Figure - available from: Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Examples of paragraphs: paragraph 4 and paragraph 2 exemplify the equality of the paragraphs in terms of syntax, construction, word characteristics, and number of characters: 11 sentences of equal construction; 111 words equal in number of syllables (179) and position (yellow = one-syllable words; blue = two-syllable words; green = three-syllable words). The number of characters is always 660 without spaces and 710 including spaces
Source publication
Purpose:
To investigate the reliability, validity, and statistical comparability of long paragraphs that were developed to be equivalent in construction and difficulty.
Methods:
Seven long paragraphs were developed that were equal in syntax, morphology, and number and position of words (111), with the same number of syllables (179) and number of...
Citations
... В 1993 г. в Университете Миннесоты (США) был разработан первый печатный стандартизированный тест -Minnesota Low-Vision Reading Test (MNREAD acuity chart), позволяющий оценивать скорость чтения, порог чтения (ПЧ), ОЗ при чтении (ОЗЧ), а также индекс доступности чтения (ИДЧ) [1][2][3][4]. MNREAD acuity chart является одним из самых совершенных и используемых в мире тестов, который переведен на множество языков, и единственным на английском языке, для которого определены возрастные нормы по всем 4 перечисленным параметрам [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. ...
I.R. Stepanets1, A.N. Kulikov2, S.A. Koskin2, D.I. Zhilchuk2
1ZRENIE Ophthalmological Clinical Center, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation
2S.M. Kirov Military Medical Academy, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation
Background: to evaluate reading performance and to obtain comparable results in multi-center studies carried out in several countries, it is necessary to use rigorously developed standardized tests in different languages.
Aim: to develop a Russian version of the Minnesota low vision reading chart (MNREAD) and to test it for measuring the near vision reading performance in normally sighted young adults.
Patients and Methods: sixty sentences were composed using the most common words selected from the frequency dictionary and the school curriculum of 1st — 4th grades. The number of characters per sentence and the sentence length were adapted to match the MNREAD design principles. 38 sentences were selected. Then, two versions of the test in Russian language (MNREAD-R) with different series of sentences were printed out and tested randomly in 30 subjects aged 18–22 years during one session. The reading parameters were assessed at a 40-cm distance; subjects were asked to read the charts for testing their monocular (right and left eyes) and binocular reading. The measured reading acuity (RA), maximum reading speed (MRS), critical print size (CPS) and reading accessibility index (ACC) were evaluated using statistical analysis.
Results: the time taken to read a standardized short test sentence was approx. 3 s. Binocular MRS for test chart 1 was 198±4.51 words/min, for test chart 2 — 200±4.76 words/min; CPS in binocular conditions was the same for both charts and equaled to 0.08±0.02 logMAR; binocular RA for test chart 1 was (-)0.04±0.01 logMAR and test chart 2 — (-)0,06±0,01 logMAR; binocular ACC was 1.00±0.02 and 1.03±0.02, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found between all parameters measured with the use of test charts 1 and 2 (р>0.05).
Conclusion: the developed MNREAD-R test charts can be used for Russian speaking population to measure RA, MRS, ACC and RT.
Keywords: MNREAD, reading speed, tests to assess reading performance, visual acuity, low vision.
For citation: Stepanets I.R., Kulikov A.N., Koskin S.A., Zhilchuk D.I. Development of a Russian version of the Minnesota low vision reading chart. Russian Journal of Clinical Ophthalmology. 2022;22(3):150–155 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.32364/2311-7729-2022-22-3-150-155.
... In addition, bias caused by pre-existing significant differences between long text paragraphs has to be avoided, since such differences have been found to occur between long paragraphs even when the paragraphs have been designed to be as equal as possible. 13,14 Therefore, for the present study, we used a sequence of three paragraphs (short stories) for which it has been statistically verified in 60 participants that the paragraphs do not differ significantly from each other in terms of reading speed and difficulty. 13 These paragraphs, in German, have been developed to be equivalent in terms of sentence construction as well as in the number, length and position of the words. ...
