Repeatability and Reproducibility of Buari-Chen Malay Reading Chart
Keywords:BCMRC, Precision, Repeatability, Reproducibility
The purpose of our study was to evaluate the repeatability and reproducibility of Buari-Chen Malay Reading Chart (BCMRC). Thirty normally sighted young adults (mean age: 20.6 years) were recruited based on convenient sampling. They were instructed to be read aloud 2 sets of BCMRC (contextual sentences (CS) set and random words (RW) set) at random sequence in three different sessions. The repeatability limits of the reading speed for contextual sentences (CS) set and random words (RW) set were 45.46 wpm and 29.16 wpm respectively, while the limit for reproducibility was 33.12 wpm for CS set and 28.38 wpm for RW set. Bland and Altman's plot showed good agreement for both sets of BCMRC as most differences of reading speed between reading sessions were placed within the limits of agreement (LoA). The mean difference in repeatability for CS set was 13.14 wpm (95% LoA = 40.81 to -14.53) and 8.96 wpm (95% LoA = 32.63 to -14.70 for RW set. For reproducibility, the mean difference was 11.30 wpm (95% LoA = 36.38 to -13.78) for CS set and 2.79 wpm (95% LoA = 31.13 to -25.55) for RW set. The BCMRC showed good repeatability and reproducibility that supported its usage as reading research tool as well as clinical diagnostic tool.
Rubin, G. S. (2013). Measuring reading performance. Vision research, 90, 43-51.
Runge, P. E. (2000). Eduard Jaeger's Test-Types (Schrift-Scalen) and the historical development of vision tests. Transactions of the American Ophthalmological Society, 98, 375.
Brussee, T., Nispen, R., & Rens, G. H. (2014). Measurement properties of continuous text reading performance tests. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 34(6), 636-657.
Buari N. H. and Chen A. H., Buari-Chen Malay Reading Chart (BCMRC): Contextual Sentence and Random Words 2-in-1 Design in Malay. Invention, Innovation & Design Exposition 2017, 25-29 September, Universiti Teknologi MARA Shah Alam, Malaysia. Available at: http://ribu.uitm.edu.my/v2/index.php/27-event/58-iidex2017, iidex2017/B/C05/005.
Buari N. H. and Chen A. H., â€œBuari-Chen Malay Reading Chart (BCMRC): Contextual Sentence and Random Words 2-in-1 Design in Malay,â€ Pertanika J. Sci. Techmology, Special Issue on Interdisciplinary Research, JST. Vol. 25(S). Aug 2017.
Virgili, G., Cordaro, C., Bigoni, A., Crovato, S., Cecchini, P., & Menchini, U. (2004). Reading acuity in children: evaluation and reliability using MNREAD charts. Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 45(9), 3349-3354.
AliÃ³, J. L., Radner, W., Plaza-Puche, A. B., Ortiz, D., Neipp, M. C., Quiles, M. J., & RodrÃguez-MarÃn, J. (2008). Design of short Spanish sentences for measuring reading performance: Radner-Vissum test. Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, 34(4), 638-642.
Ä°DÄ°L, Åž. A., Ã‡ALIÅžKAN, D., & Ä°DÄ°L, N. B. (2011). Development and validation of the Turkish version of the MNREAD visual acuity charts. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences, 41(4), 565-570.
Maaijwee, K., Mulder, P., Radner, W., & Van Meurs, J. C. (2008). Reliability testing of the Dutch version of the Radner Reading Charts. Optometry and Vision Science, 85(5), 353-358.
Ishii, M., Seki, M., Harigai, R., Abe, H., & Fukuchi, T. (2013). Reading performance in patients with glaucoma evaluated using the MNREAD charts. Japanese journal of ophthalmology, 57(5), 471-474.
Mansfield, J. S., Ahn, S. J., Legge, G. E., & Luebker, A. (1993). A new reading-acuity chart for normal and low vision. Ophthalmic and Visual Optics/Noninvasive Assessment of the Visual System Technical Digest, 3, 232-235.
