Reading Ability of Children Treated for Amblyopia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are previous reports of compromised reading ability in children with amblyopia, but standardized psychoeducational tests have not been used. Standardized tests are normed with a large sample size and are important for assessing the practical consequences of poor reading ability, such as eligibility for reading supports at school. It is also not clear how amblyopia treatment impacts reading ability. Thus, the goal of this study was to use standardized tests to compare binocular reading performance in children treated for amblyopia to that of a large normative sample, as well as to the types of control groups used in previous studies. Children (7-17 years, M = 11.94 years) treated for strabismic or anisometropic amblyopia (N=11) were compared to children treated for strabismus without amblyopia (N=8) and to control children with healthy vision (N=43). Visual acuity (near and distance), intellectual functioning (WJ III COG), single-word reading (TOWRE 2) and paragraph reading (GORT 5) were assessed. The control group performed significantly better than the amblyopic and strabismic groups on both reading tasks, however, mean performance was within the average range for all groups. While mean scores were in the average range, there were 6 children (4 with amblyopia; 2 with strabismus) who performed below average (< 16th percentile) on at least one reading task. Although all children with amblyopia completed occlusion therapy, some still had visual acuity above 0.2 LogMAR, but reading scores were not correlated with visual acuity. Finally, all children had at least average intellectual functioning. Using standardized tests, we found poorer reading performance in children with amblyopia compared to age-matched controls, and several children read at a level that might benefit from reading supports at school. A similar pattern of performance was observed in children with strabismus without amblyopia, suggesting both strabismus and amblyopia can disrupt reading ability. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2017
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".