↓ Skip to main content

Feasibility of the clinical dynamic visual acuity test in typically developing preschoolers

Overview of attention for article published in European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
Title
Feasibility of the clinical dynamic visual acuity test in typically developing preschoolers
Published in
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, February 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00405-018-4919-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Evi Verbecque, Niels De Belder, Tessa Marijnissen, Luc Vereeck, Paul Van de Heyning, Ann Hallemans

Abstract

To determine the feasibility of the dynamic visual acuity test (DVA) in children who are preschoolers. Thirty-three preschoolers [3 years old (n = 11), 4 years old (n = 6), 5 years old (n = 8), and 6 years old (n = 8)], performed a static visual acuity test (SVA), a passive horizontal DVA (hDVA) at 1 and 2 Hz, and a DVA on treadmill at three age-specific walking speeds (slow/medium/high). The DVA scores, the difference between SVA and hDVA, were used to determine false positive results. The SVA was performed by 31/33 children, the hDVA and DVA on treadmill at slow and medium speed by 27/33 and the DVA on treadmill at high speed by 25/33. Except for one 5 years old, all drop-outs were 3 years old. The hDVA at 2 Hz was administered in only six children because of difficulties with focusing on reading the symbols at this frequency. False positive results for the hDVA at 1 Hz were found in 3/27 children, all 3 years old, and 2/6 for the hDVA at 2 Hz. The DVA on treadmill seems useful for preschoolers from age 5, but this should be further investigated in children with underlying pathologies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 13%
Student > Master 4 13%
Researcher 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 11 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 16%
Sports and Recreations 3 9%
Physics and Astronomy 2 6%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 10 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 March 2018.
All research outputs
#13,229,574
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
#847
of 3,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,200
of 330,530 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
#6
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,113 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,530 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.