MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Bifocals in Down syndrome study (BiDS): analysis of video recorded sessions of literacy and visual perceptual skills

2011· article· en· W1549412288 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and Experimental Optometry · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphUniversity of Waterloo
FundersUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsAudiologyRepeated measures designPsychologyLiteracyAccommodationPopulationPerceptionLongitudinal studyMedicineDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: In this longitudinal study, a group of school children with Down syndrome (DS) and reduced accommodation were prescribed bifocals and followed to investigate the impact of bifocal spectacles on early literacy and visual perceptual skills. The natural progression of early literacy skills in this population along with the changes with bifocals, described by monthly subtest scores and the time taken to complete literacy and visual perceptual tasks, are reported. METHODS: Fourteen children with DS, aged eight to 18 years, were followed for five months with single vision lenses; 11 were prescribed bifocals based on their accommodative ability and followed for another five months. A battery of reading and visual perceptual tests was administered before and after prescription of bifocals. Monthly subtests of similar tasks were administered to measure progress. All the visits were videotaped to determine the time taken for the child to complete each task. RESULTS: There was no significant measurable natural progression of early literacy skills in this group of participants on the Word Identification (WI) subtest (Repeated Measures ANOVA, F [4, 24]=1.377, p = 0.271) and Dolch sight words (RMANOVA F [4, 24]= 0.344, p = 0.846). In contrast, once bifocals were prescribed there was significant improvement in the scores of the monthly subtests (p = 0.050, 0.025 and 0.023 for WI, Dolch sight words and numbers, respectively) and the rate of progress in monthly scores improved for WI (p = 0.008). Repeated measures Analysis of Variance showed a significant decrease in the completion times with bifocals for the WI test in the full battery of tests (p = 0.0015). There was significant correlation between the improvement in focus with bifocals and the decrease in completion time for the WI task (p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates no significant natural progression over a five-month period in the group of participants with Down syndrome; however, with bifocals, faster and improved performance on some literacy skills was observed. We recommend that bifocals be considered in children with Down syndrome presenting with inadequate accommodation to optimise their educational potential.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.415 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it