在屈光习惯矫正与全矫状态下用Worth四点法与卡洞法测量优势眼的结果比较

Dominant eye test by Worth 4 dot test and hole-in-the-card test under habitual and full correction

目的研究Worth四点法测量优势眼与卡洞法测量优势眼的相关性,并分别研究这两种方法在习惯矫正情况下与屈光全矫状况下测量优势眼眼别的差异。方法429例受试者,其中部分受试者采用两种方法(卡洞法与Worth四点法)测量优势眼,部分受试者接受了在两种条件下(习惯矫正方式与屈光全矫下)测量优势眼,使用SPSS11.5统计软件包的卡方检验及Spearman非参数两两相关分析计算各组数据的差异与相关性。结果Worth四点法和卡洞法测得优势眼在习惯屈光矫正下差异无显著性(n=61,P>0.05),也无显著相关性(P>0.05);在屈光全矫下两种方法的差异有显著性(n=140,P=0.001),但无显著相关(P>0.05);而卡洞法在两种条件下测量的优势眼眼别差异有显著性(n=61,P<0.0001),并且存在显著相关(r=0.782,P<0.0001);Worth四点法在两种条件下测量的优势眼眼别差异有显著性(n=62,P<0.0001),并且两者显著相关(n=62,r=0.517,P<0.0001)。结论Worth四点法与卡洞法是两种测量优势眼的方法,在习惯屈光矫正下与屈光全矫状态下测得的优势眼差异有显著性。医学验光时采用Worth四点法测量在习惯矫正下的优势眼的方法尚需进一步研究以确定其可靠性。

Objective To study domiant eye test by the Worth 4 dot test and hole-in-the-card test under habitual and full correction. Methods 429 subjects were recruited, while pert of them volunteered in different designed tests. None of them had amblyopia. Refractive error was measured in each subject. Ocular dominance was determined using the hale-in-the-card test and Worth 4 dot test, and under habitual and full correction, respectively.Results Under habitual correction, there were neither significant difference nor significant correlation between ocular dominance tested by Worth 4 dot test and hole-in-the-card test（n=61, P〉 0.05）;whih under full correction, ocular dominance tested by Worth 4 dot test significantly differed from the hole-in- the-card test（n=140, P=0. 001 ）, but still no significant correlation （ P=0. 164） ; both tests under habitaal and full correction had significant difference and correlation in ocular dominance results（P 〈 0.0001）. Conclusion Worth 4 dot test and hole-in-the-card test had different ocular dominsnce resalts. And different correction can affect ocular dominance test. Medical refraction using Worth 4 dot test under habitual correction still needs further study.