This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • 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 Web of Science (1)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Burton J. Kushner, MD
Madison, Wis

Arch Ophthalmol. 1995;113(8):971-972.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

In reply

My Editorial¹ was written to emphasize three points. First, grating acuity with Teller Acuity Cards (TACs) is not equivalent to recognition acuity (Snellen acuity). Second, social service criteria for defining vision loss are based on Snellen acuity. Third, consequently, results from the TAC test should not be used to determine whether a preliterate child is legally blind.

I am aware of many instances in which well-meaning clinicians have used TAC results in such a manner. I read nothing in the letter by Dr Fielder and coauthors that contradicts any of these points. Are they suggesting that the Snellen equivalent of TAC results should be used to determine whether a child sees 20/200 or poorer? I doubt it. Numerous studies have shown that grating acuity and recognition acuity are not equivalent.² Are they suggesting that the results obtained with TACs be adjusted by some algorithm and that . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?