Convergence Insufficiency Symptom Survey Scores for Reading Versus Other Near Visual Activities in School-Age Children

Clark, Tiana Y.; Clark, Robert A.

doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2015.08.008

Cited by 16 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In previous studies, the CISS questionnaire was categorized into two sub-scales, one related to performance and another related to the eye [28], however, this division was not validated with any statistical model. Also Clark & Clark used the original questionnaire, creating distinct groups for 4 factors: fatigue, discomfort, impaired vision and cognitive performance [4], however, the statistical model that gave rise to this division is not explained.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Factor 1, named "somatic sensations", joins the complaints that are mostly associated with accommodative effort [7,8,12] and refractive problems [9,11]. This factor may be representative of refractive asthenopia complaints, a term traditionally used to characterize the visual complaints associated with refraction [14] and includes the main variables that constitute the "fatigue" and "discomfort" dimensions proposed in Clark's work [4]. Factor 2, referred to as "impaired vision", comprises complaints related to difficulties in maintaining binocular fixation that guarantees a clear and single view.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reading and other near activities are visually demanding tasks that can become difficult and uncomfortable with the manifestation of symptoms such as eye fatigue, text movement, blurring, and loss of concentration, even when visual acuity is good and with normal binocular vision [1][2][3][4]. Students who spend most of their time reading and writing tasks, represent a population highly predisposed to report visual discomfort associated with performing tasks at near distances [2,3,5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Students who spend most of their time reading and writing tasks, represent a population highly predisposed to report visual discomfort associated with performing tasks at near distances [2,3,5]. The presence of these symptoms potentiates a decrease in visual performance and affects school performance [4,6], contributing to a decrease in quality of life [3]. The increase in the use of digital devices, has contributed to the increase of this type of complaints, which is considered a public health problem [3,7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It has also been applied for evaluating symptoms severity in accommodative insufficiency [21]. However, it is an instrument that has been used as a tool with a single score and this may be one of the reasons why it has been pointed out as a tool with poor specificity for convergence insufficiency [4,11,22].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Factor structure of the convergence insufficiency symptom survey questionnaire

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study is to analyze the factorial structure of the Convergence Insufficiency Symptom Survey questionnaire with 15 items, in order to identify latent dimensions that can contribute to a more focused implementation. The questionnaire was self-administered in paper by 183 university students, in the age span of 18 to 30. Both Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure and Bartlett's sphericity test were performed to ensure the validity of the factorization. In order to analyze the principal components, factors which obtained eigenvalues greater than 1 were chosen. The extraction of factors was performed after computing a Promax rotation and a Kaiser criterion. In each extracted factor, the internal consistency was used to prove its reliability. Bartlett's sphericity test was statistically significant (p <0.001), and the Both Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test was 0.89, confirming the factorization of this instrument. Exploratory factor analysis followed by a Promax rotation and scree plots graphic, extracted three factors that explained 62.1% of the total variance. The composition of each factor suggests the following meanings: Factor 1 (somatic sensation) includes 8 of 15 items; Factor 2 (impaired vision) includes 3 of 15 items; Factor 3 (cognitive performance) includes 4 of 15 items. Cronbach's alpha coefficient demonstrated good internal consistency (α> 0.75) in three dimensions. The multivariate statistical analysis of the Convergence Insufficiency Symptom Survey revealed a three-factor structure, so new forms of questionnaire analysis can be designed in order to obtain gains in the management of a symptomatic patient, using 3 subscores, one for each factor, instead of a total score. The factorial structure of the questionnaire can be used with a high level of confidence in future investigations, which aim to assess which dimensions are most affected in each type of visual changes and develop more targeted therapeutic performances.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%