Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Comparison of visual assessment tests in multiply handicapped children

Abstract

The aims of this study were to compare acuity estimates achieved with visual evoked potential (VEP) and acuity card techniques and to examine the success rates of each test in a group of multiply handicapped children. Subjects were 52 children (3-183 months) with multiple handicaps associated with prematurity (n = 17), congenital anomalies (n = 16), hypoxic insult (n = 10) and other disorders (n = 9). Success rates for completing the tests were: VEP 88% and acuity cards 85% (Keeler or Cardiff). The acuity card tests were less likely to be successfully completed in the severely disabled (p<0.05) and in those children with nystagmus (p<0.05). When both acuity cards were successful, results agreed to within ±1.75 octaves. Acuity card thresholds were significantly correlated with VEP thresholds (p<0.02), but thresholds achieved with VEPs were better in children with poor vision.

References

  1. 1

    van der Pol BA . Causes of visual impairment in children. Doc Ophthalmol 1986;61:223–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Hertz BG, Rosenberg J . Acuity card testing of spastic children: preliminary results. J Ped Ophthalmol Strabismus 1988;25:139–44.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Mohn G, van Hof-van Duin J, Fetter WP, de Grot L, Hage M . Acuity assessment of non-verbal infants and children: clinical experience with the acuity card procedure. Dev Med Child Neurol 1988;30:232–44.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Orel-Bixler D, Haegerstrom-Portnoy G, Hall A . Visual assessment of the multiply handicapped patient. Optom Vis Sci 1989;66:530–6.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Jacobson L . Ophthalmology in mentally retarded adults. Acta Ophthalmol 1988;66:457–62.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Scheimann M . Optometric findings in children with cerebral palsy. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1984;61:321–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Kennedy Bankes JL . Eye defects of mentally handicapped children. BMJ 1974;2:533–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Lyle W, Woodruff ME, Zuccaro VS . A review of the literature on Down's syndrome and an optometrical survey of 44 patients with the syndrome. Am J Optom Arch Am Acad Optom 1972;49:715–27.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Woodruff ME, Cleary TE, Bader D . The prevalence of refractive and ocular anomalies among 1242 institutionalised mentally retarded persons. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1980;57:70–84.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Black P . Visual disorders associated with cerebral palsy. Br J Ophthalmol 1982;66:46–52.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    LoCascio GP . A study of vision in cerebral palsy. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1977;54:332–7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Morante A, Dubowitz LMS, Levene M, Dubowitz V . The development of visual function in normal and neurologically abnormal preterm and fullterm infants. Dev Med Child Neurol 1982;24:771–84.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Duckman RH, Selenow A . Use of FPL for measurement of visual acuity in a population of neurologically impaired children. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1983;60:817–21.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Mayer DL, Fulton AB, Sossen P . Preferential looking acuity of pediatric patients with developmental disabilities. Behav Brain Res 1983;10:189–98.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Dubowitz LMS, Mishin J, Morante A, Placzek M . The maturation of visual acuity in neurologically normal and abnormal newborn infants. Behav Brain Res 1983;10:39–45.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Jenkins PL, Simon JW, Gillray LK, Forster T . A simple grating visual acuity test for impaired children. Am J Ophthamol 1985;99:652–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Mohn G, van Hof-van Duin J . Rapid assessment of visual acuity in infants and children in a clinical setting, using acuity cards. Doc Ophthalmol 1986;45:363–72.

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Hertz BG, Rosenberg J . Effect of mental retardation and motor disability on testing with visual acuity cards. Dev Med Child Neurol 1992;34:115–22.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Mohn G, van Hof-van Duin J . Preferential looking acuity in normal and neurologically abnormal infants and pediatric patients. Doc Ophthalmol 1986;45:221–30.

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Mohn G, van Hof-van Duin J . Behavioural and electrophysiological measures of visual functions in children with neurological disorders. Behav Brain Res 1983;10:177–87.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    McCulloch DL, Skarf B . Development of the human visual system: monocular and binocular pattern VEP latency. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1991;32:2372–81.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Woodhouse MJ, Adoh T, Oduwaiye K, Batchelor BG, Megji S, Unwin N, Jones N . New acuity test for toddlers. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1992;12:249–51.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Robinson J, Mosley MJ, Fielder AR . Grating acuity cards: spurious resolution and the ‘edge artefact’. Clin Vis Sci 1988;3:285–8.

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    Dobson V, Teller DY . Visual acuity in human infants; a review and comparison of behavioural and electro-physiological studies. Vision Res 1978;18:1469–83.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Warburg M . Why are the blind and severely visually impaired children with mental retardation much more retarded than the sighted children? Acta Ophthalmol (Suppl) 1982;157:72–8.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R T Mackie.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mackie, R., McCulloch, D., Saunders, K. et al. Comparison of visual assessment tests in multiply handicapped children. Eye 9, 136–141 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.1995.23

Download citation

Keywords

  • Acuity cards
  • Multiple handicap
  • Visual acuity
  • Visual evoked potentials

Further reading

Search

Quick links