Glare testing in cataract patients: Instrument evaluation and identification of sources of methodological error

Thomas Prager, Richard G. Urso, Jack T. Holladay, Robert H. Stewart

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

27 Scopus citations


This study sought to determine the relative sensitivity of two commercially available glare testers in predicting outdoor acuity in a population of patients with minimal cataracts. Two target optotypes were evaluated: high contrast letters and varying contrast sinusoidal gratings. Although both instruments demonstrated a significant correlation between indoor and outdoor acuity, they showed a significant difference between predicted outdoor acuity and obtained visual acuity. The brightness acuity tester on high intensity was inaccurate in predicting outdoor vision regardless of test optotype, overpredicting glare disability in 76% (average) of the study population. Glare disability overpredictions fell to 8% on the medium setting with ± 2 lines of vision classified as 'no change'. Using the same criterion, the Miller-Nadler glare tester overpredicted glare disability in 2% of the cataract population but underpredicted glare disability in 62%. In this study, letter optotypes resulted in less variability than sinusoidal grating stimuli. In addition, we identify several methodological factors to consider before designing a glare experiment. These potential sources of error can influence the outcome of any glare study that compares indoor and outdoor acuity and include the study population, visual stimuli (optotypes), and elements of the outdoor testing situation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)149-157
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery
Issue number2
StatePublished - Jan 1 1989


  • cataract
  • contrast
  • glare
  • methodology
  • optotype

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Ophthalmology
  • Sensory Systems


Dive into the research topics of 'Glare testing in cataract patients: Instrument evaluation and identification of sources of methodological error'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this