Color vision screening for individuals with intellectual disabilities: A comparison between the Neitz Test of Color Vision and Color Vision Testing Made Easy™

BackgroundThe Neitz Test of Color Vision (Neitz) and Color Vision Testing Made Easy™ (CVTME) were compared to determine which test was more effective in evaluating patients with intellectual disability (i.e., mental retardation) and developmental delay.MethodsTwo hundred eight Special Olympics floor hockey athletes were screened in San Diego, California, and 93 athletes were screened in Long Beach, California for a total of 301 athletes. Each athlete was administered the CVTME and the Neitz tests.ResultsThe pass rate for the CVTME was 94.6% (n = 93) at Long Beach and 96.2% (n = 208) at San Diego. Every athlete was able to complete the CVTME. The pass rate for the Neitz was 38.7% at Long Beach and 56.7% at San Diego. Additionally, 10.8% of the Long Beach athletes and 12.5% of the San Diego athletes were unable to understand the Neitz. In addition, there was a low level of agreement between the results from the 2 tests with kappa = 0.081 for the San Diego data and 0.028 for the Long Beach data.ConclusionsThis study suggests that the CVTME continues to be the screening test of choice in evaluating color vision in individuals with intellectual disability. The Neitz had more failing scores on the first attempt and more total failing scores leading to over-referrals, making it an inappropriate screening test for individuals with intellectual disability and developmental delay.