논문 상세보기
pp.9-18
목적: Auto Ref-Keratometer(ARK-510A: NIDEK Co.)와 Corneal Analyzer(OPD-SCAN Ⅱ: NIDEK Co.)의 임상성능을 분석하고자 하였다. 방법: 안구 내 질병이 없는 33명의 성인(27.42±3.3세)을 선정하였다. 한 명의 검사자가 자동굴절검사(ARK-510A: NIDEK Co. 및 OPD-SCAN Ⅱ: NIDEK Co.)와 자각식 굴절검사를 최소 1일 이상의 간격을 두고 2회(1차와 2차) 실시하였다. 측정값을 J 벡터(M, J0, J45)로 변환하고 신뢰도와 정확도를 평가하였다. 결과: ARK-510A의 test-retest의 평균 차이와 95% 일치구간은 M=-0.027±0.405D(-0.821~0.767D), J0=0.020±0.138D(-0.250~0.290D), J45=-0.002±0.097D(-0.192~0.188D)였고, OPD-SCANⅡ은 M=0.094±0.495D(-0.876~1.064D), J0=0.026±0.138D(-0.244~0.300D), J45=0.002±0.093D(-0.180~0.184D)였다. ARK-510A의 신뢰도계수는 M=0.992, J0=0.976, J45=0.932였고, OPD-SCANⅡ M=0.989, J0=0.967, J45=0.903이었다. 자각식굴절검사값과 ARK-510A 측정값의 평균 차이와 95% 일치구간은 M=0.258±0.600D(-0.918~1.434D), J0=-0.088±0.116D(-0.315~0.139D), J45=-0.009±0.120(-0.244~0.226D)이었고, 자각식굴절검사값과 OPD-SCANⅡ은 M=0.381±0.624D(-0.842~1.604D), J0=0.022±0.098D(-0.170~0.214D), J45=0.001±0.108D(-0.210~0.212D)이었다. 두 기기의 정확도는 M(p=0.006)과 J0(p=0.000)에서 유의한 차이가 있었다. 결론: 자동굴절계(ARK-510A)가 각막분석계(OPD-SCANⅡ)보다 신뢰도와 정확도 모두 우수한 것으로 나타났으며, 임상에서 굴절이상을 측정하기 위해 각막분석계를 유용하게 활용할 수 있을 것으로 사료된다.
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to analyze the concept of vision in optometric point of view described in 7th science curriculum and 48 science textbooks for elementary, middle and high schools in Korea. Methods: Literature analysis method was used for the analysis, which is within the category of qualitative study. Results: There were duplicative explanations of refractive error correction by convex and concave lenses at the Unit `Light` in 7th grade and at the Unit `Stimulus and Response` in 8th grade textbooks. Although there was no problem in a curriculum at the Unit `Light`, it was a conceptual leap for teaching principles of refractive error correction using eye glasses. There were difficulties in understanding the mechanisms of light and shade control of iris and near and distance control of ciliary muscle because of the oversimplified explanation. At the Unit `Mirror and Lens` for 7th grade, it was not proper to explain the principles of refractive error correction right after learning convergence and divergence of light. Furthermore, the reason of refractive error was not consistent with the analysis of principles of refractive errors and their correction. Some textbooks explained the level of concept in reverse order. There were vague explanations at 5th grade textbooks about focal distance and at 7th and 8th grade textbooks about formation process of retinal image. Also, there was an oversimplified explanation of forming image as if it were a pinhole camera. The reason of refractive errors of myopia and hyperopia was inconsistent with explaining the principles of refractive error correction using eye glasses between Physics I and Biology I for 7th, 8th, 10th, and 11th grade. Lastly, there was an oversimplification in describing the mechanisms of light and shade control of iris and near and distance control of ciliary muscle. It only explained the role of a transparent cornea as a route of light regardless of its power. Conclusion: It is needed to keep the appropriateness and connectedness of learning concept through conferences and examinations from the beginning stage of textbook development. Because it is important to connect Physics with Biology in explaining the concept of optometry in science textbooks.