... 13,14 Therefore, for the present study, we used a sequence of three paragraphs (short stories) for which it has been statistically verified in 60 participants that the paragraphs do not differ significantly from each other in terms of reading speed and difficulty. 13 These paragraphs, in German, have been developed to be equivalent in terms of sentence construction as well as in the number, length and position of the words. Words with the same numbers of syllables were in exactly the same positions within the text. ...
... In a prior study, we had statistically selected two sequences of three paragraphs as well as eight pairs of paragraphs, none of which were statistically significantly different in terms of difficulty and reading length (reading speed). 13 A sequence of three paragraphs, composed of paragraphs 2, 5 and 7, was used for the present study (referred to here as paragraphs A, B and C). These paragraphs in German have been developed to be equivalent in terms of sentence construction as well as in the number, length and position of the words. ...
Purpose:
The purpose was to compare systematically the legibility of a font without serifs (Helvetica) and one with serifs (Times New Roman).
Methods:
Three paragraphs that were equal in the number of words, syllables, characters, difficulty and reading length were printed at equal size, with equal spacing between the lines and equal layout (paperback style), in either the sans serif typeface Helvetica Neue T1 55 Roman (Adobe) or the serif typeface Times New Roman PS Roman (Adobe). They were also printed in newspaper format in the serif font. The paragraphs were presented in random order (Latin square design) to 36 participants between 18 and 38 years of age (wearing their best-corrected visual acuity). Reading duration was measured with a stopwatch. Reading time, reading speed and the number of reading errors were compared.
Results:
For the paperback layout, no significant difference in reading time (p = 0.50) or reading speed (p = 0.56) was found between the two fonts. The correlation between the two fonts was high for both reading time and speed (r = 0.93). The mean number of reading errors was the same (0.31 ± 0.58 errors/text) for both fonts. There was a significant difference in reading time and speed between the paperback and the newspaper layout.
Conclusion:
The legibility of Helvetica and Times New Roman is similar when investigated under equivalent conditions. Thus, these two font types can be used as interchangeable standard typefaces.
... For a study comparing reading speed obtained with 3 long paragraphs in participants with healthy eyes, a power calculation reveals the need for a minimum of 34 participants (for 80% power; Cohen's d=0.51 and an alpha of 5%). Cohen´s d was estimated according to a previous study [12]. This calculation does not take into account the addition of single sentences, since only reading these after long paragraphs can lead to bias because of a reduced level of concentration and motivation induced by reading long texts prior to the single sentences. ...
... Thus, excluding such incorrectly read words would artificially change the ratio between the reading time and the actual number of words read. Although the number of errors per 100 words was found to be similar for long paragraphs and single sentences (0.5 errors/100 words and 0.66 errors/100 words, respectively) [12], it is evident that the proportional bias in the reading time caused by subtracting the words that are read incorrectly increases to some unknown extent with the number of errors made and with a decrease in the number of words in a text (unknown proportion bias). ...
Methodical bias, incorrect use of the RADNER Reading Charts and-avoiding misleading reporting in Visual Acuity Measurements Kortuem C, Marx T, Altpeter E, Trauzettel-Klosinski S, Kuester-Gruber S. Comparing reading speeds for reading standardized single sentences and paragraphs in patients with maculopathy. Ophthalmic Res. 2021;64(3):512-522.
... Such texts are available as single sentences to measure reading acuity and critical print size, and also RS, such as MNread [1], Colenbrander [2], SKread [3,4], and the Radner Reading Ophthalmic Res 2021;64:512-522 DOI: 10.1159/000509687 Charts [5,6]. On the other hand, there are also longer paragraphs to measure RS, such as the International Reading Speed Texts (IReST) [7,8] and the Radner paragraphs [9]. Reading a paragraph resembles real-life reading more than reading a single sentence, but the measurement is more time-consuming. ...
