The measurement of visual acuity in children: an evidence‐based update

References

• Hochberg C, Maul E, Chan ES, Van landingham S, Ferrucci L, Friedman DS, Ramulu PY. Association of vision loss in glaucoma and age‐related macular degeneration with IADL disability. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2012; 53: 3201–3206.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• West SK, Munoz B, Rubin GS, Schein OD, Bandeen‐roche K, Zeger S, German S et al. Function and visual impairment in a population‐based study of older adults. The SEE project. Salisbury Eye Evaluation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1997; 38: 72–82.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ivers RQ, Cumming RG, Mitchell P, Attebo K. Visual impairment and falls in older adults: the Blue Mountains Eye Study. J Am Geriatr Soc 1998; 46: 58–64.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mcgwin G Jr, Chapman V, Owsley C. Visual risk factors for driving difficulty among older drivers. Accid Anal Prev 2000; 32: 735–744.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ariyasu RG, Lee PP, Linton KP, Labree LD, Azen SP, Siu AL. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of screening tests for eye conditions in a clinic‐based population. Ophthalmology 1996; 103: 1751–1760.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woods RL, Tregear SJ, Mitchell RA. Screening for ophthalmic disease in older subjects using visual acuity and contrast sensitivity. Ophthalmology 1998; 105: 2318–2326.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ivers RQ, Macaskill P, Cumming RG, Mitchell P. Sensitivity and specificity of tests to detect eye disease in an older population. Ophthalmology 2001; 108: 968–975.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meacock WR, Spalton DJ, Boyce J, Marshall J. The effect of posterior capsule opacification on visual function. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003; 44: 4665–4669.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lovie‐kitchin JE. Validity and reliability of visual acuity measurements. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1988; 8: 363–370.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lovie‐kitchin JE, Brown B. Repeatability and intercorrelations of standard vision tests as a function of age. Optom Vis Sci 2000; 77: 412–420.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell FW, Gubisch RW. Optical quality of the human eye. J Physiol 1966; 186: 558–578.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bailey IL, Lovie JE. New design principles for visual acuity letter charts. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1976; 53: 740–745.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ferris FL 3rd, Freidlin V, Kassoff A, Green SB, Milton RC. Relative letter and position difficulty on visual acuity charts from the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study. Am J Ophthalmol 1993; 116: 735–740.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ohlsson J, Villarreal G. Normal visual acuity in 17–18 year olds. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2005; 83: 487–491.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Arditi A, Cagenello R. On the statistical reliability of letter‐chart visual acuity measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1993; 34: 120–129.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shah N, Laidlaw DA, Shah SP, Sivasubramaniam S, Bunce C, Cousens S. Computerized repeating and averaging improve the test‐retest variability of ETDRS visual acuity measurements: implications for sensitivity and specificity. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011; 52: 9397–9402.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosser DA, Cousens S, Murdoch IE, Fitzke FW, Laidlaw DA. How sensitive to clinical change are ETDRS logMAR visual acuity measurements? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003; 44: U51–U51.
   Google Scholar
• Attebo K, Mitchell P, Cumming R. Prevalence and causes of amblyopia in an adult population. Ophthalmology 1998; 105: 154–159.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chia A, Dirani M, Chan YH, Gazzard G, Au eong KG, Selvaraj P, Ling Y et al. Prevalence of amblyopia and strabismus in young Singaporean Chinese children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010; 51: 3411–3417.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman DS, Repka MX, Katz J, Giordano L, Ibironke J, Hawse P, Tielsch JM. Prevalence of amblyopia and strabismus in white and African American children aged 6 through 71 months the Baltimore Pediatric Eye Disease Study. Ophthalmology 2009; 116: 2128–2134.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karki KJ. Prevalence of amblyopia in ametropias in a clinical set‐up. Kathmandu Univ Med J 2006; 4: 470–473.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Matsuo T, Matsuo C. The prevalence of strabismus and amblyopia in Japanese elementary school children. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2005; 12: 31–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robaei D, Rose K, Ojaimi E, Kifley A, Martin FJ, Mitchell P. Causes and associations of amblyopia in a population‐based sample of 6‐year‐old Australian children. Arch Ophthalmol 2006; 124: 878–884.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kohler L, Stigmar G. Visual disorders in 7‐year‐old children with and without previous vision screening. Acta Paediatr Scand 1978; 67: 373–377.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kvarnstrom G, Jakobsson P, Lennerstrand G. Visual screening of Swedish children: an ophthalmological evaluation. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2001; 79: 240–244.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Holmes JM, Clarke MP. Amblyopia. Lancet 2006; 367: 1343–1351.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simmers AJ, Gray LS, Spowart K. Screening for amblyopia: a comparison of paediatric letter tests. Br J Ophthalmol 1997; 81: 465–469.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mathew JA, Shah SA, Simon JW. Varying difficulty of Snellen letters and common errors in amblyopic and fellow eyes. Arch Ophthalmol 2011; 129: 184–187.
