You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 120 No. 6, June 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Clinical Sciences
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Correction
 • Reply to article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on ISI (5)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related article
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Articles for Residents
 •Alert me on articles by topic

Ocular Malingering

A Surprising Visual Acuity Test

Michael H. Graf, MD; Jens Roesen

Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120:756-760.

Objective  To describe a visual acuity test for use in identifying psychogenic visual impairment and malingering.

Methods  The test contained 32 white plates with a black Landolt C printed in the center. The sequence of the 4 alternative directions of the C was not predictable. After plate 21, 4 circles were interspersed among the remaining plates. The test is administered at a distance from which the subject is presumed to be able to recognize the optotypes. He or she is requested to identify the direction of the C within 2 seconds, and the responses are noted. Two elements were evaluated: (1) The number of correct answers was compared with the corresponding value of the distribution function of the binomial formula that represents the probability of reaching this rate of correct answers by pure chance. (2) The response to the first circle (appearing after plate 21) was compared with the responses to the previous 19 Cs. The test was administered to 20 volunteer pseudomalingerers and 15 patients believed to be true malingerers.

Results  Malingering was detected in 14 (74%) of 19 volunteers included in the evaluation and in 12 (80%) of 15 patients by too many or too few correct answers to the stimuli or by their response to one of the circles.

Conclusions  This test is useful in proving malingering. It may also provide evidence of a minimum visual recognition acuity within the gross dimension of the actual acuity.


From the Department of Ophthalmology, Strabismology, and Neuroophthalmology, University of Giessen, Giessen, Germany.


RELATED ARTICLE

Archives of Ophthalmology Reader's Choice: Continuing Medical Education
Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120(6):876-877.
FULL TEXT  


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Assessment of Alleged Retinal Laser Injuries
Mainster et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 2004;122:1210-1217.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2002 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.