Dataset Information

Uncorrected Hyperopia and Preschool Early Literacy: Results of the Vision in Preschoolers-Hyperopia in Preschoolers (VIP-HIP) Study.

ABSTRACT: To compare early literacy of 4- and 5-year-old uncorrected hyperopic children with that of emmetropic children.Cross-sectional.Children attending preschool or kindergarten who had not previously worn refractive correction.Cycloplegic refraction was used to identify hyperopia (?3.0 to ?6.0 diopters [D] in most hyperopic meridian of at least 1 eye, astigmatism ?1.5 D, anisometropia ?1.0 D) or emmetropia (hyperopia ?1.0 D; astigmatism, anisometropia, and myopia <1.0 D). Threshold visual acuity (VA) and cover testing ruled out amblyopia or strabismus. Accommodative response, binocular near VA, and near stereoacuity were measured.Trained examiners administered the Test of Preschool Early Literacy (TOPEL), composed of Print Knowledge, Definitional Vocabulary, and Phonological Awareness subtests.A total of 492 children (244 hyperopes and 248 emmetropes) participated (mean age, 58 months; mean ± standard deviation of the most hyperopic meridian, +3.78±0.81 D in hyperopes and +0.51±0.48 D in emmetropes). After adjustment for age, race/ethnicity, and parent/caregiver's education, the mean difference between hyperopes and emmetropes was -4.3 (P = 0.01) for TOPEL overall, -2.4 (P = 0.007) for Print Knowledge, -1.6 (P = 0.07) for Definitional Vocabulary, and -0.3 (P = 0.39) for Phonological Awareness. Greater deficits in TOPEL scores were observed in hyperopic children with ?4.0 D than in emmetropes (-6.8, P = 0.01 for total score; -4.0, P = 0.003 for Print Knowledge). The largest deficits in TOPEL scores were observed in hyperopic children with binocular near VA of 20/40 or worse (-8.5, P = 0.002 for total score; -4.5, P = 0.001 for Print Knowledge; -3.1, P = 0.04 for Definitional Vocabulary) or near stereoacuity of 240 seconds of arc or worse (-8.6, P < 0.001 for total score; -5.3, P < 0.001 for Print Knowledge) compared with emmetropic children.Uncorrected hyperopia ?4.0 D or hyperopia ?3.0 to ?6.0 D associated with reduced binocular near VA (20/40 or worse) or reduced near stereoacuity (240 seconds of arc or worse) in 4- and 5-year-old children enrolled in preschool or kindergarten is associated with significantly worse performance on a test of early literacy.

SUBMITTER: VIP-HIP Study Group

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4808323 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Uncorrected Hyperopia and Preschool Early Literacy: Results of the Vision in Preschoolers-Hyperopia in Preschoolers (VIP-HIP) Study.

Kulp Marjean Taylor MT Ciner Elise E Maguire Maureen M Moore Bruce B Pentimonti Jill J Pistilli Maxwell M Cyert Lynn L Candy T Rowan TR Quinn Graham G Ying Gui-Shuang GS

Ophthalmology 20160127 4

<h4>Purpose</h4>To compare early literacy of 4- and 5-year-old uncorrected hyperopic children with that of emmetropic children.<h4>Design</h4>Cross-sectional.<h4>Participants</h4>Children attending preschool or kindergarten who had not previously worn refractive correction.<h4>Methods</h4>Cycloplegic refraction was used to identify hyperopia (≥3.0 to ≤6.0 diopters [D] in most hyperopic meridian of at least 1 eye, astigmatism ≤1.5 D, anisometropia ≤1.0 D) or emmetropia (hyperopia ≤1.0 D; astigmat ...[more]

