Prescribing patterns for paediatric hyperopia among paediatric eye care providers.

PURPOSE: To survey paediatric eye care providers to identify current patterns of prescribing for hyperopia. METHODS: Paediatric eye care providers were invited, via email, to participate in a survey to evaluate current age-based refractive error prescribing practices. Questions were designed to determine which factors may influence the survey participant's prescribing pattern (e.g., patient's age, magnitude of hyperopia, patient's symptoms, heterophoria and stereopsis) and if the providers were to prescribe, how much hyperopic correction would they prescribe (e.g., full or partial prescription). The response distributions by profession (optometry and ophthalmology) were compared using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov cumulative distribution function test. RESULTS: Responses were submitted by 738 participants regarding how they prescribe for their hyperopic patients. Most providers within each profession considered similar clinical factors when prescribing. The percentages of optometrists and ophthalmologists who reported considering the factor often differed significantly. Factors considered similarly by both optometrists and ophthalmologists were the presence of symptoms (98.0%, p = 0.14), presence of astigmatism and/or anisometropia (97.5%, p = 0.06) and the possibility of teasing (8.3%, p = 0.49). A wide range of prescribing was observed within each profession, with some providers reporting that they would prescribe for low levels of hyperopia while others reported that they would never prescribe. When prescribing for bilateral hyperopia in children with age-normal visual acuity and no manifest deviation or symptoms, the threshold for prescribing decreased with age for both professions, with ophthalmologists typically prescribing 1.5-2 D less than optometrists. The threshold for prescribing also decreased for both optometrists and ophthalmologists when children had associated clinical factors (e.g., esophoria or reduced near visual function). Optometrists and ophthalmologists most commonly prescribed based on cycloplegic refraction, although optometrists most commonly prescribed based on both the manifest and cycloplegic refraction for children ≥7 years. CONCLUSION: Prescribing patterns for paediatric hyperopia vary significantly among eye care providers.

Vision Screening, Vision Disorders, and Impacts of Hyperopia in Young Children: Outcomes of the Vision in Preschoolers (VIP) and Vision in Preschoolers - Hyperopia in Preschoolers (VIP-HIP) Studies.

ABSTRACT: This review summarizes clinically relevant outcomes from the Vision in Preschoolers (VIP) and VIP-Hyperopia in Preschoolers (VIP-HIP) studies. In VIP, refraction tests (retinoscopy, Retinomax, SureSight) and Lea Symbols Visual Acuity performed best in identifying children with vision disorders. For lay screeners, Lea Symbols single, crowded visual acuity (VA) testing (VIP, 5-foot) was significantly better than linear, crowded testing (10-foot). Children unable to perform the tests (<2%) were more likely to have vision disorders than children who passed and should be referred for vision evaluation. Among racial/ethnic groups, the prevalence of amblyopia and strabismus was similar while that of hyperopia, astigmatism, and anisometropia varied. The presence of strabismus and significant refractive errors were risk factors for unilateral amblyopia, while bilateral astigmatism and bilateral hyperopia were risk factors for bilateral amblyopia. A greater risk of astigmatism was associated with Hispanic, African American, and Asian race, and myopic and hyperopic refractive error. The presence and severity of hyperopia were associated with higher rates of amblyopia, strabismus, and other associated refractive error. In the VIP-HIP study, compared to emmetropes, meaningful deficits in early literacy were observed in uncorrected hyperopic 4- and 5-year-olds [≥+4.0 diopter (D) or ≥+3.0 D to ≤+6.0 D associated with reduced near visual function (near VA 20/40 or worse; stereoacuity worse than 240")]. Hyperopia with reduced near visual function also was associated with attention deficits. Compared to emmetropic children, VA (distance, near), accommodative accuracy, and stereoacuity were significantly reduced in moderate hyperopes, with the greatest risk in those with higher hyperopia. Increasing hyperopia was associated with decreasing visual function.