   Google Scholar
• Gwiazda J, Brill S, Mohindra I, Held R. Infant visual acuity and its meridional variation. Vision Res 1978; 18: 1557–1564.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norcia AM, Tyler CW, Hamer RD. Development of contrast sensitivity in the human infant. Vision Res 1990; 30: 1475–1486.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abramov I, Gordon J, Hendrickson A, Hainline L, Dobson V, Labossiere E. The retina of the newborn human infant. Science 1982; 217: 265–267.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hendrickson AE, Yuodelis C. The morphological development of the human fovea. Ophthalmology 1984; 91: 603–612.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yuodelis C, Hendrickson A. A qualitative and quantitative analysis of the human fovea during development. Vision Res 1986; 26: 847–855.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cornish EE, Hendrickson AE, Provis JM. Distribution of short‐wavelength‐sensitive cones in human fetal and postnatal retina: early development of spatial order and density profiles. Vision Res 2004; 44: 2019–2026.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diaz‐araya C, Provis JM. Evidence of photoreceptor migration during early foveal development: a quantitative analysis of human fetal retinae. Vis Neurosci 1992; 8: 505–514.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norgett Y, Siderov J. Crowding in children's visual acuity tests—effect of test design and age. Optom Vis Sci 2011; 88: 920–927.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simons K. Preschool vision screening: rationale, methodology and outcome. Surv Ophthalmol 1996; 41: 3–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chou R, Dana T, Bougatsos C. Screening for visual impairment in children ages 1–5 years: update for the USPSTF. Pediatrics 2011; 127: e442‐e479.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt PP, Maguire M, Dobson V, Quinn GE, Ciner E, Cyert L, Kulp MT et al. Comparison of preschool vision screening tests as administered by licensed eye care professionals in the Vision in Preschoolers study. Ophthalmology 2004; 111: 637–650.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vision in Preschoolers Study Group. Preschool vision screening tests administered by nurse screeners compared with lay screeners in the vision in preschoolers study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005; 46: 2639–2648.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ying GS, Kulp MT, Maguire M, Ciner E, Cyert L, Schmidt P. Sensitivity of screening tests for detecting vision in preschoolers‐targeted vision disorders when specificity is 94%. Optom Vis Sci 2005; 82: 432–438.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'donoghue L, Rudnicka AR, Mcclelland JF, Logan NS, Saunders KJ. Visual acuity measures do not reliably detect childhood refractive error—an epidemiological study. PLoS One 2012; 7: e34441.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kay H. New method of assessing visual acuity with pictures. Br J Ophthalmol 1983; 67: 131–133.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kvarnstrom G, Jakobsson P. Is vision screening in 3‐year‐old children feasible? Comparison between the Lea Symbol chart and the HVOT (LM) chart. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2005; 83: 76–80.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cyert L, Schmidt P, Maguire M, Moore B, Dobson V, Quinn G. Threshold visual acuity testing of preschool children using the crowded HOTV and Lea Symbols acuity tests. J AAPOS 2003; 7: 396–399.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayer DL, Beiser AS, Warner AF, Pratt EM, Raye KN, Lang JM. Monocular acuity norms for the Teller Acuity Cards between ages one month and four years. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1995; 36: 671–685.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hargadon DD, Wood J, Twelker JD, Harvey EM, Dobson V. Recognition acuity, grating acuity, contrast sensitivity, and visual fields in 6‐year‐old children. Arch Ophthalmol 2010; 128: 70–74.