PMID: 26826748

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo compare visual performance between emmetropic and uncorrected moderately hyperopic preschool-age children without strabismus or amblyopia.DesignCross-sectional study.Methodssetting: Multicenter, institutional. patient or study population: Children aged 4 or 5 years. intervention or observation procedures: Visual functions were classified as normal or reduced for each child based on the 95% confidence interval for emmetropic individuals. Hyperopic (≥3.0 diopters [D] to ≤6.0 D in the most hyperopic meridian; astigmatism ≤1.50 D; anisometropia ≤1.0 D) and emmetropic status were determined by cycloplegic autorefraction.Main outcome measuresUncorrected monocular distance and binocular near visual acuity (VA); accommodative response; and near random dot stereoacuity.ResultsMean (± standard deviation) logMAR distance visual acuity (VA) among 248 emmetropic children was better than among 244 hyperopic children for the better (0.05 ± 0.10 vs 0.14 ± 0.11, P < .001) and worse eyes (0.10 ± 0.11 vs 0.19 ± 0.10, P < .001). Mean binocular logMAR near VA was better in emmetropic than in hyperopic children (0.13 ± 0.11 vs 0.21 ± 0.11, P < .001). Mean accommodative response for emmetropic children was lower than for hyperopic subjects for both Monocular Estimation Method (1.03 ± 0.51 D vs 2.03 ± 1.03 D, P < .001) and Grand Seiko (0.46 ± 0.45 D vs 0.99 ± 1.0 D, P < .001). Median near stereoacuity was better in emmetropic than in than hyperopic children (40 sec arc vs 120 sec arc, P < .001). The average number of reduced visual functions was lower in emmetropic than in hyperopic children (0.19 vs 1.0, P < .001).ConclusionsVA, accommodative response, and stereoacuity were significantly reduced in moderate uncorrected hyperopic preschool children compared to emmetropic subjects. Those with higher hyperopia (≥4 D to ≤6 D) were at greatest risk, although more than half of children with lower magnitudes (≥3 D to <4 D) demonstrated 1 or more reductions in function.

Project description:Spanish-speaking language-minority (LM) children are at an elevated risk of struggling academically and display signs of that risk during early childhood. Therefore, high-quality research is needed to identify instructional techniques that promote the school readiness of Spanish-speaking LM children. The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention that utilized an experimental curriculum and two professional development models for the development of English and Spanish early literacy skills among LM children. We also evaluated whether LM children's proficiency in one language moderated the effect of the intervention on early literacy skills in the other language, as well as whether the intervention was differentially effective for LM and monolingual English-speaking children. Five hundred twenty-six Spanish-speaking LM children and 447 monolingual English-speaking children enrolled in 26 preschool centers in Los Angeles, CA participated in this study. Results indicated that the intervention was effective for improving LM children's code-related but not language-related English early literacy skills. There were no effects of the intervention on children's Spanish early literacy skills. Proficiency in Spanish did not moderate the effect of the intervention for any English early literacy outcomes; however, proficiency in English significantly moderated the effect of the intervention for Spanish oral language skills, such that the effect of the intervention was stronger for children with higher proficiency in English than it was for children with lower proficiency in English. In general, there were not differential effects of the intervention for LM and monolingual children. Taken together, these findings indicate that high-quality, evidence-based instruction can improve the early literacy skills of LM children and that the same instructional techniques are effective for enhancing the early literacy skills of LM and monolingual children.