... Recently, Radner et al. [9] presented another type of paragraphs for RS analysis. The texts are standardized regarding sentence construction as well as number, length, and position of words. ...
Introduction:
The purpose of this study was to compare reading speeds (RS) of either paragraphs of text or single sentences in patients with maculopathy by investigating the repeatability of RS to decide which text type to use in studies on patients with maculopathy.
Methods:
RS was measured for standardized texts in 25 participants with a central scotoma due to maculopathy (mean age 77.8 years ± 9.9 SD, mean binocular visual acuity 0.65 logMAR (±0.85 SD), median magnification requirement 3-fold). Reading 3 single sentences taken from the Radner reading charts (sample #1, #2, and #3) of 14 words and reading 3 paragraphs of International Reading Speed Texts (IReST, sample # 3, #6, and #10) with a mean of 132 (±3.2 SD) words, each in German, were compared. The 6 texts were read aloud in random order from a closed-circuit TV system, with size adjusted according to the individual magnification requirement. Reading time was measured by stopwatch, and speed was calculated in correctly read words per minute (wpm). Differences in RS depending on text length (single sentence vs. paragraph) and text sample were calculated by the Bland-Altman analysis.
Results:
The mean RS showed no significant difference between 2 charts of the same kind (sentences: 93 wpm ± 37 SD; paragraphs: 95 wpm ± 38 SD). RS differences between 2 charts were lower in paragraphs than in single sentences. Highest correlations of RS between all 6 texts existed between the 3 IReST text samples (r = 0.98, 0.98, and 0.98) compared with the 3 Radner sentences (r = 0.89, 0.81, and 0.90). The inter-chart reliability (coefficient of repeatability) was smaller for the paragraphs (12.9 wpm) than for the single sentences (36.4 wpm).
Conclusion:
In patients with maculopathy, single sentences are well suited for single measurement of RS. For repeated measurements (e.g., monitoring the course of a reading disorder or assessing effects of interventions), paragraphs are preferable because of their lower variability of RS between the paragraphs.
... tarafından doğrulanmıştır. Başka bir deyişle kişinin okuma hızı kullanılan test maddelerinin özelliklerine bağlıdır.34,35 ...
... In addition, reading tests are also used for evaluating reading competence [47] and diagnosing reading disabilities such as dyslexia [43]. Another approach has involved the use of reading tests and reading charts in clinical ophthalmology [28][29][30][31][32][48][49][50][51][52][53]. However, since the historic reading charts were not standardized at all and could not be used as reliable tools for research purposes (Table 1), the value and potential of standardized reading acuity measures are still underestimated. ...
... In a study presenting a new way of standardizing long paragraphs as a functional vision test, it was shown that the reading speed in normally sighted persons changes with age, in terms of reading both long paragraphs and sentence optotypes [48]. The group aged 55 years or greater (mean: 62.90 ± 7.36 years) read significantly more slowly than did the groups aged 20 to 35 years (mean: 26.60 ± 3.72 years) or 36 to 51 years (44.25 ± 4.76 years). ...
... In that analysis, a break-point for decreasing reading speed was detected at age 40. However, no significant difference was found between the groups aged 20 to 35 and 36 to 51 [48]. A possible explanation for this difference could be related to the retrospectively obtained data that were used: The participants in the study of Calabrese et al. [99] who served as the controls in the previous studies merely read with their Bhabitual^near refractive corrections [99] and did not read with their best-corrected near vision, evaluated directly before the examination. ...
