Comparison of Worth 4-dot test and hole-in-the-card test for the detection of the dominant eye under habitual and best refractive correction

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate 2 tests for detection of the dominant eye - the Worth 4-dot test and the hole-in-the-card test - using habitual and best refractive correction.

Patients and methods: 429 patients without amblyopia were recruited. Refractive error was measured for all patients. Ocular dominance was determined using the hole-in-the-card test and the Worth 4-dot test, using habitual and best refractive correction.

Results: When tested using habitual refractive correction, there was no significant difference in detection of ocular dominance between the Worth 4-dot test and the hole­ i n-the-card test. However, when using best refractive correction, ocular dominance detected by the Worth 4- dot test differed significantly from that detected by the hole-in-the-card test (X 1 = 15. 185; p = 0.001). There was no correlation in the results detected by the 2 tests.

Conclusion: The Worth 4-dot test  and  the hole-in­ the-card test had different ocular dominance results when patients were tested with best refractive correction. This suggests that refractive errors may affect ocular dominance testing.