These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Evaluation of the new web-based "Colour Assessment and Diagnosis" test.
    Author: Seshadri J, Christensen J, Lakshminarayanan V, Bassi CJ.
    Journal: Optom Vis Sci; 2005 Oct; 82(10):882-5. PubMed ID: 16276319.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to determine the sensitivity, specificity, and repeatability of the web-based Colour Assessment and Diagnosis (CAD) test in comparison to current tests of color vision. METHODS: Thirty color normals and 30 color deficients, identified and diagnosed by the Nagel anomaloscope, were tested. The results of the CAD test were compared with standard tests like Nagel anomaloscope, Ishihara (concise version, 2001), Hardy, Rand and Rittler (HRR; 4 ed) pseudoisochromatic test, and the Farnsworth Munsell 100 (FM-100) hue test. RESULTS: Using the Nagel anomaloscope as the "gold standard," the sensitivity with the CAD test was 93.33%, Ishihara 96%, HRR 100%, and the FM-100 hue 100%. The specificity was 100% with CAD and the Ishihara color plates, whereas it was 33% with the HRR and 83% with the FM-100 hue test. The concurrent validity of the CAD test for color normals was 93.75%. The concurrent validity of CAD test for color deficiency was 100%. Thus, anyone failing the CAD test has a color defect. The coefficient of agreement for the Nagel anomaloscope and the CAD test was 0.93, with Ishihara it was 0.96, with the HRR it was 0.33, and with FM-100 hue it was 0.83. CONCLUSION: These results showed that the CAD test is a valid test for identifying congenital red-green color deficiency. Further testing is required in a larger population of anomalous trichromats.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]