A new generation of logarithmic reading charts has sparked interest in standardized reading performance analyses. Such reading charts have been developed according to the standards of the International Council of Ophthalmology. The print size progression in these calibrated charts is in accordance with the mathematical background of EN ISO 8596. These reading charts are: the Bailey–Lovie Word Reading Chart, the Colenbrander English Continuous Text Near Vision Cards, the Oculus Reading Probe II, the MNREAD Charts, the SKread Charts, and the RADNER Reading Charts. The test items used for these reading charts differ among the charts and are standardized to various extents. The Bailey–Lovie Charts, MNREAD Charts, SKread Charts, and RADNER Charts are also meant to measure reading speed and allow determination of further reading parameters such as reading acuity, reading speed based on reading acuity, critical print size, reading score, and logMAR/logRAD ratio. Such calibrated reading charts have already provided valuable insights into the reading performance of patients in many research studies. They are available in many languages and thus facilitate international communication about near visual performance. In the present review article, the backgrounds of these modern reading charts are presented, and their different levels of test-item standardization are discussed. Clinical research studies are mentioned, and a discussion about the immoderately high number of reading acuity notations is included. Using the logReading Acuity Determination ([logRAD] = reading acuity equivalent of logMAR) measure for research purposes would give reading acuity its own identity as a standardized reading parameter in ophthalmology.
In the review, the analysis of the most common ophthalmic standardized tests for evaluating reading was carried out: BaileyLovie Word Reading Charts, MNREAD Acuity Chart, Radner reading chart, SmithKettlewell Reading Test (SKread), IReST, Salzburg Reading Desk, Ramulu test, Radner paragraph optotypes, Balsam AlabdulkaderLeat (BAL) chart, Chinese Reading Acuity Charts (C-READ), chart for reading threshold and reading speed evaluation by T.S. Egorova. The following parameters were considered: maximum reading speed, reading threshold, reading acuity, reading accessibility index, threshold reading speed. Recovering the ability to read fluently is one of the criteria for assessing the success of treatment, as well as quality of life for patients of various age groups
Purpose
A reliable reading test provides a standardized measure of the visual component of reading performance. This study evaluated reproducibility, agreement and feasibility of five Dutch language continuous text reading tests used in clinical practice and research in visually impaired participants.
Methods
In 42 participants with macular pathologies (mean age 77 years), the Colenbrander Reading Card (Colenbrander), International Reading Speed Texts (IReST), Laboratory of Experimental Ophthalmology (LEO) charts, ‘de Nederlanders’ (NED) and the Radner Reading Charts (Radner) were evaluated. The coefficient of repeatability was calculated for different reading parameters, and agreement between the reading tests was determined.
Results
Between the reading tests, the differences found in repeatability for reading performance were mainly within the limit of one line (0.1 logMAR). Exceptions were the inter‐session repeatability for critical print size: Colenbrander (0.35 logMAR), LEO (0.34), Radner (0.23). The highest agreement was found between the LEO and Radner; Reading acuity bias 0.03 logMAR (SD 0.10), CPS 0.03 (0.12).
Conclusion
This study shows that reading performance results obtained with reading tests are not always reliable and reading parameters could not always be properly assessed in participants with maculopathies. Therefore, choices regarding which reading test to use especially for research purposes should be based on both the feasibility and reliability of the reading test. The NED (a historical test) was the least feasible, and it is recommend that this test is no longer used. To allow standardized and comparable analysis of reading performance a highly standardized reading test, like the Radner is recommended.
Based on the analysis of 190 studies (18,573 participants), we estimate that the average silent reading rate for adults in English is 238 words per minute (wpm) for non-fiction and 260 wpm for fiction. The difference can be predicted by taking into account the length of the words, with longer words in non-fiction than in fiction. The estimates are lower than the numbers often cited in scientific and popular writings. The reasons for the overestimates are reviewed. The average oral reading rate (based on 77 studies and 5,965 participants) is 183 wpm. Reading rates are lower for children, old adults, and readers with English as second language. The reading rates are in line with maximum listening speed and do not require the assumption of reading-specific language processing. Within each group/task there are reliable individual differences, which are not yet fully understood. For silent reading of English non-fiction most adults fall in the range of 175 to 300 wpm; for fiction the range is 200 to 320 wpm. Reading rates in other languages can be predicted reasonably well by taking into account the number of words these languages require to convey the same message as in English.
