Purpose
The objectives of the present study were to evaluate whether investigator bias influenced the Convergence Insufficiency Symptom Survey (CISS) scores of children with normal binocular vision (NBV) in our original validation study, reevaluate the usefulness of the cut-off score of 16, and reexamine the validity of the CISS.
Methods
Six clinical sites participating in the Convergence Insufficiency Treatment Trial (CITT) enrolled 46 children 9 - <18 years with NBV. Examiners masked to the child’s binocular vision status administered the CISS. The mean CISS score was compared to that from the children with NBV in the original, unmasked CISS study and also to that of the 221 symptomatic CI children enrolled in the CITT.
Results
The mean (±SD) CISS score for 46 subjects with NBV was 10.4 (±8.1). This was comparable to that from our prior unmasked NBV study (mean = 8.1(± 6.2); p = 0.11), but was significantly different from that of the CITT CI group (mean = 29.8 ± 9.0; p < 0.001). Eighty-three percent of these NBV subjects scored less than 16 on the CISS, which is not statistically different from the 87.5% found in the original unmasked study (p = 0.49).
Conclusions
Examiner bias did not affect the CISS scores for subjects with NBV in our prior study. The CISS continues to be a valid instrument for quantifying symptoms in 9 to <18 year-old children and these results confirm the validity of a cut-point of ≥ 16 in distinguishing children with symptomatic CI from those with NBV.
We report an apparent three-fold greater incidence of ADHD among patients with CI when compared with the incidence of ADHD in the general US population (1.8-3.3%). We also note a seeming three-fold greater incidence of CI in the ADHD population. This may simply represent an association and not be a causative relationship. Until further studies are performed, however, patients diagnosed with ADHD should be evaluated to identify the small subset that may have CI -- a condition that responds well to treatment at home.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.