Citation information : McAlinden C, Khadka J & Pesudovs K. Statistical methods for conducting agreement (comparison of clinical tests) and precision (repeatability or reproducibility) studies in optometry and ophthalmology. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2011, 31 , 330–338. doi: 10.1111/j.1475‐1313.2011.00851.x The ever‐expanding choice of ocular metrology and imaging equipment has driven research into the validity of their measurements. Consequently, studies of the agreement between two instruments or clinical tests have proliferated in the ophthalmic literature. It is important that researchers apply the appropriate statistical tests in agreement studies. Correlation coefficients are hazardous and should be avoided. The ‘limits of agreement’ method originally proposed by Altman and Bland in 1983 is the statistical procedure of choice. Its step‐by‐step use and practical considerations in relation to optometry and ophthalmology are detailed in addition to sample size considerations and statistical approaches to precision (repeatability or reproducibility) estimates.

Purpose.: To evaluate the precision (repeatability and reproducibility) of the Pentacam HR (high-resolution) tomographer (Oculus, Wetzlar, Germany) across a large range of measurement parameters. Methods.: A randomly selected healthy eye of 100 subjects was scanned twice with the Pentacam HR by one observer for each of the three measurement modes: 25-picture (1 second) scan, 50-picture (2 second) scan, and cornea fine scan (50 pictures in 1 second). The repeatability of each scan mode was assessed. One additional 25-picture scan was acquired by a second observer to test reproducibility. Results.: Overall, the Pentacam HR had good precision, with the cornea fine scan returning the most precise results. The 25- and 50-picture scans showed similar precision. The repeatability limits, expressed as the within-subject SD × 1.96√2 of the anterior keratometry (K)1 and K2 readings with the standard 25-picture scan, were 0.25 and 0.36 D, respectively. Pachymetry maps, corneal maps, anterior chamber depth maps, corneal volume, topometric Q values and indices were also found to be precise. Poor precision was found for estimates of axis (astigmatic and progression index), pupil center pachymetry, single points on corneal maps, refractive power maps, and equivalent K readings. Conclusions.: Measurements taken with the Pentacam HR are repeatable and reproducible, especially those obtained with the cornea fine scan. Although the Pentacam HR is clearly a very useful clinical and research tool, the measurement of corneal axes, pupil center pachymetry, front meridional and axial maps, refractive power maps, and equivalent K readings should be interpreted with caution.

A critical component that influences the measurement properties of a patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument is the rating scale. Yet, there is a lack of general consensus regarding optimal rating scale format, including aspects of question structure, the number and the labels of response categories. This study aims to explore the characteristics of rating scales that function well and those that do not, and thereby develop guidelines for formulating rating scales. Seventeen existing PROs designed to measure vision-related quality of life dimensions were mailed for self-administration, in sets of 10, to patients who were on a waiting list for cataract extraction. These PROs included questions with ratings of difficulty, frequency, severity, and global ratings. Using Rasch analysis, performance of rating scales were assessed by examining hierarchical ordering (indicating categories are distinct from each other and follow a logical transition from lower to higher value), evenness (indicating relative utilization of categories), and range (indicating coverage of the attribute by the rating scale). The rating scales with complicated question format, a large number of response categories, or unlabelled categories, tended to be dysfunctional. Rating scales with five or fewer response categories tended to be functional. Most of the rating scales measuring difficulty performed well. The rating scales measuring frequency and severity demonstrated hierarchical ordering but the categories lacked even utilization. Developers of PRO instruments should use a simple question format, fewer (four to five) and labelled response categories.