The Impact of Hyperopia on Academic Performance Among Children: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To assess the impact of uncorrected hyperopia and hyperopic spectacle correction on children's academic performance. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched 9 electronic databases from inception to July 26, 2021, for studies assessing associations between hyperopia and academic performance. There were no restrictions on language, publication date, or geographic location. A quality checklist was applied. Random-effects models estimated pooled effect size as a standardized mean difference (SMD) in 4 outcome domains: cognitive skills, educational performance, reading skills, and reading speed. (PROSPERO registration: CRD-42021268972). RESULTS: Twenty-five studies (21 observational and 4 interventional) out of 3415 met the inclusion criteria. No full-scale randomized trials were identified. Meta-analyses of the 5 studies revealed a small but significant adverse effect on educational performance in uncorrected hyperopic compared to emmetropic children {SMD -0.18 [95% confidence interval (CI), -0.27 to -0.09]; P < 0.001, 4 studies} and a moderate negative effect on reading skills in uncorrected hyperopic compared to emmetropic children [SMD -0.46 (95% CI, -0.90 to -0.03); P = 0.036, 3 studies]. Reading skills were significantly worse in hyperopic than myopic children [SMD -0.29 (95% CI, -0.43 to -0.15); P < 0.001, 1 study]. Qualitative analysis on 10 (52.6%) of 19 studies excluded from meta-analysis found a significant (P < 0.05) association between uncorrected hyperopia and impaired academic performance. Two interventional studies found hyperopic spectacle correction significantly improved reading speed (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence indicates that uncorrected hyperopia is associated with poor academic performance. Given the limitations of current methodologies, further research is needed to evaluate the impact on academic performance of providing hyperopic correction.

Detection of Significant Hyperopia in Preschool Children Using Two Automated Vision Screeners.

SIGNIFICANCE: Moderate to high uncorrected hyperopia in preschool children is associated with amblyopia, strabismus, reduced visual function, and reduced literacy. Detecting significant hyperopia during screening is important to allow children to be followed for development of amblyopia or strabismus and implementation of any needed ophthalmic or educational interventions. PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the sensitivity and specificity of two automated screening devices to identify preschool children with moderate to high hyperopia. METHODS: Children in the Vision in Preschoolers (VIP) study were screened with the Retinomax Autorefractor (Nikon, Inc., Melville, NY) and Plusoptix Power Refractor II (Plusoptix, Nuremberg, Germany) and examined by masked eye care professionals to detect the targeted conditions of amblyopia, strabismus, or significant refractive error, and reduced visual acuity. Significant hyperopia (American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus definition of hyperopia as an amblyopia risk factor), based on cycloplegic retinoscopy, was >4.00 D for age 36 to 48 months and >3.50 D for age older than 48 months. Referral criteria from VIP for each device and from a distributor (PediaVision) for the Power Refractor II were applied to screening results. RESULTS: Among 1430 children, 132 children had significant hyperopia in at least one eye. Using the VIP referral criteria, sensitivities for significant hyperopia were 80.3% for the Retinomax and 69.7% for the Power Refractor II (difference, 10.6%; 95% confidence interval, 7.0 to 20.5%; P = .04); specificities relative to any targeted condition were 89.9 and 89.1%, respectively. Using the PediaVision referral criteria for the Power Refractor, sensitivity for significant hyperopia was 84.9%; however, specificity relative to any targeted condition was 78.3%, 11.6% lower than the specificity for the Retinomax. Analyses using the VIP definition of significant hyperopia yielded results similar to when the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus definition was used. DISCUSSION: When implementing vision screening programs for preschool children, the potential for automated devices that use eccentric photorefraction to either miss detecting significant hyperopia or increase false-positive referrals must be taken into consideration.

COVID-19 Outbreaks in Correctional Facilities with Work-Release Programs - Idaho, July-November 2020.

As of April 16, 2021, U.S. correctional and detention facilities reported 399,631 cases of COVID-19 in incarcerated persons, resulting in 2,574 deaths (1). During July 14-November 30, 2020, COVID-19 was diagnosed in 382 persons incarcerated in Idaho correctional facilities with work-release programs. Work-release programs (which place incarcerated persons in community businesses) have social and economic benefits, but might put participants at increased risk for bidirectional transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. The Idaho Department of Correction (IDOC) operates 13 state-run correctional facilities, including six low-security facilities dedicated to work-release programs. This report describes COVID-19 outbreaks in five IDOC facilities with work-release programs,* provides the mitigation strategies that IDOC implemented, and describes the collaborative public health response. As of November 30, 2020, 382 outbreak-related COVID-19 cases were identified among incarcerated persons in five Idaho correctional facilities with work-release programs; two outbreaks were linked to food processing plants. Mitigation strategies that helped to control outbreaks in IDOC facilities with work-release programs included isolation of persons with COVID-19, identification and quarantine of close contacts, mass testing of incarcerated persons and staff members, and temporary suspension of work-release programs. Implementation of public health recommendations for correctional and detention facilities with work-release programs, including mass testing and identification of high-risk work sites, can help mitigate SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks. Incarcerated persons participating in work-release should be included in COVID-19 vaccination plans.

