner Reading Charts (Radner) were evaluated. The coefficient of repeatability was calculated for different Reading parameters, and agreement between the Reading Tests was determined. RESULTS Between the Reading Tests, the differences found in repeatability for Reading performance were mainly within the limit of one line (0.1 logMAR). Exceptions were the inter-session repeatability for critical print size: Colenbrander (0.35 logMAR), LEO (0.34), Radner (0.23). The highest agreement was found between the LEO and Radner; Reading acuity bias 0.03 logMAR (SD 0.10), CPS 0.03 (0.12). CONCLUSION This study shows that Reading performance results obtained with Reading Tests are not always reliable and Reading parameters could not always be properly assessed in participants with maculopathies. Therefore, choices regarding which Reading test to use especially for research purposes should be based on both the feasibility and reliability of the Reading test. The NED (a historical test) was the least feasible, and it is recommend that this test is no longer used. To allow standardized and comparable analysis of Reading performance a highly standardized Reading test, like the Radner is recommended.
-
comparison of Reading performance Tests concerning difficulty of sentences and paragraphs and their reliability
Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 2015Co-Authors: Tamara Brussee, Ruth M. A. Van Nispen, Edwin M F J Klerkx, Dirk L Knol, Ger H. M. B. Van RensAbstract:Purpose In research and practice, sentences or paragraphs of Reading Tests may be randomly chosen to assess Reading performance. This means that in addition to test reliability, all sentences or paragraphs should be reliable and equally difficult to read. The sentences and paragraphs of five (un-) standardised Dutch Reading Tests were investigated in this regard. Methods Tests were performed with 71 normally sighted persons (mean age 55 [18–86] years). All sentences and paragraphs had equal print size. The relative difficulty of sentences and paragraphs from the five Dutch Reading Tests was tested with linear mixed models (Reading speed) and generalised linear models (mistakes). Results Reading speed in standard words per min ranged from 179 (Radner) to 142 (De Nederlanders). Reading mistakes per 100 characters ranged from 0.25 (Radner) to 0.40 (Colenbrander). On the Colenbrander charts 7/24 sentences were read significantly faster vs 5/24 read slower (sentence reliability 0.56–0.87); International Reading Speed Texts 3/10 vs 3/10 [0.94–0.97]; Laboratory of Experimental Ophthalmology 14/55 vs 15/55 [0.64–0.92]; De Nederlanders 2/6 vs 3/6 [0.83–0.94]; Radner 4/24 vs 3/24 [0.73–0.87]. Agreement between Tests differed from 1 to 36 standard words per minute and 0.01 to 0.14 mistakes per 100 characters. Conclusion The Radner, with the highest number of equally difficult sentences, is appropriate to measure Reading acuity as well as Reading speed in a heterogeneous population; the International Reading Speed Texts, with the highest paragraph reliability, provides long paragraphs to measure Reading speed. The Colenbrander and Laboratory of Experimental Ophthalmology are suitable for daily practice; however, for research or inspection purposes, reliable sentences must be chosen. Although the clinical relevance of the differences between the Tests is debatable, use of the De Nederlanders as a Reading test remains questionable.
-
measurement properties of continuous text Reading performance Tests
Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 2014Co-Authors: Tamara Brussee, Ruth M. A. Van Nispen, Ger H. M. B. Van RensAbstract:Purpose Measurement properties of Tests to assess Reading acuity or Reading performance have not been extensively evaluated. This study aims to provide an overview of the literature on available continuous text Reading Tests and their measurement properties. Methods A literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase and PsycInfo. Subsequently, information on design and content of Reading Tests, study design and measurement properties were extracted using consensus-based standards for selection of health measurement instruments. Quality of studies, Reading Tests and measurement properties were systematically assessed using pre-specified criteria. Results From 2334 identified articles, 20 relevant articles were found on measurement properties of three Reading Tests in various languages: IReST, MNread Reading Test and Radner Reading Charts. All three Reading Tests scored high on content validity. Reproducibility studies (repeated measurements between different testing sessions) of the IReST and MNread of commercially available Reading Tests in different languages were missing. The IReST scored best on inter-language comparison, the MNread scored well in repeatability studies (repeated measurements under the same conditions) and the Radner showed good reproducibility in studies. Conclusions Although in daily practice there are other continuous text Reading Tests available meeting the criteria of this review, measurement properties were described in scientific studies for only three of them. Of the few available studies, the quality and content of study design and methodology used varied. For testing existing Reading Tests and the development of new ones, for example in other languages, we make several recommendations, including careful description of patient characteristics, use of objective and subjective lighting levels, good control of working distance, documentation of the number of raters and their training, careful documentation of scoring rules and the use of Bland-Altman analyses or similar for reproducibility and repeatability studies.
