Methods: A new Hindi visual acuity chart was designed to logMAR specifications using Hindi optotypes experimentally selected to have similar relative legibility under equivalent spherical and cylindrical defocus. The chart calibration study was carried out in a large clinical setup in India. Participants who were literate in English and Hindi participated in the study. Visual acuity was measured with the new Hindi logMAR chart and a modified ETDRS (m-ETDRS) logMAR chart. The method of presentation was randomized between the charts. Repeat visual acuity was measured on a subsequent day with a second version of the Hindi logMAR chart.
Results: The Hindi logMAR chart correlated highly with the m-ETDRS logMAR chart (r2 = 0.92); however, the mean visual acuity difference (Hindi logMAR-m-ETDRS logMAR) was nearly one and half lines (0.13 logMAR, 95% confidence interval [CI] = ±0.15 logMAR). The Hindi logMAR chart also proved to be highly repeatable (r2 = 0.99; mean difference 0.005, 95% CI = ±0.04 logMAR).
Conclusion: This study reports the first standardized visual acuity chart developed in Hindi incorporating equal letter legibility and logMAR chart design features. The Hindi logMAR visual acuity chart provides a valid and repeatable tool for the measurement of visual acuity in native Hindi language speakers. Future use of the new Hindi chart should incorporate an increase in optotype size of 0.13 logMAR.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare habitual visual acuity in a sample of young children using two versions of the single Lea symbols charts with different crowding features.
METHODS: Monocular habitual visual acuity was measured in a sample of 77 young children aged between 4 and 6 years using crowded Lea symbols charts with either flanking bars separated from the central symbol by 0.5 optotype width or flanking Lea optotypes separated from the central symbol by 1.0 optotype width.
RESULTS: Mean visual acuity was higher (i.e., lower logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution) with the Lea symbols crowded using flanking optotypes, equivalent to about 1.5 optotype difference. Visual acuity measured with the two charts was significantly correlated; however, the 95% limits of agreement were larger than expected from repeatability studies using Lea symbols.
CONCLUSIONS: Lea symbols with flanking optotypes resulted in higher visual acuity than the Lea symbols with flanking bars, probably as a result of differences in the crowding effect. The two charts showed insufficient agreement, and we do not recommend their use interchangeably. We recommend using the Lea symbols with flanking bars because of the closer flanker-target separation.