A.
Heijl
field
percentage
test
criteria
https://scigraph.springernature.com/explorer/license/
number of combinations
standard deviation
1987-01-01
normal inter-individual variation
analysis
normality
593-600
chapter
strict criteria
Field Analyzer
short-term fluctuations
predictive value
1987
fluctuations
coefficient
deviation
results
The distribution of results of perimetric reliability tests, false positive and false negative answers, fixation losses and short-term fluctuation, was studied in a material of 84 healthy normal subjects, randomly selected from the population, and in 45 patients with glaucoma. All subjects were tested with the 30–2 programme of the Humphrey Field Analyzer. We further investigated the influence of perimetric reliability on the measured visual field, as expressed by the visual field indices Mean Deviation and Pattern Standard Deviation. Sample multiple correlation coefficients were calculated for a number of combinations of reliability parameters and visual field indices.False negative answer were more common and short-term fluctuation higher in glaucomatous than in normal subjects. False positive answer and fixation losses did not differ between groups. Among glaucoma patients false negative answers were significantly more common than false positive answers. No such difference was found in the group of normals. The results showed no age-dependence. A large part of inter-individual field variability, particularly among normals, could be explained by perimetric reliability. false negative answers and short-term fluctuation had the largest predictive value.Normal inter-individual variation decreased considerably when stricter criteria for minimun results at reliability testing were applied. Naturally the number of fields meeting these criteria decreased at the same time. therefore, when establishing limits for normality, a compromise must be made resulting in reasonably narrow prediction limits without excluding a large percentage of normal and pathological fields from analysis.
fixation loss
compromise
measured visual field
distribution of results
part
positive answer
perimetry
largest predictive value
visual field
population
patients
limit
parameters
variation
group of normals
field variability
pathological fields
inter-individual variation
time
prediction limits
multiple correlation coefficient
testing
values
glaucoma
variability
healthy normal subjects
large percentage
same time
program
normals
subjects
pattern standard deviation
large part
normal subjects
sample multiple correlation coefficient
combination
Reliability parameters in computerized perimetry
reliability
index
correlation coefficient
loss
2022-05-20T07:46
reliability testing
group
chapters
reliability parameters
materials
influence
false negative answers
mean deviation
distribution
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3325-5_75
analyzer
number
computerized perimetry
Humphrey Field Analyzer
false-positive answers
false
visual field indices
negative answer
number of fields
differences
field indices
reliability test
en
answers
such differences
Dept of Mathematical Statistics, University of Lund, PO Box 118, S-22100, Lund, Sweden
Malmö and Lund, Sweden
Dept of Mathematical Statistics, University of Lund, PO Box 118, S-22100, Lund, Sweden
Psychology and Cognitive Sciences
Heijl
Anders
Georg
Lindgren
Olsson
Jonny
E. L.
Greve
Dept of Ophthalmology, University of Lund, Malmö General Hospital, S-21401, Malmö, Sweden
Dept of Ophthalmology, University of Lund, Malmö General Hospital, S-21401, Malmö, Sweden
Malmö and Lund, Sweden
10.1007/978-94-009-3325-5_75
doi
pub.1023157561
dimensions_id
978-94-009-3325-5
Seventh International Visual Field Symposium, Amsterdam, September 1986
978-94-010-7993-8
Springer Nature
Springer Nature - SN SciGraph project
Psychology