Stephen Bax - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The cognitive processing of candidates during Reading Tests: Evidence from eye-tracking
Language Testing, 2013Co-Authors: Stephen BaxAbstract:The research described in this article investigates test takers’ cognitive processing while completing onscreen IELTS (International English Language Testing System) Reading test items. The research aims, among other things, to contribute to our ability to evaluate the cognitive validity of Reading test items (Glaser, 1991; Field, in press). The project focused on differences in Reading behaviours of successful and unsuccessful candidates while completing IELTS test items. A group of Malaysian undergraduates (n = 71) took an onscreen test consisting of two IELTS Reading passages with 11 test items. Eye movements of a random sample of these participants (n = 38) were tracked. Stimulated recall interview data was collected to assist in interpretation of the eye-tracking data. Findings demonstrated significant differences between successful and unsuccessful test takers on a number of dimensions, including their ability to read expeditiously (Khalifa & Weir, 2009), and their focus on particular aspects of the test items and texts, while no observable difference was noted in other items. This offers new insights into the cognitive processes of candidates during Reading Tests. Findings will be of value to examination boards preparing Reading Tests, to teachers and learners, and also to researchers interested in the cognitive processes of readers
-
'Readers' cognitive processes during IELTS Reading Tests: evidence from eye tracking'
2013Co-Authors: Stephen BaxAbstract:The research described in this report investigates readers' mental processes as they complete onscreen IELTS (International English Language Testing System) Reading test items. It employs up-to-date eye tracking technology to research readers' eye movements and aims, among other things, to contribute to an understanding of the cognitive validity of Reading test items (Glaser. 1991; Field forthcoming). Participants were a group of Malaysian undergraduates (n=71) taking an onscreen test consisting of two IELTS Reading passages with a total of 11 test items. The eye movements of a random sample of these participants (n=38) were tracked. Questionnaire and stimulated recall interview data were also collected, and were important in order to interpret and explain the eye tracking data. Findings demonstrated significant differences between successful and unsuccessful test-takers on a number of dimensions, including their ability to read expeditiously (Khalifa and Weir. 2009). and their focus on particular aspects of the test items and the Reading texts. This demonstrates the potential of eye tracking, in combination with post- hoc interview and questionnaire data, to offer new insights into the cognitive processes of successful and unsuccessful candidates in a Reading test. It also gives unprecedented insights into the cognitive processing of successful and unsuccessful readers doing language Tests. As a consequence, the findings should be of value to teachers and learners, and also to examination boards seeking to validate and prepare Reading Tests, as well as psycholinguists and others interested in the cognitive processes of readers.
Daniel Tranel - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
DEVELOPMENT AND STANDARDIZATION OF A Reading TEST FOR BRAIN-DAMAGED PATIENTS
Developmental Neuropsychology, 1999Co-Authors: Kenneth Manzel, Daniel TranelAbstract:We conducted 2 studies to assess the psychometric properties and clinical utility of a Reading test, the Iowa‐Chapman Reading Test (ICRT), which was developed as a means of measuring Reading capacities in patients with brain damage. We first collected normative data from 101 adults, then applied the test to 145 patients with focal cortical brain damage. Forty‐two patients performed defectively on the test, with impairments being evident in connection with a variety of different brain regions. Most important, nearly all (89%) of the 64 patients with lingering complaints of Reading difficulties performed below expectations on the ICRT, despite generally normal performances on other standard Reading Tests. The results indicate that the ICRT provides an economical and sensitive index of Reading and in particular, chronic subtle weaknesses in Reading that are evident to the patient but not detected by many conventional Tests.
