Astigmatism and early academic readiness in preschool children.

PURPOSE: This study investigated the relationship between uncorrected astigmatism and early academic readiness in at-risk preschool-aged children. METHODS: A vision screening and academic records review were performed on 122 three- to five-year-old children enrolled in the Philadelphia Head Start program. Vision screening results were related to two measures of early academic readiness, the teacher-reported Work Sampling System (WSS) and the parent-reported Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ). Both measures assess multiple developmental and skill domains thought to be related to academic readiness. Children with astigmatism (defined as >|-0.25| in either eye) were compared with children who had no astigmatism. Associations between astigmatism and specific subscales of the WSS and ASQ were examined using parametric and nonparametric bivariate statistics and regression analyses controlling for age and spherical refractive error. RESULTS: Presence of astigmatism was negatively associated with multiple domains of academic readiness. Children with astigmatism had significantly lower mean scores on Personal and Social Development, Language and Literacy, and Physical Development domains of the WSS, and on Personal/Social, Communication, and Fine Motor domains of the ASQ. These differences between children with astigmatism and children with no astigmatism persisted after statistically adjusting for age and magnitude of spherical refractive error. Nonparametric tests corroborated these findings for the Language and Literacy and Physical Health and Development domains of the WSS and the Communication domain of the ASQ. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of astigmatism detected in a screening setting was associated with a pattern of reduced academic readiness in multiple developmental and educational domains among at-risk preschool-aged children. This study may help to establish the role of early vision screenings, comprehensive vision examinations, and the need for refractive correction to improve academic success in preschool children.

Reliability of the developmental eye movement test.

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the repeatability of the Developmental Eye Movement Test (DEM) with three consecutive administrations on two separate visits to 181 children between the ages of 6 years and 11 years 11 months. METHODS: Children with visual acuity of ≥ 20/25, normal binocularity, and accommodation were administered three different versions of the DEM test. One to 4 weeks after the first administration of the DEM, the children were tested again using the same order for the three versions of the DEM. Measures of within- and between-session repeatability for the vertical-adjusted time, horizontal-adjusted time, ratio, and error scores were determined. RESULTS: The within-session repeatability for vertical- and horizontal-adjusted time were good to excellent but were poor to good for ratio, and poor to fair for errors. The between-session intraclass correlation coefficients were fair to good for both the vertical and horizontal scores but poor for the ratio and error scores. The repeatability of the pass-fail diagnostic classification within a single session for each subject on test and retest was compared. The percentage of patients who remained in the same classification ranged from 71 to 100% for both vertical and horizontal scores. Wider variability was seen with the ratio and error scores showing between 47 and 100% of the children remaining classified as pass or fail with repeated administrations of the DEM. Such findings would suggest that children in this age range may show improvements in all four test scores without any intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Although the DEM is widely used in optometric practice, the results of this study suggest that clinicians should be cautious about using the DEM test in isolation for reaching a diagnosis or monitoring the effectiveness of treatment for saccadic dysfunction.

Visual Function of Moderately Hyperopic 4- and 5-Year-Old Children in the Vision in Preschoolers - Hyperopia in Preschoolers Study.

PURPOSE: To compare visual performance between emmetropic and uncorrected moderately hyperopic preschool-age children without strabismus or amblyopia. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: setting: Multicenter, institutional. patient or study population: Children aged 4 or 5 years. intervention or observation procedures: Visual functions were classified as normal or reduced for each child based on the 95% confidence interval for emmetropic individuals. Hyperopic (≥3.0 diopters [D] to ≤6.0 D in the most hyperopic meridian; astigmatism ≤1.50 D; anisometropia ≤1.0 D) and emmetropic status were determined by cycloplegic autorefraction. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Uncorrected monocular distance and binocular near visual acuity (VA); accommodative response; and near random dot stereoacuity. RESULTS: Mean (± standard deviation) logMAR distance visual acuity (VA) among 248 emmetropic children was better than among 244 hyperopic children for the better (0.05 ± 0.10 vs 0.14 ± 0.11, P < .001) and worse eyes (0.10 ± 0.11 vs 0.19 ± 0.10, P < .001). Mean binocular logMAR near VA was better in emmetropic than in hyperopic children (0.13 ± 0.11 vs 0.21 ± 0.11, P < .001). Mean accommodative response for emmetropic children was lower than for hyperopic subjects for both Monocular Estimation Method (1.03 ± 0.51 D vs 2.03 ± 1.03 D, P < .001) and Grand Seiko (0.46 ± 0.45 D vs 0.99 ± 1.0 D, P < .001). Median near stereoacuity was better in emmetropic than in than hyperopic children (40 sec arc vs 120 sec arc, P < .001). The average number of reduced visual functions was lower in emmetropic than in hyperopic children (0.19 vs 1.0, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: VA, accommodative response, and stereoacuity were significantly reduced in moderate uncorrected hyperopic preschool children compared to emmetropic subjects. Those with higher hyperopia (≥4 D to ≤6 D) were at greatest risk, although more than half of children with lower magnitudes (≥3 D to <4 D) demonstrated 1 or more reductions in function.