LAUSR

Objectives: To compare reading parameters measured with the Turkish version of the Minnesota Low Vision Reading Test (MNREAD-TR) printed acuity chart and the tablet application version of the same test for both normally sighted and low-vision individuals. Materials and Methods: A total of 116 individuals (92 normally sighted and 24 low-vision) were included in the study. All participants were tested with both the print version of the MNREAD-TR chart (method 1) and the tablet application version (method 2). Reading acuity (RA), critical print size (CPS), maximum reading speed (MRS), and reading accessibility index (ACC) were compared statistically. Results: No statistically significant difference was found in RA and CPS between the two methods for the normally sighted individuals (p=0.083 and p=0.075, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference in RA and ACC between the two methods for the patients with low vision (p=0.159 and p=0.103, respectively). The mean MRS was 233.1±34.7 words per minute (wpm) with method 1 and 169.3±23.4 wpm with method 2 in the normally sighted group (p<0.001) and 93.2±50.2 wpm with method 1 and 68.2±34.7 wpm with method 2 in the low-vision group (p<0.001). Conclusion: In our study, it was found that the parameters RA and CPS in the normally sighted individuals and RA and ACC in the low vision individuals provided similar results in both forms of the MNREAD. The tablet application method can be preferred to eliminate evaluators’ bias of scoring the printed chart. In addition, applications have other advantages such as being faster and more practical and providing automatic analysis of parameters, especially in low-vision rehabilitation.