Aim: To assess the ability of critical flicker frequency (CFF) and optimal reading speed (ORS) to predict the potential vision in patients with cataract with and without ocular comorbidity. Methods: The two novel tests were compared with two well established potential vision tests (PVTs), the potential acuity meter (PAM) and the laser interferometer (LI). Measurements were made preoperatively in 1 eye of 88 subjects using the battery of 4 PVTs. Postoperative measurements were made with the CFF and the ORS. The subjects studied were consecutive cases over a 12-month period who fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and agreed to participate in this study. Results: CFF was the PVT most resistant to the presence of cataract. Both CFF and ORS give a similar predictive precision in the presence of cataract and ocular comorbidity, although CFF seems more precise when the cataract is dense. Conclusions: The PAM and the LI showed a limited clinical capability in predicting postoperative visual acuity, particularly with dense opacities. The CFF shows the most promise as a PVT, particularly with dense cataract. Further evaluation is required for both CFF and ORS.

No / PURPOSE. The Activities of Daily Vision Scale (ADVS) has been extensively validated by traditional methodology. In the current study, Rasch analysis was used to explore further the validity of the ADVS and to determine whether improvements could be made. METHODS. Forty-three patients with cataract underwent visual acuity (VA) and contrast sensitivity (CS) testing and completed the ADVS. The data were Rasch analyzed and the value of response scale and item reduction explored. A shortened version and the original ADVS were tested for criterion validity by determining correlations with VA and CS. RESULTS. The ADVS data contained nonnormally distributed items and items with ceiling effects and empty response categories. Therefore, items benefited from shortening the response scale, the optimum length being three responses. There was poor targeting of item difficulty to patient ability, because many patients with cataract were sufficiently able that they had no difficulty with many activities. Items were eliminated if the task was too easy or did not fit with the overall concept of visual disability determined by the Rasch model. A reduced ADVS version was established that had adequate precision, equivalent criterion validity, and improved targeting of item difficulty to patient ability, but this version was still not ideal. CONCLUSIONS. Despite careful traditional validation, the ADVS data contained inadequacies exposed by Rasch analysis. Through Rasch scaling, particularly with response scale reduction, the ADVS can be improved, but additional questions seem to be needed to suit the more able, including patients undergoing second eye cataract surgery. There remains a need to develop Rasch-scaled measures of visual disability for use in ophthalmic outcomes research.