The influence of patient reliability on visual field outcome

The reliability of subjects to perform to perimetry correctly should be carefully evaluated to interpret visual field examinations adequately. Clinicians generally agree that numerous false-positive responses to catch trials cause measured thresholds to be falsely high and numerous false-negative responses cause measured thresholds to be falsely low. We studied the effect of false-positive and false-negative responses on the outcome of visual field measurements. Of 47 eyes, the results of 106 stable glaucomatous visual field tests (Program G1, Octopus 201, Interzeag, Schlieren, Switzerland) with false-positive responses and no more than one false-negative response to catch trials were compared to the results of reliable visual field tests (no false-positive and no more than one false-negative response) performed on the same eye. Similarly, 60 stable visual fields with false-negative responses and no more than one false-positive response were used to study the effect of false-negative responses on visual field sensitivities. Linear regression analysis disclosed a mean sensitivity increase of 1.5 dB for every 10% of false-positive responses (r = .34, P = .000) and a mean sensitivity decrease of 1.2 dB for every 10% of false-negative responses (r = .26, P = .04). These results may be used to help reduce the magnitude of unexplained long-term fluctuation in visual field interpretation.