Associations between visual function and magnitude of refractive error for emmetropic to moderately hyperopic 4- and 5-year-old children in the Vision in Preschoolers - Hyperopia in Preschoolers Study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate associations between visual function and the level of uncorrected hyperopia in 4- and 5-year-old children without strabismus or amblyopia. METHODS: Children with spherical equivalent (SE) cycloplegic refractive error of -0.75 to +6.00 on eligibility testing for the Vision in Preschoolers-Hyperopia in Preschoolers (VIP-HIP) study were included. Children were grouped as emmetropic (<1D SE myopia or hyperopia), low hyperopic (+1 to <+3D SE) or moderate hyperopic (+3 to +6D SE). Children with anisometropia or astigmatism (≥1D), amblyopia or strabismus were excluded. Visual functions assessed were monocular distance visual acuity (VA) and binocular near VA with crowded HOTV charts, accommodative lag using the Monocular Estimation Method and near stereoacuity by 'Preschool Assessment of Stereopsis with a Smile'. Visual functions were compared as continuous measures among refractive error groups. RESULTS: 554 children (mean age 58 months) were included in the analysis. Mean SE (SD) {N} for emmetropia, low and moderate hyperopia were +0.52D (0.49) {N = 270}, +2.18D (0.57) {N = 171} and +3.95D (0.78) {N = 113}, respectively. There was a consistent trend of poorer visual function with increasing hyperopia (p < 0.001). Although all children had age-normal distance VA, logMAR (Snellen) VA of 0.00 (6/6) or better was achieved (distance, near) among more emmetropic (52%, 26%) and low hyperopic (47%, 15%) children than moderate hyperopes (25%, 9%). Mean (SD) distance logMAR VA declined from emmetropic 0.05 (0.10), to low hyperopic 0.06 (0.10) to moderately hyperopic children 0.12 (0.11) (p < 0.001); A mild progressive decrease in near VA also was observed from the emmetropic 0.13 (0.11) to low hyperopic 0.15 (0.10) to moderate hyperopic 0.19 (0.11) groups, (p < 0.001). Accommodative responses showed an increased lag with increasing hyperopia (ρ = 0.50, p < 0.001). Median near stereoacuity for emmetropes, low and moderate hyperopes was 40, 60 and 120 sec arc, respectively. The percentage of these groups with no reduced near visual functions was 83%, 61%, and 34%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Decreasing visual function was associated with increasing hyperopia in 4- and 5-year-olds without strabismus or amblyopia. As hyperopia with reduced visual function has been associated with early literacy deficits, near visual function should be evaluated in these children.

Detection of Amblyogenic Refractive Error Using the Spot Vision Screener in Children.

SIGNIFICANCE: Vision screenings are conducted to detect significant refractive errors, amblyopia, and ocular diseases. Vision screening devices are desired to have high testability, sensitivity, and specificity. Spot has demonstrated high testability, but previous reports suggest that the Spot has low sensitivity for detecting amblyogenic hyperopia and moderate sensitivity for amblyogenic astigmatism. PURPOSE: This study assessed the concurrent validity of detecting amblyogenic refractive errors by the Spot (v.1.1.50; Welch Allyn Inc., Skaneateles Falls, NY) compared with cycloplegic retinoscopy. METHODS: A total of 475 subjects (24 to 96 months) were screened by Spot and then received a masked comprehensive examination. Sensitivity and specificity, Bland-Altman plot, receiver operating characteristic area under the curve, and paired t test were evaluated by comparing the results of the Spot (v1.1.50) using the manufacturer referral criteria with the results of the comprehensive examination using the 2013 American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus criteria. RESULTS: The Spot (v.1.1.50) referred 107 subjects (22.53%) for the following: 18.73% (89/475) astigmatism, 4.63% (22/475) myopia, 0.42% (2/475) hyperopia, and 2.11% (10/475) anisometropia. The sensitivity and specificity of the Spot vision screener for detecting amblyogenic risk factors were 86.08% (95% confidence interval [CI], 76.45 to 92.84%) and 90.15% (95% CI, 86.78 to 92.90%). Areas under the curve were 0.906 (95% CI, 0.836 to 0.976) for hyperopia, 0.887 (95% CI, 0.803 to 0.972) for spherical equivalent, and 0.914 (95% CI, 0.866 to 0.962) for astigmatism. A modified hyperopia criteria cutoff of greater than +1.06 D improved the sensitivity from 25 to 80% with 90% specificity. The current cutoff criterion, greater than -1.75 D, for astigmatism seemed optimal. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that the Spot vision screener accurately detects low spherical refractive errors and astigmatism. Lowering the hyperopia cutoff criteria from the current Spot screener referral criteria improves the sensitivity with desired (high) specificity.

A Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Wearing Adjustable Glasses versus Standard and Ready-made Spectacles among Chinese Schoolchildren: Wearability and Evaluation of Adjustable Refraction III.

PURPOSE: To compare wear of standard, adjustable, and ready-made glasses among children. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled, open-label, noninferiority trial. PARTICIPANTS: Students aged 11 to 16 years with presenting visual acuity (VA) ≤6/12 in both eyes, correctable to ≥6/7.5, subjective spherical equivalent refractive error (SER) ≤-1.0 diopters (D), astigmatism and anisometropia both <2.00 D, and no other ocular abnormalities. METHODS: Participants were randomly allocated (1:1:1) to standard glasses, ready-made glasses, or adjustable glasses based on self-refraction. We recorded glasses wear on twice-weekly covert evaluation by head teachers (primary outcome), self-reported and investigator-observed wear, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) (not prespecified), children's satisfaction, and value attributed to glasses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Proportion of glasses wear on twice-weekly covert evaluation by head teachers over 2 months. RESULTS: Among 379 eligible participants, 127 were allocated to standard glasses (mean age, 13.7 years; standard deviation [SD], 1.0 years; 54.3% were male), 125 to ready-made (mean age, 13.6; SD, 0.83; 45.6%), and 127 to adjustable (mean age, 13.4 years; SD, 0.85; 54.3%). Mean wear proportion of adjustable glasses was significantly lower than for standard glasses (45% vs. 58%; P = 0.01), although the adjusted difference (90% confidence interval [CI], -19.0% to -3.0%) did not meet the prespecified inferiority threshold of 20%. Self-reported (90.2% vs. 84.8%, P = 0.64) and investigator-observed (44.1% vs. 33.9%, P = 0.89) wear did not differ between standard and adjustable glasses, nor did satisfaction with (P = 0.97) or value attributed to study glasses (P = 0.55) or increase in quality of life (5.53 [SD, 4.47] vs. 5.68 [SD, 4.34] on a 100-point scale, P > 0.30). Best-corrected visual acuity with adjustable glasses was better (P < 0.001) than with standard glasses. Change in power of study lenses at the end of the study (adjustable: 0.65 D, 95% CI, 0.52-0.79; standard, 0.01 D; 95% CI, -0.006 to 0.03, P < 0.001) was greater for adjustable glasses, although interobserver variation in power measurements may explain this. Lens scratches and frame damage were more common with adjustable glasses, whereas lens breakage was less common than for standard glasses. CONCLUSIONS: Proportion of wear was lower with adjustable glasses, although VA was better and measures of satisfaction and quality of life were not inferior to standard glasses.

Validity of the Spot Vision Screener in detecting vision disorders in children 6 months to 36 months of age.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the Spot Vision Screener in detecting targeted vision disorders compared to cycloplegic retinoscopy in children <3 years of age. METHODS: Children, ages 6 months to 36 months underwent vision screening using the Spot Vision Screener. Results were compared to results of comprehensive eye examinations. Validity of the Spot was evaluated by calculating the area under the curve (AUC); the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) were used to determine optimal sensitivity and specificity for detection of targeted vision disorders. RESULTS: A total of 249 children were included. The AUC for detecting targeted vision disorders as defined by the study specific criteria using the Spot was 0.790. Compared to cycloplegic retinoscopy, the Spot underestimated hyperopia by 1.02 D (95% CI, 0.86-1.17 D). For hyperopia ≥4.5 D spherical equivalent (n = 10), the mean difference between the Spot and cycloplegic retinoscopy was 3.46 D (95% CI, 1.95-4.98 D). In contrast, the Spot overestimated astigmatism compared to cycloplegic retinoscopy (-1.00 D vs -0.48 D; P < 0.001) by -0.52 D (95% CI, 0.43-0.62 D). CONCLUSIONS: The Spot Vision Screener showed good overall validity in detecting targeted vision disorders. It was within 0.5 D and 1 D of cycloplegic retinoscopy with regard to low hyperopia and astigmatism. Higher hyperopic spherical equivalent refractive errors showed larger differences in mean values between the Spot and cycloplegic retinoscopy.

