Detecting Cheating when Testing Vision: Variability in Acuity Measures Reveals Misrepresentation

Ravensbergen, Henrike Rianne J C; Bree, Belle I N A van; Broekens, Douwe M

doi:10.1097/opx.0000000000001227

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The highest priority of our panel was to introduce less subjective testing, because current methods rely on athletes to provide their best effort and honest answers. One approach to increase objectivity in classification is to take into account the consistency of test performance, which may hold promise as an indicator whether or not the athlete provided their best effort and honest answers (Deuble et al, 2016; Ravensbergen et al, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Development of Evidence-Based Classification of Vision Impairment in Judo: A Delphi Study

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Most para-sports group athletes into “classes” to compete against others with similar activity limitations. Judokas with vision impairment (VI) instead all compete in the same class irrespective of their level of impairment. There is considerable controversy whether this approach represents a legitimate way to structure judo competition. The aim of this study was to establish expert opinion on the requirements for an evidence-based classification system for VI judo. Methods: A panel of 18 athletes, coaches, and administrators participated in a three-round Delphi review process. Expert opinions were canvased for a large range of issues related to classification in judo. Between rounds, results were summarized and further questions were asked on topics where consensus was not reached across experts. Results: The panel expressed that: (i) blind and partially sighted athletes should not compete against each other in the same class; (ii) additional measures of visual function might be needed to accurately evaluate an athlete’s impairment; (iii) the minimum impairment criteria (MIC) should represent a more severe level of impairment to ensure that all those included possess a level of VI that indeed decreases performance in judo; and (iv) legitimate competition could be undermined by some athletes intentionally underperforming on classification tests. The panel identified six additional measures of visual function which are not currently measured but are likely to impact judo performance, and six aspects of judo performance which are most likely impacted by VI. Conclusion: Experts in the field of VI judo expressed a need to change the manner in which VI judokas are classified. This study outlines a model for establishing the impairment–performance relationship and guides the development of evidence-based classification for VI judo.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Development of Evidence-Based Classification of Vision Impairment in Judo: A Delphi Study

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another potential limitation of the study is that the measurement of visual acuity and contrast sensitivity relies on the subjective and therefore honest responses of participants. These subjective tests are susceptible to intentional misrepresentation, where a potential athlete may willfully perform poorly to appear as though their vision is worse than it actually is (Ravensbergen et al, 2018; Krabben et al, 2019). A more objective method of measuring visual acuity and contrast sensitivity is desirable because it would reduce the risk of intentional misrepresentation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rifle Shooting for Athletes With Vision Impairment: Does One Class Fit All?

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Revised evidence-based classification criteria introduced for shooting for athletes with vision impairment (VI shooting) suggest that athletes with impaired contrast sensitivity (CS) and visual acuity (VA) should be eligible for inclusion in the sport but should all eligible athletes compete against each other in the same “class” or is more than one class necessary? Twenty-five elite VI shooting athletes took part in the study. Two measures of visual function were assessed under standardized conditions: VA (using an ETDRS logMAR letter chart, and/or a BRVT chart) and CS (using both a Pelli-Robson chart and a Mars number chart). Shooting performance, in both prone and standing events, was measured during an international VI shooting competition. Fourteen of the 25 athletes had measurable VA, and for CS, 8 athletes had measurable function with the Pelli-Robson chart and 13 with the Mars chart. The remaining athletes had function not numerically measurable by the charts and were considered to have no residual vision. There was no indication that shooting performance varied with visual function, and individuals that had residual vision had no advantage over those without vision for either prone or standing shooting. The modifications made to VI shooting, including the use of auditory tones to guide the gun barrel, appear to have successfully rendered the sport equitable for all eligible athletes. Only one class is necessary for athletes. An improved method of measuring CS in athletes with profound VI would be advantageous.

show abstract

“…On-site evaluation with electrophysiology experts who can properly assess visual potential with pattern visual evoked potentials and eletroretinograms 22,56 in addition to recently improved methods for visual acuity assessment 55,57 has improved classification methods for detecting and preventing athlete misrepresentation. For example, Ravensbergen et al 55 have demonstrated how high variability in visual acuity estimations using the tumbling E optotypes of Berkeley Rudimentary Vision Test can be one way to detect intentional misrepresentation. 57 More of these carefully designed investigations that refine the psychophysical methods of accurately determining repeatable visual acuity and visual field estimations for sports classification will indeed minimize opportunities for athletes to malinger.…”

Section: Classification Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The rapid growth of the Paralympic movement has raised the stakes for Paralympians who have a chance at international recognition in addition to monetary awards. Unfortunately, on the rare occasion, athletes may be tempted to cheat or engage in “intentional misrepresentation.” 11,55 This is when athletes feign their diagnosis or severity of their vision impairment to compete in a sport or sport class. Diagnoses like amblyopia, high myopia, and even those that are associated with disorders of the visual pathway can become challenging to distinguish from athlete misrepresentation because we are limited to mainly relying on electrophysiology testing to confirm an eligible impairment.…”

Section: Classification Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Topical Review: Understanding Vision Impairment and Sports Performance through a Look at Paralympic Classification

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SIGNIFICANCE: To provide meaningful competition that is equitable for Paralympic athletes, classification systems are vital to determine which athletes are eligible to compete in adapted forms of sports and to group athletes for competition. Our discussion has important implications to inform how we should approach visual function assessment in sports performance.Sport participation positively benefits individuals with low vision. In particular, adapted sports exist to provide people with visual disabilities an avenue for participating in recreational activity. High-performance low-vision athletes can participate in Paralympic sports but need to be properly classified based on the severity of their vision impairment. The model for Paralympic classification was initiated by Sir Ludwig Guttmann in 1952 in a rehabilitation clinic for soldiers with spinal cord injuries. Today, the International Paralympic Committee mandates that international sports federations develop evidence-based sport-specific classification systems to ensure that eligible disabled athletes have an opportunity for meaningful competition. With the current classification system, only visual acuity and visual field measures are considered to determine an athlete's eligibility to compete, leaving room to expand our understanding of visual function requirements for individual sports. In this topical review, we discuss the origins of Paralympic sports, limitations of current classification methods, and requirements toward achieving evidence-based sport-specific evaluation systems.

show abstract

Detecting Cheating when Testing Vision: Variability in Acuity Measures Reveals Misrepresentation

Abstract: The variability in the estimations of vision provides a promising novel means of detecting the intentional underrepresentation of vision and could help to minimize the chance of successfully cheating on tests of vision.

Cited by 7 publications

References 13 publications

The Development of Evidence-Based Classification of Vision Impairment in Judo: A Delphi Study

The Development of Evidence-Based Classification of Vision Impairment in Judo: A Delphi Study

Rifle Shooting for Athletes With Vision Impairment: Does One Class Fit All?

Topical Review: Understanding Vision Impairment and Sports Performance through a Look at Paralympic Classification

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About