   Google Scholar
• Becker R, Hubsch S, Graf MH, Kaufmann H. Examination of young children with Lea symbols. Br J Ophthalmol 2002; 86: 513–516.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen SI, Chandna A, Norcia AM, Pettet M, Stone D. The repeatability of best corrected acuity in normal and amblyopic children 4 to 12 years of age. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006; 47: 614–619.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercer ME, Drover JR, Penney KJ, Courage ML, Adams RJ. Comparison of Patti Pics and Lea Symbols optotypes in children and adults. Optom Vis Sci 2013; 90: 236–241.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones D, Westall C, Averbeck K, Abdolell M. Visual acuity assessment: a comparison of two tests for measuring children's vision. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2003; 23: 541–546.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drover JR, Felius J, Cheng CS, Morale SE, Wyatt L, Birch EE. Normative pediatric visual acuity using single surrounded HOTV optotypes on the Electronic Visual Acuity Tester following the Amblyopia Treatment Study protocol. J AAPOS 2008; 12: 145–149.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pan Y, Tarczy‐hornoch K, Cotter SA, Wen G, Borchert MS, Azen SP, Varma R. Visual acuity norms in pre‐school children: the Multi‐Ethnic Pediatric Eye Disease Study. Optom Vis Sci 2009; 86: 607–612.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birch EE, Strauber SF, Beck RW, Holmes JM. Comparison of the amblyopia treatment study HOTV and the electronic‐early treatment of diabetic retinopathy study visual acuity protocols in amblyopic children aged 5 to 11 years. J AAPOS 2009; 13: 75–78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leat SJ, Yadav NK, Irving EL. Development of visual acuity and contrast sensitivity in children. J Optom 2009; 2: 19–26.
   Google Scholar
• Almoqbel F, Leat SJ, Irving E. The technique, validity and clinical use of the sweep VEP. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2008; 28: 393–403.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norcia AM, Tyler CW, Allen D. Electrophysiological assessment of contrast sensitivity in human infants. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1986; 63: 12–15.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Norcia AM, Tyler CW, Hamer RD, Wesemann W. Measurement of spatial contrast sensitivity with the swept contrast VEP. Vision Res 1989; 29: 627–637.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Regan D. Rapid objective refraction using evoked brain potentials. Invest Ophthalmol 1973; 12: 669–679.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tyler CW, Apkarian P, Levi DM, Nakayama K. Rapid assessment of visual function: an electronic sweep technique for the pattern visual evoked potential. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1979; 18: 703–713.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dobson V, Teller DY. Visual acuity in human infants: a review and comparison of behavioral and electrophysiological studies. Vision Res 1978; 18: 1469–1483.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyon JY, Yeo HE, Seo JM, Lee IB, Lee JH, Hwang JM. Objective measurement of distance visual acuity determined by computerized optokinetic nystagmus test. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010; 51: 752–757.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gorman JJ, Cogan DG, Gellis SS. An apparatus for grading the visual acuity of infants on the basis of opticokinetic nystagmus. Pediatrics 1957; 19: 1088–1092.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han SB, Yang HK, Hyon JY, Seo JM, Lee JH, Lee IB, Hwang JM. Efficacy of a computerized optokinetic nystagmus test in prediction of visual acuity of better than 20/200. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011; 52: 7492–7497.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teller DY, Mcdonald MA, Preston K, Sebris SL, Dobson V. Assessment of visual acuity in infants and children: the acuity card procedure. Dev Med Child Neurol 1986; 28: 779–789.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salomao SR, Ventura DF. Large sample population age norms for visual acuities obtained with Vistech‐Teller Acuity Cards. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1995; 36: 657–670.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fantz RL. Pattern vision in newborn infants. Science 1963; 140: 296–297.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teller DY, Morse R, Borton R, Regal D. Visual acuity for vertical and diagonal gratings in human infants. Vision Res 1974; 14: 1433–1439.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayer DL, Dobson V. Visual acuity development in infants and young children, as assessed by operant preferential looking. Vision Res 1982; 22: 1141–1151.