Evidence-based preschool-age vision screening: health policy considerations.

BACKGROUND: There are many causes of visual impairment, and even blindness, which are treatable or at least preventable. Two such conditions are strabismus (crossed-eye, squint) and refractive error (visual image not focused on the most sensitive part of the retina). If these are not detected and corrected at an early age, they can lead to an irreversible impairment known as amblyopia (lazy eye). Pediatric vision screening and subsequent treatment for amblyopia and amblyogenic risk factors are thus key to preventing vision loss. Furthermore, vision screening can detect moderate to high hyperopia, which has been found to be associated with poor school readiness. Evidence-based recommendations call for screening children at 3-5 years of age; they are old enough to cooperate, but still within the window of effective intervention. However, these recommendations have yet to be universally implemented as the standard of care. METHODS: This paper integrates a review of the literature and the international experience of preschool vision screening with the findings from a preliminary feasibility study of expanded screening in Israel to formulate a discussion of the current health policy challenge in Israel and the options for addressing it. The advantages and disadvantages of various venues for vision screening are discussed. FINDINGS: Screening by optometrists in Mother and Child Health Centers, as implemented in a recent pilot project in the Jerusalem District, would allow the most comprehensive testing. Photo-screening in preschools would reach the most children, but at the cost of missing hyperopia (farsightedness). Either approach would probably constitute improvements over the current situation. The relative strengths of the two approaches depends in part on the ability to purchase automatic screening equipment (and the efficacy of that equipment) vs. the ongoing cost of paying trained personnel. CONCLUSIONS: Further research should be conducted in Israel to determine the prevalence of refractive errors, so that best practices can be established for Israel's population and social needs. In the interim, the Ministry of Health should promptly implement the inclusion of preschool visions screening for children in the approved "basket of services" covered by the National Health Insurance Laws, using photo-screening, including collection of the clinical data.

An Eye on Vision: Seven Questions About Vision Screening and Eye Health-Part 4.

Current evidence-based and best-practice vision screening and eye health approaches, tools, and procedures are the result of revised national guidelines in the past 3 years and advances in research during the past 18 years. To help the busy school nurse with little time to keep up with changes in children's vision practices and a growing body of literature, the National Center for Children's Vision and Eye Health at Prevent Blindness is providing answers to seven questions that are often received from the field. Topical areas are (1) instrument-based screening and stereopsis, (2) optotype-based screening if child is referred from instrument-based screening, (3) next steps if a student's glasses are scratched or broken, (4) critical line screening with a threshold eye chart, (5) full threshold screening if student does not pass critical line screening, (6) holding a ruler beneath line of optotypes to identify, and (7) convergence insufficiency screening in the school setting.

An Eye on Vision: Five Questions About Vision Screening and Eye Health-Part 3.

Current evidence-based and best practice vision screening and eye health approaches, tools, and procedures are the result of revised national guidelines in the past 3 years and advances in research during the past 18 years. To help the busy school nurse with little time to keep up with changes in children's vision practices and a growing body of literature, the National Center for Children's Vision and Eye Health at Prevent Blindness is providing answers to five questions that are often received from the field. Topical areas are: (1) instrument-based screening for children ages 6 years and older, (2) stereoacuity screening and Random Dot E, (3) binocular distance visual acuity screening, (4) a 2-line difference between the eyes as part of referral criteria, and (5) state vision screening guidelines excluding evidence-based tools.

An Eye on Vision: Five Questions About Vision Screening and Eye Health-Part 2.

