Repeatability of Associated Phoria Tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: H.J. Haase developed a set of tests for measuring associated phoria and stereopsis using a variety of different targets for each. This testing method is known as the MKH-Haase method and it is used commonly in Germany. The aim of this study was to investigate the test-retest repeatability of the distance and near associated phoria tests for the MKH-Haase charts and other clinical tests. METHODS: Horizontal and vertical associated phorias were measured at distance and near for 34 symptomatic and 40 asymptomatic participants with different tests. The tests are Cross, Pointer, Double Pointer, and Rectangle tests of MKH-Haase charts at distance and near. The other common tests include the Mallett Test and the American Optical (AO) Slide at distance. At near, there are the Mallett Test, the AO Card, the Saladin Card, the Wesson Card, and the Sheedy Disparometer. RESULTS: The 95% limits of agreement for all of the distance horizontal values for the symptomatic group were within ±1.25, except for the AO Slide limits, which were larger by 0.43. The limits of agreement for the asymptomatic group were within ±0.875. At near, the 95% limits of agreement for most of the horizontal associated phoria tests were ±2.00. The exception was the symptomatic group's Sheedy Disparometer limits, which were -4.25 to 5.75. Except for the Disparometer values for the asymptomatic group, the mean between-session differences were not statistically significant different from zero based on the 95% confidence interval. The asymptomatic group's mean Disparometer value was less eso at the second session. The 95% limits of agreement for all of the vertical values at distance and near for both groups were very narrow (i.e., within ±0.375). CONCLUSIONS: Most of the tests showed good repeatability for both subject groups at distance and near, except for the Sheedy Disparometer. The reason for the lower repeatability could be the design of the Disparometer.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".