ArticlePloS one2019
Characterizing the Randot Preschool stereotest: Testability, norms, reliability, specificity and sensitivity in children aged 2-11 years.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sex as a biological variable in amblyopia: implications for developmental plasticity and treatment.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Review
- Stereoacuity and ocular-associated factors in children aged 3-7 years in Guangxi, Southwest China: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- ASTEROID stereotest v1.0: lower stereo thresholds using smaller, denser and faster dots.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2020Article
- Stereotest Comparison: Efficacy, Reliability, and Variability of a New Glasses-Free Stereotest.Translational vision science & technology · 2020Article
- Percentile curves of stereacuity in a Spanish paediatric population.Journal of optometryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo comprehensively assess the Randot Preschool stereo test in young children, including testability, normative values, test/retest reliability and sensitivity and specificity for detecting binocular vision disorders.
methodsWe tested 1005 children aged 2-11 years with the Randot Preschool stereo test, plus a cover/uncover test to detect heterotropia. Monocular visual acuity was assessed in both eyes using Keeler Crowded LogMAR visual acuity test for children aged 4 and over.
resultsTestability was very high: 65% in two-year-olds, 92% in three-year-olds and ~100% in older children. Normative values: In 389 children aged 2-5 with apparently normal vision, 6% of children scored nil (stereoblind). In those who obtained a threshold, the mean log threshold was 2.06 log10 arcsec, corresponding to 114 arcsec, and the median threshold was 100 arcsec. Most older children score 40 arcsec, the best available score. We found a small sex difference, with girls scoring slightly but significantly better. Test/retest reliability: ~99% for obtaining any score vs nil. Agreement between stereo thresholds is poor in children aged 2-5; 95% limit of agreement = 0.7 log10 arcsec: five-fold change in stereo threshold may occur without any change in vision. In children over 5, the test essentially acts only as a binary classifier since almost all non-stereoblind children score 40 arcsec. Specificity (true negative rate): >95%. Sensitivity (true positive rate): poor, <50%, i.e. around half of children with a demonstrable binocular vision abnormality score well on the Randot Preschool.
conclusionsThe Randot Preschool is extremely accessible for even very young children, and is very reliable at classifying children into those who have any stereo vision vs those who are stereoblind. However, its ability to quantify stereo vision is limited by poor repeatability in children aged 5 and under, and a very limited range of scores relevant to children aged over 5.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.