A survey of visual function in an Austrian population of school-age children with reading and writing difficulties

WA Dusek, BK PIERSCIONEK, Julie McClelland

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

55 Citations (Scopus)


BackgroundTo describe and compare visual function measures of two groups of school age children (6-14 years of age) attending a specialist eyecare practice in Austria; one group referred to the practice from educational assessment centres diagnosed with reading and writing difficulties and the other, a clinical age-matched control group. MethodsRetrospective clinical data from one group of subjects with reading difficulties (n=825) and a clinical control group of subjects (n=328) were examined. Statistical analysis was performed to determine whether any differences existed between visual function measures from each group (refractive error, visual acuity, binocular status, accommodative function and reading speed and accuracy). ResultsStatistical analysis using one way ANOVA demonstrated no differences between the two groups in terms of refractive error and the size or direction of heterophoria at distance (p>0.05). Using predominately one way ANOVA and chi-square analyses, those subjects in the referred group were statistically more likely to have poorer distance visual acuity, an exophoric deviation at near, a lower amplitude of accommodation, reduced accommodative facility, reduced vergence facility, a reduced near point of convergence, a lower AC/A ratio and a slower reading speed than those in the clinical control group (p
Original languageEnglish
JournalBMC Ophthalmology
Issue number16
Publication statusPublished (in print/issue) - 25 May 2010

Bibliographical note

Reference text: 1. Ethan D, Basch CE. Promoting healthy vision in students: progress and challenges in policy, programs, and research. J Sch Health. 2008, 78:411-416.

2. Goldstand S, Koslowe KC, Parush S. Vision, visual-information processing, and academic performance among seventh-grade schoolchildren: a more significant relationship than we thought? Am J Occup Ther. 2005, 59:377-389.

3. Cass HD, Sonksen PM, McConachie HR. Developmental setback in severe visual impairment. Arch Dis Child. 1994, 70:192-196.

4. Nandakumar K, Leat SJ. Dyslexia: a review of two theories. Clin Exp Optom. 2008, 91:333-340.

5. Lehmkuhle S, Garzia RP, Turner L, Hash T, Baro JA. A defective visual pathway in children with reading disability. N Engl J Med. 1993, 328:989-996.

6. Shovman MM, Ahissar M. Isolating the impact of visual perception on dyslexics' reading ability. Vision Res. 2006, 46:3514-3525.
7. Conlon EG, Sanders MA, Wright CM. Relationships between global motion and global form processing, practice, cognitive and visual processing in adults with dyslexia or visual discomfort. Neuropsychologia. 2009, 47:907-15.
8. Kruk R, Sumbler K, Willows D. Visual processing characteristics of children with Meares-Irlen syndrome. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2008, 28:35-46.
9. Sterner B, Gellerstedt M, Sjostrom A. Accommodation and the relationship to subjective symptoms with near work for young school children. Ophthal. Physiol. Opt. 2006, 26:148–155.

10. Palomo-Alvarez C, Puell MC. Accommodative function in school children with reading difficulties. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol, 2008, 246:1769-1774.

11. Kedzia B, Tondel G, Pieczyrak D, Maples WC. Accommodative facility test results and academic success in Polish second graders. Journal of the American Optometric Association. 1999, 70:110-116.

12.Blika S. Ophthalmological findings in pupils of a primary school with particular reference to reading difficulties. Acta Ophthalmologica. 1982, 60:927-934.

13. Haase HJ. Binocular testing and distance correction with the Berlin Polatest (trnsl. Baldwin, W.). J. Am. Optometry Assoc. 1962, 34:115-125.

14. Bauman HE. Use of the polatest in practice. Ophthalmologica. 1969, 158:612-621

15. Brautaset RL, Jennings JA. Associated phoria and the measuring and correcting methodology after H.-J. Haase (MKH). Strabismus. 2001, 9:165-176.
16. Montes-Micó R, Ferrer-Blasco T. Distribution of refractive errors in Spain Doc Ophthalmol. 2000;101:25-33.
17. Williams C, Northstone K, Howard M, Harvey I, Harrad RA, Sparrow JM. Prevalence and risk factors for common vision problems in children: data from the ALSPAC study. Br J Ophthalmol. 2008, 92:959-64.

18. Goss DA. Clinical accommodation testing. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 1992, 31:78-82.
19. Rutstein RP, Fuhr PD, Swiatocha J. Comparing the amplitude of accommodation determined objectively and subjectively. Optom Vis Sci. 1993;70:496-500.
20. Chen AH, O'Leary DJ, Howell ER. Near visual function in young children. Part I: Near point of convergence. Part II: Amplitude of accommodation. Part III: Near heterophoria.Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2000 20:185-98.
21. Zellers JA, Alpert TL, Rouse MW. A review of the literature and a normative study of accommodative facility. J Am Optom Assoc. 1984, 55:31-7

22. Locke LC, Somers W. A comparison study of dynamic retinoscopy techniques. Optom Vis Sci. 1989, 66:540-544.

23. Gallaway M, Scheiman M, Malhotra K. The effectiveness of pencil pushups treatment for convergence insufficiency: a pilot study. Optom Vis Sci, 2002, 79:265-267.

24. Scheiman, M., M. Gallaway, K.A. Frantz, R.J. Peters, S. Hatch, M. Cuff and G.L. Mitchell. Nearpoint of convergence: test procedure, target selection, and normative data. Optom Vis Sci. 2003, 803:214-225.

25. Gall R, Wick B, Bedell H. Vergence facility: establishing clinical utility. Optom Vis Sci. 1998, 75:731-742.

26. Cooper J, Ciuffreda KJ, Kruger PB. Stimulus and response AC/A ratios in intermittent exotropia of the divergence-excess type. Br J Ophthalmology, 1982, 66:398-404.

27. Landerl K, Wimmer H, Moser E. SLRT Salzburger Lese- und Rechtschreibtest. Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG Bern, 2006, 75.

28. Abdi S, Rydberg A. Asthenopia in schoolchildren, orthoptic and ophthalmological findings and treatment. Doc Ophthalmol. 2005, 111:65-72.

29. Borsting EJ, Rouse MW, Deland PN, Hovett S, Kimura D, Park M, Stephens B. Association of symptoms and convergence and accommodative insufficiency in school-age children. Optometry, 2003a, 74:25-34.

30. Borsting, E.J., Rouse MW, Mitchell GL, Scheiman M, Cotter SA, Cooper J, Kulp MT, London R. Validity and reliability of the revised convergence insufficiency symptom survey in children aged 9 to 18 years. Optom Vis Sci, 2003b, 80:832-8.

31. Scheiman, M, Mitchell GL, Cotter S, Cooper J, Kulp M, Rouse M, Borsting E, London R, Wensveen J. A randomized clinical trial of treatments for convergence insufficiency in children. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005, 123;14-24.

32. Stein J and Fowler S. Effect of monocular occlusion on visuomotor perception and reading in dyslexic children. .The Lancet. July 1985, 69-73.


Dive into the research topics of 'A survey of visual function in an Austrian population of school-age children with reading and writing difficulties'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this