Effect of Examiner Experience and Technique on the Alternate Cover Test
- 1 March 2010
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) in Optometry and Vision Science
- Vol. 87 (3), 168-175
- https://doi.org/10.1097/opx.0b013e3181d1d954
Abstract
Purpose. To compare the repeatability of the alternate cover test between experienced and inexperienced examiners and the effects of dissociation time and examiner bias. Methods. Two sites each had an experienced examiner train 10 subjects (inexperienced examiners) to perform short and long dissociation time alternate cover test protocols at near. Each site conducted testing sessions with an examiner triad (experienced examiner and two inexperienced examiners) who were masked to each other's results. Each triad performed the alternate cover test on 24 patients using both dissociation protocols. In an attempt to introduce bias, each of the paired inexperienced examiners was given a different graph of phoria distribution for the general population. Analysis techniques that adjust for correlations introduced when multiple measurements are obtained on the same patient were used to investigate the effect of examiner and dissociation time on each outcome. Results. The range of measured deviations spanned 27.5 prism diopters (Δ) base-in to 17.5Δ base-out. The absolute mean difference between experienced and inexperienced examiners was 2.28 ± 2.4Δ and at least 60% of differences were ≤2Δ. Larger deviations were measured with the long dissociation protocol for both experienced and inexperienced examiners (mean difference range = 1.17 to 2.14Δ, p < 0.0001). The percentage of measured small deviations (2Δ base-out to 2Δ base-in) did not differ between inexperienced examiners biased with the narrow vs. wide theoretical distributions (p = 0.41). The magnitude and direction of the deviation had no effect on the size of the differences obtained with different examiners or dissociation times. Conclusions. Although inexperienced examiners differed significantly from experienced examiners, most differences were <2Δ suggesting good reliability of inexperienced examiners' measurements. Examiner bias did not have a substantial effect on inexperienced examiner measurements; however, increased dissociation resulted in larger measured deviations for all examiners.Keywords
This publication has 11 references indexed in Scilit:
- Interobserver Reliability of the Prism and Alternate Cover Test in Children With EsotropiaJAMA Ophthalmology, 2009
- Defining Real Change in Prism-Cover Test MeasurementsAmerican Journal of Ophthalmology, 2008
- The intraexaminer and interexaminer repeatability of the alternate cover test using different prism neutralization endpoints.2004
- The Effect of Saccades and Brief Fusional Stimuli on Phoria AdaptationOptometry and Vision Science, 2001
- The Effect of Experience on the Detection of Small Eye MovementsOptometry and Vision Science, 2000
- Inter-Examiner Repeatability of Heterophoria TestsOptometry and Vision Science, 1998
- A quantitative analysis of eye movements during the cover test--a preliminary report.1995
- A quantitative analysis of eye movements during the cover test — a preliminary reportOphthalmic and Physiological Optics, 1995
- STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENTThe Lancet, 1986
- Amount of Eye Movement Objectively Perceptible to the Unaided EyeAmerican Journal of Ophthalmology, 1949