ArticleScientific reports2026
Validity, reliability and precision of a novel virtual reality rod and disk test to assess visual dependence.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
Visual dependence (VD) is heightened in pathologies where balance is compromised. It is measured using the Rod and Disk Test (RDT), traditionally delivered through a personal computer (PC). This restricts settings under which the test can be taken. This study aimed to evaluate validity, reliability and measurement precision of a novel virtual reality (VR) RDT. VD of 15 healthy participants and 15 people with symptomatic hypermobility was assessed using VR- and PC-based RDT to evaluate convergent validity. Assessments were conducted in three head positions. Intra-rater reliability was assessed by measuring VD of 15 healthy participants seven days apart. Convergent validity was evaluated using correlation analysis; intra-rater reliability using intraclass correlation coefficients. Bland-Altman plots assessed agreement, and measurement precision was reported as standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change (MDC). Weak to moderate convergent validity was seen between VR- and PC-based tests, with coefficients of 0.3, 0.4 and 0.3. PC-based RDT showed poor to moderate ICCs; the VR-based RDT demonstrated poor ICCs. SEM and MDC for PC ranged from 0.44-0.47° and 1.23-1.30° respectively; for VR they ranged from 0.65-0.78° and 1.81-2.17° respectively. VR-based RDT demonstrated weak to moderate convergent validity and poor intra-rater reliability.
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.