Investigating the interchangeability and clinical utility of MVPT-3 and MVPT-4 for 7–10 year children with and without specific learning disabilities

Abstract

The aim of our study was to determine the sensitivity and specificity levels of MVPT-3 and MVPT-4 in 7–10 year children with specific learning disabilities (SLD) and to compare the clinical usability of these assessment tools. This study was designed as a case-controlled study. 96 ( study group = 48, control group = 48) 7–10 year children were included. The study occurred three stages. In the first place, MVPT-3 and MVPT-4 tests were examined with reference to the Core Outcome Set(COS) evaluation criteria. In the second step, the similarities and differences of MVPT-3 and MVPT-4 tests observed in clinical practices were examined by taking the feedback of experts. In the last step, in order to examine the sensitivity and specificity levels of the tests, assessments were performed in two groups with 1-week intervals. According to the COS results; MVPT-3 test was examined better than MVPT-4 test under cross-cultural validity title. The sensitivity and specificity of the MVPT-3 test were 0.68 and 0.77, and the sensitivity and specificity of MVPT-4 test were 0.50 and 0.87 respectively. This study will help clinicians working on children aged 7–10 to decide the type of test they will use to evaluate visual perception processes.

Keywords:

• Clinical utility
• visual perception
• specific learning disability
• MVPT-4
• MVPT-3

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Asst. Prof. Sedef Şahin for the assistance she provided for the continuous development of our social and academic perspective in every stage of our study and Tarık Demirok for his critical point of view the planning stage of our study.

Disclosure statement

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Authors contributions

BK and EA carried out the literature survey, applied for ethical approval and contributed to the development of the data collection methods and analysis plans. BK and EA undertook the data collection process. EK contributed to the analysis process, interpreted the data and contributed to the development of the text. All the authors reviewed and edited the text and eventually approved of the final version.