Predictive Validity: Yaw, Active
Unilateral and Bilateral Vestibular Hypofunction (Herdman et al 1998)
- Excellent Sensitivity (94.5%) for identifying vestibular hypofunction in patients vs. healthy controls.
- Excellent Specificity (95.2%) for identifying vestibular hypofunction in patients vs. healthy controls.
- Excellent Positive Predictive Value (96.3%)
- Excellent Negative Predictive Value (93%)
Predictive Validity: Yaw Active and Passive
Unilateral and Bilateral Vestibular Hypofunction (Vital 2010; n= 100 healthy control participants; mean age = 45 (16) years) without otological and neurological disorders; n = 15 patients (mean age, 54 (13) years with unilateral or bilateral peripheral vestibular loss). Study investigators assessed participants at rotational velocities of 100 d/s and 150 d/s using active and passive yaw DVA and scleral search coil.
- High Sensitivity (100%) for identifying unilateral or bilateral vestibular hypofunction in patients vs. healthy controls.
- High Specificity (94%) for identifying unilateral or bilateral vestibular hypofunction in patients vs. healthy controls.
- Passive impulses (z = 2.27) and faster rotational head movement testing velocity (at 150 d/s) (z = 2.08) significantly improved discrimination between control and patient participants; Best between groups discrimination occurred for rapid head movements under passive conditions (z = 2.72).
Bilateral Vestibular Hypofunction and TBI, in healthy controls and pediatric patients (Rine et al 2012; n= 318: n = 301 healthy controls, n = 17; age range 3-85) using ETDRS optotype model.
- Good Sensitivity = 73%
- Good Specificity = 69%.
Predictive Validity: Active Pitch
Unilateral and Bilateral Vestibular Hypofunction (Schubert 2002)
- Poor Sensitivity (23%) patients with UVH
- Adequate Sensitivity (54.5%) patients with BVH
- Excellent Specificity (90%) patients with UVH and BVH
Concurrent Validity
DVA and GST in older adults (Ward et al 2010; n = 40 (n =20 older adults mean age = 76.3 (5.3) years, n= 20 young controls mean age = 25.2 (3.2)
- Good (Spearman’s r = -0.62) Active Yaw
- Fair (Spearman’s r = -0.38) Active Pitch
DVA and Scleral Search Coil in healthy controls and patients with unilateral and bilateral vestibular loss (Vital 2010)
- Excellent (r 2 = 0.72, p < 0.001) Correlation of DVA loss and VOR gain (1 – gaze V/ head V) ) measured during quantitative passive head impulse testing (HIT)
vDVA and rotary chair in patients with vestibular deficits (UVH and BVH) and non-vestibular dizziness (Schubert et al 2002)
Distribution of patient subjects by positive and negative vertical dynamic visual acuity (vDVA) scores.
|
Positive Dx
|
Negative Dx
|
Total # Participants
|
Abnormal vDVA Score
|
DZ = 0
|
DZ = 1
|
|
|
UVH = 3
|
UVH = 0
|
|
|
BVH = 6
|
BVH = 0
|
|
Normal vDVA Score
|
DZ = 0
|
DZ = 9
|
n = 10
|
|
UVH = 10
|
UVH = 0
|
|
|
BVH = 5
|
BVH = 0
|
n = 15
|
Total
|
n = 24
|
N = 10
|
n = 34
|
Key: UVH- Unilateral Vestibular Hypofunction, BVH- Bilateral Vestibular Hypofunction, DZ- dizziness
Positive DX, positive diagnosis (positive caloric and rotary chair test result);
Negative DX, negative diagnosis (negative caloric and rotary chair test result);
Abnormal vDVA, vertical dynamic visual acuity Log-MAR score > 2 SD above the mean for age-matched normal subjects;
Normal vDVA, vDVA (LogMAR) score within 2 SD of the mean for age-matched normal subjects; DZ, nonvestibular dizziness; UVH, unilateral vestibular hypofunction; BVH, bilateral vestibular hypofunction.