Project description:BackgroundEarly childhood teachers (ECTs) play a significant role in equipping children with oral language and emergent literacy skills ahead of school entry. They are well positioned to play a vital role in ensuring preschool children receive a high-quality preschool curriculum to prepare them for later literacy learning.AimsThe purpose of this study was to explore early career ECTs' views and confidence regarding their role in providing preschoolers with oral language and emergent literacy support and to examine their perceptions of their preservice preparation.Methods & proceduresNine Australian early career ECTs were recruited via purposive sampling for an in-depth, semi-structured interview. Data were analysed using an inductive thematic analysis approach.Outcomes & resultsParticipants attached strong significance to their role in facilitating children's oral language growth and emergent literacy skills and reported a range of practices to support children's learning. However, they rarely referred to using established language facilitation strategies or using dialogic book reading prompts. Further, emergent literacy concepts such as phonological awareness and print awareness were not routinely described as features of participants' classroom activities. Participants did not consistently make a clear conceptual distinction between the constructs of oral language and emergent literacy and often used these terms interchangeably. Notably, participants indicated that they did not feel confident in their ability to identify preschool children who were not meeting developmental language milestones and reported that they felt poorly equipped to do so by their preservice training.Conclusions & implicationsECTs' strong willingness to support preschool children's oral language and emergent literacy skills may be hindered by gaps in their knowledge; these may contribute to important and missed opportunities for identifying and supporting preschoolers' oral language and emergent literacy growth.What this paper addsWhat is already known on this subject? High-quality learning experiences in preschool are important for maximising preschoolers' oral language and emergent literacy growth. Early childhood teachers can play an important role in facilitating this development and preparing children for later literacy learning. What this paper adds to existing knowledge? The study findings provide insight into ECTs' perceptions of their role and support in developing children's oral language and emergent literacy skills. The results indicated ECTs did not feel confident with their knowledge of children's language milestones or identifying children with language difficulties. Participants reported that their preservice training left them underprepared in the area of oral language. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? ECTs demonstrated a strong willingness to support preschoolers' oral language and emergent literacy skills. However, their self-reported knowledge gaps and low confidence may have implications for the early detection of children who are not reaching language developmental milestones in a timely way.

Project description:To evaluate risk factors for unilateral amblyopia and for bilateral amblyopia in the Vision in Preschoolers (VIP) study.Multicenter, cross-sectional study.Three- to 5-year-old Head Start preschoolers from 5 clinical centers, overrepresenting children with vision disorders.All children underwent comprehensive eye examinations, including threshold visual acuity (VA), cover testing, and cycloplegic retinoscopy, performed by VIP-certified optometrists and ophthalmologists who were experienced in providing care to children. Monocular threshold VA was tested using a single-surround HOTV letter protocol without correction, and retested with full cycloplegic correction when retest criteria were met. Unilateral amblyopia was defined as an interocular difference in best-corrected VA of 2 lines or more. Bilateral amblyopia was defined as best-corrected VA in each eye worse than 20/50 for 3-year-olds and worse than 20/40 for 4- to 5-year-olds.Risk of amblyopia was summarized by the odds ratios and their 95% confidence intervals estimated from logistic regression models.In this enriched sample of Head Start children (n = 3869), 296 children (7.7%) had unilateral amblyopia, and 144 children (3.7%) had bilateral amblyopia. Presence of strabismus (P<0.0001) and greater magnitude of significant refractive errors (myopia, hyperopia, astigmatism, and anisometropia; P<0.00001 for each) were associated independently with an increased risk of unilateral amblyopia. Presence of strabismus, hyperopia of 2.0 diopters (D) or more, astigmatism of 1.0 D or more, or anisometropia of 0.5 D or more were present in 91% of children with unilateral amblyopia. Greater magnitude of astigmatism (P<0.0001) and bilateral hyperopia (P<0.0001) were associated independently with increased risk of bilateral amblyopia. Bilateral hyperopia of 3.0 D or more or astigmatism of 1.0 D or more were present in 76% of children with bilateral amblyopia.Strabismus and significant refractive errors were risk factors for unilateral amblyopia. Bilateral astigmatism and bilateral hyperopia were risk factors for bilateral amblyopia. Despite differences in selection of the study population, these results validated the findings from the Multi-Ethnic Pediatric Eye Disease Study and Baltimore Pediatric Eye Disease Study.

Dataset Information

Uncorrected Hyperopia and Preschool Early Literacy: Results of the Vision in Preschoolers-Hyperopia in Preschoolers (VIP-HIP) Study.

Publications

Uncorrected Hyperopia and Preschool Early Literacy: Results of the Vision in Preschoolers-Hyperopia in Preschoolers (VIP-HIP) Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets