Pacific University CommonKnowledgeMany binocular problems such as heterophoria, convergence...
Transcript of Pacific University CommonKnowledgeMany binocular problems such as heterophoria, convergence...
Pacific University Pacific University
CommonKnowledge CommonKnowledge
College of Optometry Theses, Dissertations and Capstone Projects
5-1993
Visagraphic eye movement analysis and subjective correlates Visagraphic eye movement analysis and subjective correlates
Curtis D. Opp Pacific University
Ben M. Stoebner Pacific University
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Opp, Curtis D. and Stoebner, Ben M., "Visagraphic eye movement analysis and subjective correlates" (1993). College of Optometry. 1072. https://commons.pacificu.edu/opt/1072
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations and Capstone Projects at CommonKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in College of Optometry by an authorized administrator of CommonKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected].
Visagraphic eye movement analysis and subjective correlates Visagraphic eye movement analysis and subjective correlates
Abstract Abstract The Visagraphic eye movement measurements of fifty-two Pacific University College of Optometry students was compared to the subjective answers to thirteen question concerning reading and visual performance asked of each individual. The objective Visagraphic measurements of Reading Rate With Rereading, Reading Rate Without Re-reading and Relative Efficiency correlated best with overall subjective reading performance, comprehension ability, and necessity to re-read material, other comparisons of subjective ans objective performance showed low correlations.
Degree Type Degree Type Thesis
Degree Name Degree Name Master of Science in Vision Science
Committee Chair Committee Chair Paul Kohl
Subject Categories Subject Categories Optometry
This thesis is available at CommonKnowledge: https://commons.pacificu.edu/opt/1072
Copyright and terms of use Copyright and terms of use
If you have downloaded this document directly from the web or from CommonKnowledge, see
the “Rights” section on the previous page for the terms of use.
If you have received this document through an interlibrary loan/document delivery service, the If you have received this document through an interlibrary loan/document delivery service, the
following terms of use apply: following terms of use apply:
Copyright in this work is held by the author(s). You may download or print any portion of this
document for personal use only, or for any use that is allowed by fair use (Title 17, §107 U.S.C.).
Except for personal or fair use, you or your borrowing library may not reproduce, remix,
republish, post, transmit, or distribute this document, or any portion thereof, without the
permission of the copyright owner. [Note: If this document is licensed under a Creative
Commons license (see “Rights” on the previous page) which allows broader usage rights, your
use is governed by the terms of that license.]
Inquiries regarding further use of these materials should be addressed to: CommonKnowledge
Rights, Pacific University Library, 2043 College Way, Forest Grove, OR 97116, (503) 352-7209.
Email inquiries may be directed to:[email protected]
VISAGRAPHIC EYE MOVEMENT ANALYSIS AND SUBJECTIVE CORRELATES
By
CURTIS D. OPP BEN M. STOEBNER
A Thesis Submitted To the faculty of the College of Optometry
Pacific University Forest Grove, Oregon
for the degree of Doctor of Optometry
May 1993
Advisor
PaulKohtOD
Signatures
Curtis D. Opp
. rYff
~M;.b~¥ Paul Kohl, OD
A{/f
Biographies
Curtis D. Opp grew up in Pierre, South Dakota. He is the son of Norman and
Lauretta Opp. He earned his B.S. in biology in 1988 from the University of South
Dakota. After graduation, Curtis will be employed in private practice in Wagner
and Yankton, South Dakota.
Ben M. Stoebner grew up in Tehachapi, California. He is the eldest son of Mary
Jane and Ben E. Stoebner, OD (PUCO '53). He earned his B.A. in Biology in 1987
from the University of San Diego. In 1992-93 he served as the 26th President of
The American Optometric Student Association. Ben will be in residency at the
San Francisco VA Medical Center in 1993-94.
Acknowledgements
Our sincerest thanks goes to Paul Kohl, OD.
For his support and guidance in this thesis, and detication to our optometric
education, we are grateful.
Abstract
The Visagraphic eye movement measurements of fifty-two Pacific University
College of Optometry students was compared to the subjective answers to
thirteen question concerning reading and visual performance asked of each
individual. The objective Visagraphic measurements of Reading Rate With Re
reading, Reading Rate Without Re-reading and Relative Efficiency correlated best
with overall subjective reading performance, comprehension ability, and
necessity to re-read material, other comparisons of subjective ans objective
performance showed low correlations.
Introduction
Reading is a complex process that involves visual/functional, cognitive, and
perceptual functions I. It is widely accepted that saccades, regressions, and
fixations play key roles in the reading process. How do these and other visual,
perceptual, and cognitive phenomena affect our ability to learn from reading
print? To what extent do our eye movement skills, and subsequent reading
ability, affect our performance?
The cognitive aspect of reading involves two basic processes known as decoding
and comprehension. Decoding requires the ability to identify and discriminate
printed letters, the knowledge that separate sounds are combined into spoken
words, the cognition of letter-sound correspondences, and the ability to quickly
combine various sounds into words. Decoding allows us to pronounce words,
even if they have never been encountered before.
Comprehension allow us to interpret the meaning of previously decoded
messages. It involves knowledge of the grammar and syntax of the language, the
words meaning, the semantic relationship of words, text structure, and world
knowledge.
Perception is the process in which information from the environment, such as
reading material is extracted and organized. Perceptions are the product of
1 Taylor, S.E., Visagraph: Eye movement Recording System. New York, NY 1985.
1
experience, previous organization, and nervous system elaboration2. Forgus
believed that perception is the main process in the acquisition of knowledge3 .
Visual/functional aspects affecting reading ability, and subsequent learning
ability, includes visual acuity, refractive conditions, binocularity, and eye
movement skills. Although there is a surprising lack of consistent findings
between poor reading performance and low near point visual acuity, obviously
the print size must be above the resolution threshold of the reader.
Hyperopia is the refractive condition most cited as being related to reading
problems. Other conditions associated with below average readers are esophoria
at near, anisometropia, and anisekonia.
Many binocular problems such as heterophoria, convergence insufficiency,
deficient vergence ranges, and accommodative dysfunction can contribute to or
cause inefficient reading and discomfort. Flax felt that fusion problems may not
be manifest until the third or fourth grade of school, when reading demands are
increased. Flax summarized his work by saying "it is apparently better to be
completely one -eyed than to be inefficiently two-eyed4 ." Strabismus is the
condition of being "one-eyed5 ."
Normal reading eye movements include saccades, fixations, and regressions.
Fixational pauses usually encompass ninety percent of reading time. Rapid
2 Rosenbloom, A.A., Morgan M.W., Principles and Practice of Pediatric Optometry. Philadelphia, PA: Lippencott, Co., 1990. 3 Forgus, R.N., Perception. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1966 4 Flax, N., The Contribution of Visual Problems to Learning Disability. JAOA, 41(10), p. 844, Oct, 1970. 5 Griffin, J.R., Binocular Anomalies: Procedures for Vision Therapy. Chicago, IL., Professional Press, 1982.
2
saccadic eye movements are typically three degree jumps lasting twenty
milliseconds each. Regressive saccades account for approximately five to twenty
percent of reading time2 .
Oculomotor activity employed in reading is acquired through years of trial and
error, during which many perceptual and visual/functional adjustments are
made. With normal maturation, reading becomes more automatic and the
number of fixations and regressions decreased, while the span of fixation and
reading rate increases.
It is the purpose of this study to analyze and compare objective eye movement
data, as measured by the Visagraph eye movement recording device, with
subjective responses regarding reading ability, comprehension, reading/ visual
comfort, and oculomotor performance. It is the authors' opinion that the
subjective profile established will correlate with the objective measurements of
the Visagraph.
Methods
The cohort of the study is fifty-two third year optometry students attending
Pacific University. All participants were instructed on the proper use of the
Visagraph as part of the course, Basic Visual Training. The
Instructional/Communications Technology, Inc Visagraph was designed and
authorized by Stanford E. Taylor. The cohort self selected into pairs, acting as
both subject and administrator. An Apple He monitor was used with level
2Rosenbloom, A.A., Morgan M.W., Princip1es and Practice of Pediatric Optometry. PhiJadelphia, PA: Lippencott, Co., 1990.
3
thirteen as the reading selection. The authors utilized the Visagraph results by
permission. In addition, each participating individual submitted a confidential
questionnaire (example 1). The thirteen questions asked pertained to subjective
reading ability, comprehension of written material, reading/visual comfort, and
oculomotor performance. The cohort size was self selecting by voluntary
submission of both questionnaire and Visagraph results. It was comprised of
fifty-two students, thirty-four were males and 18 females with ages ranging from
22 to 48 and a mean of 27 years. A standard Visagraph recording form was
completed at the time of testing by each member (example 2)1 .
The statistical analysis used is a correlational study of subjective versus objective
findings where reading, comprehension, reading/visual comfort, and
performance are concerned. StatView 512+ v1.1 by BrainPower, Inc. was utilized
to generate simple second order regression curves, at a 90% confidence interval,
for the subjective and objective variables of the study. The scored subjective
variables were questions 1-8, 12 and 13 of the student questionnaire. Objective
variables were generated by the Visagraph and are Fixations/100 words,
Regressions/100 words, Directional Attack/%, Average Span of Recognition,
Average Duration of Fixation, Rate Without Rereading, Rate With Rereading,
Relative Efficiency, And Comprehension. This analysis was performed
comparing each of the scored questions to each of the variables from the
visigraph (see Table 1). The Rand R2 value for each comparison is listed with R
values in the "Good" or above range printed in distinctive type. A best fit line
appears for the "Good" and above correlations (see Graphs 1-21).
1 Taylor, S.E., Visagraph: Eye movement Recording System. New York, NY 1985. 6 Francis, Roy G., Beginning Social Statistics. Burgess Publishing Co. Minneapolis, MN 1967.
4
In addressing the problem of correlation, an assessment of variance was achieved
through computation of Rand R2 values. The R2 value tells us how much of our
hypothesis we have solved by appealing to a "best fit" line. R2 is simply the
amount of "explained" variance. The R value is known as the "product
correlation" or "coefficient of correlation." The strict interpretation of R is
reportedly very difficult, however the following table from Francis6 provides an
approximate and usable scale:
Range ofR
0.70 or higher
0.50 to 0.69
0.30 to 0.49
0.20 to 0.29
0.10 to 0.19
0.10 to 0.90
Meaning
Extremely Rare. Has a computational error been made? Recompute to make sure.
Very Good. Few studies sport correlation's of this magnitude.
Good. Not too many studies have zero order correlations like this. Be not ashamed.
Quite Ordinary. Many studies report a number of correlation's in this range.
Quite Low. If N is large enough to reject chance, may mention this But note that when R = 0.10, R2 = 0.01, leaving 99% of the unexplained.
Really! After all statistical significance does not imply theoretical importance.
5
Results
Question 1 asked a fundamental question regarding relative reading ability. The
best correlates from the Visagraph to question one were Fixations/100, Rate
Without Re-reading, Rate With Re-reading, and Relative Efficiency. These
comparisons produced R values of 0.479, 0.532, 0.504, and 0.465 respectively. By
Francis' evaluation we may say that the Visagraph's Rate Without and With Re
reading are very good correlates to subjective relative reading ability (see Table 1,
Graphs 1,2). The correlation of Question 1 to Rate Without Re-reading shows the
highest correlation of the study with an R2 of 0.283 (see Table 1, Graph 1). Also,
Fixations/100 and Relative Efficiency prove to be good correlates (see Table 1,
Graphs 3,4)
Question 2 asked the question of subjective comprehension with a single pass
through reading material. As with question 1, the best correlates were
Fixations/100, Rate Without Re-reading, Rate With Re-reading, and Relative
Efficiency. With R values of 0.389, 0.514, 0.481, and 0.439 respectively we can say
that there is good correlation in three of the four Visagraph findings, with very
good correlation relative to Rate Without Re-reading (see Table 1, Graphs 5-8).
The third highest correlation of the study is between question 2 and Rate Without
Re-reading at R2 equalling 0.264 (see Table 1, Graph 6) .
Question 3 begged the problem of re-reading. As with questions 1 and 2, 3 also
shows greatest correlation to Fixations/100, Rate Without Re-reading, Rate With
Re-reading, and Relative Efficiency (see Table 1, Graphs 9-12). Relative tore
reading, all four Visagraph results show good correlation. Interestingly, question
6
3 did not correlate well with directional attack or number of regressions/100,
yielding R values of 0.274 and 0.158 respectively (see Table 1).
Question 4 addressed the problem of skipping words. We see that only
Fixations/100 demonstrated good correlation at an R value of 0.319 (see Table 1,
Graph 13). Only ordinary or lower correlation were found to the other variables
(see Table 1.
Question 5 asked a fundamental question regarding relative reading speed. Not
surprisingly, the highest correlations were to Fixations/100, Rate Without Re
reading, Rate With Re-reading, and Relative Efficiency. Three of the four showed
good correlation while Rate Without Re-reading gave very good correlation with
an R value of 0.530 (see Table 1, Graphs 14-17). The correlation of Rate Without
Re-reading to Question 5 was the second highest correlation of the study yielding
R2 of 0.281 (see Table 1, Graph 15).
Question 6 probed the subjective importance of the relationship of vision and
learning. No Visagraph correlates greater than quite ordinary were found (see
Table 1).
Question 7 asked about the subjective appeal of reading for pleasure. Only
Comprehension, at R value 0.315, is shown to be a good correlate (see Table 1,
Graph 18).
Question 8 frankly asked about the occurrence of ocular fatigue, headaches, and
asthenopia after reading. Average Span of Recognition and Comprehension
7
were both found to be good correlates at R values 0.314 and 0.440 respectively (see
table 1, Graph 19,20).
Question 9, 10, and 11 serve as landmarks for sensitivity to reading performance,
motivation in performance enhancement and generalized necessity for refractive
error correction (see Table 1 bottom left).
Question 12 probed the subjective performance in ball sports. Interestingly, only
Comprehension was a good correlate at R value 0.492 (see Table 1, Graph 21).
With the majority of objective variables being quite low correlates (see Table 1).
Question 13 asked the direct question of academic performance as measured by
grade point average. Surprisingly, all correlations fell in the quite low and Really!
low categories (see Table 1).
Conclusion
A correctional study of objective eye movement data, as measured by the
Visagraph eye movement recording device, to subjective responses regarding
reading ability, comprehension, reading/visual comfort, and oculomotor
performance has been achieved. This study shows that the objective Visagraphic
measurements of reading rate, with and without re-reading, and relative
efficiency correlate best with overall subjective reading performance,
comprehension ability, and necessity to re-read material. Our results suggest
that the Visagraph results correlate best, though not entirely, to subjective
responses to questions dealing directly with reading (Questions 1-5, 8). In those
questions dealing with performance secondary to reading or fine eye control, the
8
subjective responses were generally not correlated. For example, questions six
and seven regards vision as it pertains to learning and pleasure. It is well known
that learning in humans proceeds through a variety of sensory inputs, not
exclusively visual. Also, the desirability of reading may lie within intrinsic
personal factors and be independent of ocular movement efficiency. Therefore,
whether or not the subjects felt vision was important or pleasurable, correlated
poorly with Visagraphic findings. Likewise, we see that grade point average, a
result of many factors outside of pure reading such as organization,
completeness, and time management, did not correlate well. Also subjective
ability in ball sports was not a consistent correlate. Obviously, dynamic-reactive
sports involve integration of many senses and constitutes more complex behavior
than static reading, not surprisingly one may not expecte correlation with
Visagraphic findings.
As subjective perception of overall reading ability and speed correlated best with
reading rate, overall efficiency, and fixations it is in these areas that the
Viasgraph may be best suited for analysis. Based on this study's findings,
especially in those adults who's chief complaint includes poor reading ability,
low comprehension, necessity of re-reading material, and low reading speed, the
Viasgraph is an indicated device in differentially diagnosing the etiology of such
complaints.
It is the authors' opinion that the subjective profile established partially correlates
with the objective measurements of the Visagraph in these adult subject, despite
such unknown variables as user error, differences in subject motivation, and
variations in familiarity with the parameters of this study.
9
Bibliography
Flax, N., The Contribution of Visual Problems to Learning Disability. JAOA, 41(10), p. 844, Oct, 1970.
Forgus, R.N., Perception. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1966.
Francis, Roy G., Beginning Social Statistics. Burgess Publishing Co. Minneapolis, MN 1967.
Griffin, J.R., Binocular Anomalies: Procedures for Vision Therapy. Chicago, IL., Professional Press, 1982.
Rosenbloom, A.A., Morgan M.W., Principles and Practice of Pediatric Optometry. Philadelphia, PA: Lippencott, Co., 1990.
Taylor, S.E., Visagraph: Eye movement Recording System. New York, NY 1985.
Table 1
Question l Question2 Question3 Question4 Queslio.n 5 Question6 Question7 Question 8 Quli!Stion 12 Question 13
Rxationsnoo 0.47910.229 ~..389/0.151 0.3.32/0.l JOr 0..319/0.102. ~:4.$8/0.210' jo.210/0.0U 0.176/0Jl31 <1.261/0.069 Q_.()63j 0 .004 0.01 6/2~69E-4
Kegretision~llOO 0.2<5/0.Ml 0.105/U:On 0.274/0.0'75 O.I30/Ml7 0.184/ll'J()J4 0.263/0.0691 Ul·.:001)/0.!B2 0-118/0.014 0.14]/0.020 0.070/0.005
Di:rectionaJ Attadcl% 0.063/0.00l (O.ml)/0.001 ·0,]58/0,025 {0'.020) 14.00£-4 0.032/0.001 021-4/0.046 (0.126)/0.016 0'.019/3..51E-4 0.152/0.023 0®/0.<m
Ave. Span of Recognition (0.01}4)/U4Er3 a. 120/0.0]2 (0.070)/0.0011 o.oss/o.om (0.006) I 4.05E-5 (0.152)/0.023 OJ 00/ 0.010 to .. SH/0.01 8 ' 0.092/0.00'J (0..070)/0..005
A:ve. Outation of Fixation 0.265/lllO'lO 0.122/0.ms (0.063)/0.004 0.063/ 0.004, 0.006/3.52E-5 (0.]-Ja)f0.022 1.1.105/0.011 0.138/0.019 0.00.1/0.001 (OJO'ror)/0.005
Rate Without Rereading '(0·.5)2)10,28:'). lO.!n•WD.UI4 (0.423) /0.179 {0.239)/0-057 1 {o."o'1'0.281 (0.272)/0.074 ((U64-)/fWl7 (0.11:4)/ll.OlJ (0.214)/0.046 cuoo;o.mo
Rate With Re.reading (O.sM)I'MSl (0.481)./0.231 ko . .tmta.t69 1{0.197}/0.009 ~0.496)/0.2.4-6 (0.2'10)/0.09'3 (0, 130)/0.017 (0.114}/0.013· W..245) /0-000 O.cm>/0..005
Relative Efiidency ~0.46!5) /0.216 llto.439J /1119'3 1 {!l416}/D.I73 . (0.217) /0.047 ~.492)/0·.24'2. {0.291)/0.08.5 (l).l 05)/0.0ll l0..105)/0.0J] (.0.161)/0.026 0.()84/0.007
Comptehension (0.1161)/0f!l6 (0.141)/0.020· 0.069/0.008 (0.130)/{).017 0·.1.22/0.015 0-283/0.080 ;{0315) /0.1)99 (0.440)/0.194 10'.491/0.242 1 oml/4.22&4
Leg~d { r..nt!gt!'~ve VwyGQO<J Good
% weilring conedion. 80
% believing that their 96
reading pedotm.mce co,uld be impmved.
% that would like to 85
improve their reading ~ance.
- -
Page 1
Question l Graph l
y = -43.232x + 401.206, A-squared: .283 600
550 0
500 0 Cl .£ "tJ 450 CIS 0 (I)
0 ..... 0 (I) 400 0 CI:
5 350 0 £ ~ 300
* 250 CI:
200
150
100 .5 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
Question 1
Graph 2
y = -40.971x + 387.719, A-squared: .254 600
550 []
500 []
Cl c 450 ] Cl D ~ 400 (I)
a: 350 £
~ 300 (I)
«i 250 CI:
150
100 2 .5 1 .5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
Question 1
Question l
Graph 3
y = 9.088x + 67.201, R-squared: .229 150
140 I!J.
I!J. I!J.
130 6 I!J.
120 0 0
11 0 or-...... en r::: 0 -~ X 90 u:::
80
70 I!J. 6
60 6 50 3
.5 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 Question 1
Graph 4
y = -.69x + 4.912, R-squared: .216 9
8 0
7 >. 0 u 6 r::: 0 0 Q)
"(3
:E 5 UJ Q) > 4 ~ Q)
3 a:
2
0+--r--~~~~~~--~~--r--r~~~~--~~--~-r--~~--+ 4 .5 1 .5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4 .5 5 5.5
Question 1
Question 2
Graph 5
y = 7.437x + 70.947, A-squared: .151 150
140 0
. 130 § 0
120 0 0
11 0 ...-...... C/) r:::: 0 100 0 8 -~ )(
90 u:::
80 0
70 0 0
0 0
60 0 50 I
.5 1 .5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 Question 2
Graph 6
)' = -41.966x + 403.913, A-squared: .264 600
550 0
500 0 Cl r:::: 'g 450
0 ~ 8 Q) 400 0 a: 5 350 0 -£;
~ 300 .$
250 rn a:
200
150_ D [J
100 2 . 5 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
Question 2
Question 2
Graph 7
y = -39.572x + 389.007, A-squared: .231 600
550 A
500 A
j Ol .s 450 '0 A !1l A ~ 400 I])
0::: ll -E 350 t ~
* 300
A 0::: 250
A 200
150 A
100 3 .5 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
Question 2
Graph 8
y = -.666x + 4.921, A-squared: .193 9
8
7 >- <> (J
6 c: <> ·o (]) '(3 :E 5 <> UJ I]) > 4 ·~
Q) 3 0:::
2
1
0 4 .5 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
i Question 2
Question 3
Graph 9
y = 8.069x + 66.96, R-squared: . 11 150 . 140 0
130 0 8 0
120 0 0 0
11 0
B ~
~ ---(/) c 0 0 100 0 -~ .-0
X 90- 0 ~ u:
0 ! ---80 -70- 8 0
0 0 60 8 50 0 1 ,, . • .
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 [7 Question 3
Graph 10
y = -44.051x + 421.423, R-squared: .179 600
550 0
500 0 Cl c '6 450 Cll
B ~ § a> 400 a:
5 350 0
0 ~ 0 £ D ~ 300 a> 8 iii 250 a:
200
150
100 2 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4 .5 5 5.5
Question 3
0> c::
'i5 ctl (]) .... (])
0::: -:5 ~ ,gl ctl
0:::
>. (.) c:: (]) ·o 1E UJ (])
-~ «i Qi 0:::
Question 3
y = -42.976x + 411.351, R-squared: .169 600
550 6
500 A
450 a 400
350 A A 6 6
300
250 6
200 A 150 ' 100
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 Question 3
y = -.821 X + 5.65, R-squared: .173 9
8 0
7
0 6 0 0
5 0
4
3
2
0+---r-~~-,---T---r---r--,---~--~~~-,---,---y---r--~--~ 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Question 3 4 4.5 5 5.5
Graph 11
3
Graph 12
4
Question 4
Graph 13
y = 7.549x + 74.227, A-squa red: .102
120 0 0
11 0 .--.. en c 100 0
~ -~ 90 lL
80
70 0 0
~ 0 60
50 .5 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
Question 4
Question 5
Graph 14
y = 8.787x + 67.923, A-squared: .21 150
140 0 0
0 130 0 120
0 0
11 0 ~ --1/l c 0 100 ~ X
90 u: 80
70 0
60 0 50
.5 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 Question 5
Graph 15
y = -43.412x + 402.574, A-squared: .281 600
550 0
500 0 0> c :g 450
0 ~ D Q) 400 13 cc -:::1 350 0 £ ~ 300
~ 250 cc 200
150
100 2 . 5 1 .5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 . 5 5.5
Question 5
Question 5
Graph 16
,Y = -40.6Bx + 387.653, A-squared: .246 600
550 A
500 A 0> -~ 450 "0 fl. ro ~ 400 <D a:
350 -5 ~ 300
* a: 250
200
150
100 3 .5 1 .5 2 2 .5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
Question 5
Graph 17
y = -.744x + 5.1, A-squared: .242 9
8 <> 7
>. <> (,) 6 c <> <D () ()
'i3 ti': 5 w <D > 4 -~
a> 3 a:
2
0+--r----~-r----~~~r-~-,----~-T----T--r----r-~~r-~-;----,--T--+ 4 .5 1 .5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
Question 5
Question 7
Graph 18
y = -.455x + 9.273, A-squared: .099 1 0.5
10 0 0
9.5
c 9 - 0 0 0 0 ·u;
8.5 c Q)
..c ~ 8 0 0.. E 7.5 0 0
7 0 0
6.5
6 0
5.5 . . . .. 75 1.25 1 .5 1. 75 2 2.25 2.5 2. 75 3 3.25
Question 7
Question 8
Graph 19
y = 1.075x + .391, R-squared: .018 100
0 90
80 c 0 70 ·.;::: ·c: 0> 60 0 u Q)
50 a: 0
40 c C\1 0. 30 (f)
~ 20
1 0
0 1'\ " - - --1 0 1 . .
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 [7 Question 8
Graph 20
y = -.396x + 8.967, R-squared: .194 10.5
1 0 0
9.5
c 9 0
0 D 'Vi 8 .5 c Q)
_c Q) 8 ...... 0. E 7.5 0 0
7
6.5
6 0
5.5 2 .5 1.5 2 2 .5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
Question 8
Question 12
Graph 21
y = .7'68x '+ 8.185, R-squa,red,: .242 1 0 .5.
1 0 0
9 .5
c 9 0
"(ij 8.5 c
Cl) ..c ~ 8 0. E 7.5 0
(,)
7
6 .5
6 0
5 .5 .5 1 1 .5 2 2.5 3 3 .5 4 4.5
,a ues'llon 12
Example 1 , p:;r 1
The following is a questionnaire pertaining to your vision and its affects on reading ability, comprehension, learning, and performance. Strict confidentiality will be used, but in order to facilitate the study, ·we would like your full name in the space provided. No names will be cited in the resulting paper, which is based, in part, upon the answers you've given below.
Full name ___________________________________ _ Birth date ______________ _ (last, first) (month/day/year)
Year in school _____________ _ Female Male (ie 1st, 2nd, 3rd .... )
1. Do you feel that you are a(n) .... excellent reader=l, good reader=2, average readcr=3, below average=4, or poor reader=5 (please circle one)
2. How do you rate your ability to comprehend written material after reading it the first time?
excellent=l, good=2, average=3, below average=4, or poor=5 (please circle one)
3. How often is it necessary to re-read material? never=l, hardly ever=2, sometimes=3, quite frequently=4, or frequently=5 (please circle one)
4. How often do you skip words while reading? never= 1, hardly ever=2, sometimes=3, quite frequently=4, frequently=5 (please circle one) .
5. How do you rate your reading speed? very fast=1, fast=2, avcrage=3, somewhat slow=4, or very slow=5
6. How important is your vision when it comes to learning? critical= I, very important=2, important=3, somewhat important=4, unimportant=5 (please circle one)
7. Assuming you had no school reading assignments . and had only material to read for pleasure, how often would/do you read?
as much as possible=!, often=2, sometimes=3, hardly ever=4, never=5 (please circle one)
8. Do you experien::e ocular fatigue, headaches, or any discomfort after reading? yes__ no If so, how long do you read before this symptom(s) occur? 1-15 minutes, 16-30 min, 31-60 min, 61 min-3 hrs., or over 3 hrs. (please circle one)
9. Do you use corrective cyewear (including contact lenses) to read? yes __ no __
10. Do you think your reading performance can be improved? yes__ no
turn over please ....
Example 1 , pg 2
page 2
11. Would you like to improve your reading performance? yes__ no __
12. How do you rate your athletic ability in ball sports? excellent= 1, very good=2, average=3, below ave.=4, poor=5 (please circle one)
13. Your combined undergraduate and optometry school grade point average would be closest to:
(1) a 4.0, (2) a 3.5, (3) a 3.0, (4) a 2.5 or (5) a 2.0
(please circle one)
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND COOPERATION ....
Example 2 ~DQ VISAGRAPH EYE-MOVEMENT PERFORMANCE RECORD
~arne ----------~L~ .. ~,---------------------,,~,,~.,--------------------------.A~'' >chooi/Organizat ion ---------------------Class/Div ision--------------
~ddress --------~.~"-.. ~,--------------------~c;~,v~------------------------,.~,.~,.------------zz.,~P-------
rest Date _j Grade Placement I '--------.1......- (year and month) '------~------~
-
;ftl," l!l!g,.>;,ll1liTii'illi;i IF'~IU!F©IT'<~li\!I!Cll;i !P~©J~<'li t!,J:s
Data (most actl'ole eye)
Part 1'
~=~~ 1Se l ection L'--''----'
Part2 2
Adv. Adv. Adv, Ad\1. Adv.
Pre Post CrDde L•._..l
4 5 6 10 1 T 12 Col. 1 2 3 4 5
• Less than 15% ··Good 16-22% •• Av~rage 2340% ··Poor
1 Part t it tabn from "Grt~dll L11vel Norms for th• Components of the Fundamental Aeadin9 Skill," by Stanford E. Taylor, Helen Ft&clo:enpohl , 111d Jemllt L. Pettee, EDL. RMMreh aM lnfoHn .. lon Bullelltt No. 3, Edueat)o~ OevefopmM~~ '--bc:lratories,1960.
2 P.rt 2 repr.t.,-.u typical r•llding perform11n<::11 etrtrl!ct!f"istics for uained readert, eccumuluted from various rttading centttt employir~g ln•trum•nt triHn ;ng teehnlqu•s and using eva· l'nOVemt'nt photogr•phy n ar~ evalu· atlwproeedtu•.
- --- --- -
11;'" [;l[e;IT ,,\li'li'&tK I ·i;'lf'~~ill]';iGlJ,~'\f IRU<L ~' ;;,"U .1'
A.E.
Grade Equiv. Aelat1ve Efficiency • Rate
Grade Equiv. Fixations+ Regressions
1. Head Movement
2. Rereading
3. lack of Return Sweep
4. Habitual Refixation on Return Sweep
5. Extreme Variation in Duration of Fixat10r•
6. Ext reme Variations in Fixations
7. Apparent Difficulty with Binocular Coordination
'3. 495, P9 -2._
-,(r:::ll:;? INSTRUCTIONALJCOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY, INC. J \.. '-:::1 U 10 Stepar Place • Huntmgton Station, New York 11746
R. E Grade Level
.29 .. 1.0
.41 . 1.5
.54 .. 2.0
.63 .... 2 .5
.73 .. .. . 30
.83 ... ···· ······ ······ ·· ... 3.5
.93 ··· ··· ········· ··· ·· ····· · 4.0 1.01 4.5 1.10 . 5.0 1.1 8 . 5.5 1.28 ... ·········· ·· ··· .. 6.0 1.34 . 6.5 1.42 . 7.0 1.50 .. 7.5 1.57 . 8 .0 1.64 8.5 1.71 . . .. ... .. .. .. ····· .. 9.0 1.79 .... 9.5 1.87 .. 10.0 1.97 .. 10.5 2.07 .. 11 .0 2.16 ...... 11.5 2.25 .. 12.0 2.40 12.5 2.66 ... .. ...... .. ......... 13.0 277 .... . 13.5 295 . .... 14.0 3.86 . ...... ..... .. . Adv. 1 5.48 . . ....... Adv. 2 7.74 . Adv.3
10.77 ..... ... ... ........... ... Adv. 4 13.48 . Adv 5
June 9 , 1986. Prir'l1ed ir'l U .S.A. Order No. VSASS'1
VISAGRAPH TEST ReSULTS and
1/CT'S FLUENCY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Test Results
• Excessive number of fixations {eye stops) and accompanying reduced span of rec· ogn ition (amount of words Ol" word-parts perceived per eye stop}
• E;o;cessive number of regressions
• Unusually prolonged duration of fixation (length of eye pause)
• Poor directional attack
Inadequate return sweeps
• Habitual re-reading
• Inadequate rate with comprehension
• Poor information processing
Fluency Development Progams
Guided _Reading
Tach-Mate
Vu-Mate
Guided Reading
Tach·Mate
vu-Mate
Guided Reading !especially Visual Efficiency training)
Guided Reading
Read/Along
READ
Guided Reading
Gu ided Reading
PAVE Program
Word Memory Program
Processing Power Program
Guided Reading Program
Word Memory Program
Processing Power Program
Guided Reading Program
PAVE Program
Word Memory Program
Guided Reading Program
PAVE Program
Processing Power Program
Guided Reading Program
Processing Power Program
Guided Reading Program
Comprehension PoWer Prog.ram
Processing Power Program
Guided Reading Program
Processing Power Program
Guided Reading Program
Comprehension Power Program
The use of 1/CT's programs of fluency development will improve an ind ividuals's visual/functional, perceptual , and information processing capabilities. Thes'e improvements will reflect in both reading efficiency, as measured by eye-movement recording, as well as increased effectiveness, as measured by standardized reading tests or other appraisa ls.
VTS 33.495, pg . 2