Subjective Measurement of the Near Point of Accommodation in Pre/Early Literates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to develop a tool and acquire data on subjective accommodation measurements in young children. Previously, subjective measurements of accommodation in children has been assessed with tools requiring literacy or reliable reporting of a blur point with the standard lower age limit of eight years. It was our belief that younger children could yield reliable subjective accommodation measurements given an age appropriate tool. METHOD: We devised a tool (modified tape measure using preliterate symbols) which was compared to our gold standard tool (RAF rule). These tools were compared in a literate group of subjects (N = 34) to assess agreement between the two devises. The modified tape measure was also tested on a pre/early literate group of subjects (N = 51) to assess their ability to respond consistently and to acquire data on subjective accommodation values for children ages three to seven. RESULTS: Literate group-Agreement between the two devises was good with concordance correlation coefficient values of 84 for the right eye and .87 for the left eyes. Greater than .87% of responses for both devices differed by two centimeters or less. Based on the nature of these types of subjective accommodation tests, agreement of within two centimeters indicates good clinical reliability. Pre/ Early Literate group-For the purposes of statistical analysis, the three year olds were not included due to low numbers (N = 5). The four/five year olds (N = 29) and six/seven year olds (N = 17) formed two subgroups for statistical analysis. T test results indicated no significant difference in accommodation amplitudes between a 4-5 year old and 6-7 year subgroups. Evaluation of the best two out of three responses in this group indicated good reliability for most subjects. As a group the mean subjective accommodation amplitude was 9.1 centimeters with a standard deviation of 2.3 centimeters. CONCLUSION: The new tool appears to be safe, effective, acceptable to young children, and comparable to our current tool used for older age groups.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".