Subramanian, A., & Pardhan, S. (2006). The repeatability of MNREAD acuity charts and variability at different test distances. Optometry and vision science, 83(8), 572-576.
Radner, W., Willinger, U., Obermayer, W., Mudrich, C., Velikay-Parel, M., & Eisenwort, B. (1998). Eine neue Lesetafel* zur gleichzeitigen Bestimmung von Lesevisus und Lesegeschwindigkeit. Klinische MonatsblÃ¤tter fÃ¼r Augenheilkunde, 213(09), 174-181.
Stifter, E., KÃ¶nig, F., Lang, T., Bauer, P., Richter-MÃ¼ksch, S., Velikay-Parel, M., & Radner, W. (2004). Reliability of a standardized reading chart system: variance component analysis, test-retest and inter-chart reliability. Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, 242(1), 31-39.
Trauzettel-Klosinski, S., & Dietz, K. (2012). Standardized assessment of reading performance: the new International Reading Speed Texts IReST. Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 53(9), 5452-5461.
McAlinden, C., Khadka, J., & Pesudovs, K. (2011). Statistical methods for conducting agreement (comparison of clinical tests) and precision (repeatability or reproducibility) studies in optometry and ophthalmology. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 31(4), 330-338.
McAlinden, C., Khadka, J., & Pesudovs, K. (2015). Precision (repeatability and reproducibility) studies and sample-size calculation. Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery, 41(12), 2598-2604.
Burggraaff, M. C., van Nispen, R. M., Hoek, S., Knol, D. L., & Van Rens, G. H. (2010). Feasibility of the Radner Reading Charts in low-vision patients. Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, 248(11), 1631-1637.
Mataftsi, A., Bourtoulamaiou, A., Haidich, A. B., Antoniadis, A., Kilintzis, V., Tsinopoulos, I. T., & Dimitrakos, S. (2013). Development and validation of the Greek version of the MNREAD acuity chart. Clinical and Experimental Optometry, 96(1), 25-31.
Buari, N. H., Chen, A. H., & Musa, N. (2014). Comparison of reading speed with 3 different log-scaled reading charts. Journal of optometry, 7(4), 210-216.
Calossi, A., Boccardo, L., Fossetti, A., & Radner, W. (2014). Design of short Italian sentences to assess near vision performance. Journal of optometry, 7(4), 203-209.
Radner, W., & Diendorfer, G. (2014). English sentence optotypes for measuring reading acuity and speedâ€”the English version of the Radner Reading Charts. Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, 252(8), 1297-1303.
Buari, N. H., Azizan, M. F., & Chen, A. H. (2015). Comparison of Reading Speed Using Malay Unrelated Word Reading Chart with Standardized English Reading Charts. International Journal of Medical and Health Sciences Research, 2(3), 55-61.
Douglas, G., Grimley, M., Hill, E., Long, R., & Tobin, M. (2002). The use of the NARA for assessing the reading ability of children with low vision. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 20(2), 68-75.
Khalid, N. M., Buari, N. H., & Chen, A. H. (2017). Comparison of Oral Reading Errors between Contextual Sentences and Random Words among Schoolchildren. International Education Studies, 10(1), 47-55.
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. (1986). Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. The lancet, 327(8476), 307-310.
How to Cite
- Papers must be submitted on the understanding that they have not been published elsewhere (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, or thesis) and are not currently under consideration by another journal published by any other publisher.
- It is also the authors responsibility to ensure that the articles emanating from a particular source are submitted with the necessary approval.
- The authors warrant that the paper is original and that he/she is the author of the paper, except for material that is clearly identified as to its original source, with permission notices from the copyright owners where required.
- The authors ensure that all the references carefully and they are accurate in the text as well as in the list of references (and vice versa).
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
- The journal/publisher is not responsible for subsequent uses of the work. It is the author's responsibility to bring an infringement action if so desired by the author.