Current evidence-based and best practice vision screening and eye health approaches, tools, and procedures are the result of revised national guidelines in the last 3 years and advances in research during the past 18 years. To help the busy school nurse, with little time to keep up with changes in children's vision practices and a growing body of literature, the National Center for Children's Vision and Eye Health at Prevent Blindness is providing answers to five questions that are often received from the field. Topical areas include (1) which numbers to record when using a 10-foot chart, (2) instrument-based screening and visual acuity, (3) screening children who wear glasses, (4) referring children who do not pass color vision deficiency screening, and (5) conducting near visual acuity screening monocularly or binocularly.

An Eye on Vision: Five Questions About Vision Screening and Eye Health.

Current evidence-based and best-practice vision screening and eye health approaches, tools, and procedures are the result of revised national guidelines in the past 3 years and advances in research during the past 18 years. In providing answers to the five questions in this article, the National Center for Children's Vision and Eye Health at Prevent Blindness used published, peer-reviewed research; vision screening and eye health national guidelines; and consensus-based best practices from eye care professionals and public health experts. The answers may differ from your state or district vision screening guidelines and mandates. This is the second installment of the "An Eye on Vision" frequently asked questions section that will appear in future editions of NASN School Nurse. To review the first installment, see the March 2018 edition of NASN School Nurse. The authors encourage vision screeners to submit their vision screening and eye health questions to the email address that appears at the end of this article.

An Eye on Vision: 20 Questions About Vision Screening and Eye Health.

Current evidence-based and best practice vision screening and eye health approaches, tools, and procedures are the result of revised national guidelines in the past 3 years and advances in research during the last 16 years. To help the busy school nurse with little time to keep up with changes in children's vision practices and a growing body of literature, the National Center for Children's Vision and Eye Health at Prevent Blindness is providing answers to 20 questions received most often from the field. Question topics are: (1) arranging the screening environment, (2) occluders to cover the eyes during vision screening, (3) optotype-based screening at distance, (4) optotype-based screening at near, (5) instrument-based screening, (6) muscle imbalance screening, (7) referrals, and (8) vision screening certification.

Attention and Visual Motor Integration in Young Children with Uncorrected Hyperopia.

SIGNIFICANCE: Among 4- and 5-year-old children, deficits in measures of attention, visual-motor integration (VMI) and visual perception (VP) are associated with moderate, uncorrected hyperopia (3 to 6 diopters [D]) accompanied by reduced near visual function (near visual acuity worse than 20/40 or stereoacuity worse than 240 seconds of arc). PURPOSE: To compare attention, visual motor, and visual perceptual skills in uncorrected hyperopes and emmetropes attending preschool or kindergarten and evaluate their associations with visual function. METHODS: Participants were 4 and 5 years of age with either hyperopia (≥3 to ≤6 D, astigmatism ≤1.5 D, anisometropia ≤1 D) or emmetropia (hyperopia ≤1 D; astigmatism, anisometropia, and myopia each <1 D), without amblyopia or strabismus. Examiners masked to refractive status administered tests of attention (sustained, receptive, and expressive), VMI, and VP. Binocular visual acuity, stereoacuity, and accommodative accuracy were also assessed at near. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and parent's/caregiver's education. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-four hyperopes (mean, +3.8 ± [SD] 0.8 D) and 248 emmetropes (+0.5 ± 0.5 D) completed testing. Mean sustained attention score was worse in hyperopes compared with emmetropes (mean difference, -4.1; P < .001 for 3 to 6 D). Mean Receptive Attention score was worse in 4 to 6 D hyperopes compared with emmetropes (by -2.6, P = .01). Hyperopes with reduced near visual acuity (20/40 or worse) had worse scores than emmetropes (-6.4, P < .001 for sustained attention; -3.0, P = .004 for Receptive Attention; -0.7, P = .006 for VMI; -1.3, P = .008 for VP). Hyperopes with stereoacuity of 240 seconds of arc or worse scored significantly worse than emmetropes (-6.7, P < .001 for sustained attention; -3.4, P = .03 for Expressive Attention; -2.2, P = .03 for Receptive Attention; -0.7, P = .01 for VMI; -1.7, P < .001 for VP). Overall, hyperopes with better near visual function generally performed similarly to emmetropes. CONCLUSIONS: Moderately hyperopic children were found to have deficits in measures of attention. Hyperopic children with reduced near visual function also had lower scores on VMI and VP than emmetropic children.