Related Experiment Videos
Reliability study of the Pierce and King-Devick saccade tests
Insights
The Pierce and King-Devick saccade tests show poor reliability for assessing saccadic eye movements in children. Tester behavior may influence results, questioning their clinical usefulness for eye movement evaluation and therapy monitoring.
Area of Science:
- Ophthalmology
- Neuroscience
- Pediatric Medicine
Background:
- Saccadic eye movements are crucial for visual function.
- The Pierce and King-Devick saccade tests are commonly used clinical tools.
- Established normative data exist, but test reliability requires further investigation.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the test-retest reliability of the Pierce and King-Devick saccade tests.
- To assess the influence of tester behavior on saccade test outcomes.
- To determine the clinical utility of these tests for eye movement assessment.
Main Methods:
- Two groups of elementary schoolchildren (n=30 and n=33) without visual abnormalities were tested.
- Children underwent either retesting after 2 weeks or initial testing by different/same testers.
- Test-retest scores and inter-group scores were compared to assess reliability and tester influence.
Main Results:
- Poor test-retest reliability was found for both Pierce and King-Devick saccade tests.
- Tester behavior significantly influenced Pierce saccade test retest results.
- Results for the King-Devick saccade test's susceptibility to tester influence were inconclusive.
Conclusions:
- The reliability of the Pierce and King-Devick saccade tests is questionable for clinical use.
- These tests may have limited value in evaluating eye movements and monitoring oculomotor therapy progress.
- Further research is needed to refine these tests or explore alternative reliable methods.
Abstract:
Two simple clinical tests which are currently being used to assess saccadic eye movements are the Pierce and King-Devick saccade tests. Although normative data have been established for both tests, little has been reported in regards to the tests' reliability. Thirty elementary schoolchildren (group I) were screened for visual abnormalities and then presented the two saccade tests in random order. These children were retested 2 weeks later by a different group of testers. A second group of 33 children (group II) who also passed the screening for visual abnormalities was administered the two saccade tests. This group was tested by the original testers who also tested the children in group I initially. Comparing initial and retest scores of group I showed poor reliability for both Pierce and King-Devick saccade tests. Thus there is some question as to the tests' clinical usefulness in both evaluating eye movements and monitoring progress of patients undergoing oculomotor therapy. Scores obtained from the initial testing of group I were compared with scores from group II. The same testers administered the tests for both groups. Results showed that tester behavior influenced the retest results of the Pierce saccade test, but results were inconclusive for the King-Devick saccade test.