ArticleJournal of optometry
Efficacy of the DEM test as a predictor of reading difficulty.
Article in Journal of optometry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the relationship between the DEM test and reading speed, its diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity), and its usefulness as a screening tool for reading difficulties. We also examined how reading speed is associated with other optometric measures.
methodsA retrospective study was conducted involving children aged 7 and 8 years. Reading speed was assessed using the PROLEC test. The optometric evaluation included visual acuity, stereopsis, accommodative facility, near point of convergence, cover test, retinoscopy, and eye movements assessed with the DEM test. The standard DEM parameters were analyzed. In addition, given the aim of the study, a new outcome variable was introduced: the total time, calculated as the sum of the vertical and adjusted horizontal times.
resultsA total of 48 children participated in the study. When both age groups were analyzed together, all DEM parameters showed significant correlations with reading speed (vertical time, r=-0.52,p < 0.01; adjusted horizontal time, r=-0.63,p < 0.01; ratio, r=-0.48,p < 0.01; and total time, r=-0.58,p < 0.01). The best sensitivity-specificity combination for detecting below-age PROLEC scores was obtained using the adjusted horizontal time (whole sample: 80 %/45 %). AUC ranged from 0.59 (ratio) to 0.79 (total time). A significant association was also found between reading speed and accommodative function (p = 0.02).
conclusionThe application of the DEM test for detecting reading difficulties should be approached with caution. Although DEM results show a correlation with reading speed and demonstrate high sensitivity, specificity remains low regardless of the DEM measure used.
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.