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drover JR, Wyatt LM, Stager DR, Birch EE. The teller acuity cards are effective in detecting amblyopia. Optom Vis Sci 2009; 86: 755–759.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levi DM, Klein S. Differences in vernier discrimination for gratings between strabismic and anisometropic amblyopes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1982; 23: 398–407.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayer DL, Fulton AB, Rodier D. Grating and recognition acuities of pediatric patients. Ophthalmology 1984; 91: 947–953.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayer DL. Acuity of amblyopic children for small field gratings and recognition stimuli. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1986; 27: 1148–1153.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thorn F, Schwartz F. Effects of dioptric blur on Snellen and grating acuity. Optom Vis Sci 1990; 67: 3–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dobson V, Miller JM, Harvey EM, Mohan KM. Amblyopia in astigmatic preschool children. Vision Res 2003; 43: 1081–1090.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harvey EM, Dobson V, Miller JM, Clifford‐donaldson CE. Amblyopia in astigmatic children: patterns of deficits. Vision Res 2007; 47: 315–326.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fariza E, Kronheim J, Medina A, Katsumi O. Testing visual acuity of children using vanishing optotypes. Jpn J Ophthalmol 1990; 34: 314–319.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frisen L. Vanishing optotypes. New type of acuity test letters. Arch Ophthalmol 1986; 104: 1194–1198.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Adoh TO, Woodhouse JM, Oduwaiye KA. The Cardiff Test: a new visual acuity test for toddlers and children with intellectual impairment. A preliminary report. Optom Vis Sci 1992; 69: 427–432.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woodhouse JM, Adoh TO, Oduwaiye KA, Batchelor BG, Megji S, Unwin N, Jones N. New acuity test for toddlers. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1992; 12: 249–251.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charman WN. Spatial frequency content of the Cardiff and related acuity tests. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2006; 26: 5–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackie RT, Saunders KJ, Day RE, Dutton GN, Mcculloch DL. Visual acuity assessment of children with neurological impairment using grating and vanishing optotype acuity cards. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 1996; 74: 483–487.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Johansen A, White S, Waraisch P. Screening for visual impairment in older people: validation of the Cardiff Acuity Test. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2003; 36: 289–293.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howard C, Firth AY. Is the Cardiff Acuity Test effective in detecting refractive errors in children? Optom Vis Sci 2006; 83: 577–581.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Welinder LG, Baggesen KL. Visual abilities of students with severe developmental delay in special needs education—a vision screening project in Northern Jutland, Denmark. Acta Ophthalmol 2012; 90: 721–726.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Courage ML, Adams RJ, Reyno S, Kwa PG. Visual acuity in infants and children with Down syndrome. Dev Med Child Neurol 1994; 36: 586–593.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson C, Kran BS, Deng L, Mayer DL. Teller II and Cardiff Acuity testing in a school‐age deafblind population. Optom Vis Sci 2009; 86: 188–195.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman DS, Munoz B, Massof RW, Bandeen‐roche K, West SK. Grating visual acuity using the preferential‐looking method in elderly nursing home residents. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002; 43: 2572–2578.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morse AR, Teresi J, Rosenthal B, Holmes D, Yatzkan ES. Visual acuity assessment in persons with dementia. J Vis Impair Blind 2004; 98: 560–565.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warburg M. Visual impairment in adult people with intellectual disability: literature review. J Intellect Disabil Res 2001; 45: 424–438.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chriqui E, Kergoat MJ, Champoux N, Leclerc BS, Kergoat H. Visual acuity in institutionalized seniors with moderate to severe dementia. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2013; In Press.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen HF. A new picture series for preschool vision testing. Am J Ophthalmol 1957; 44: 38–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mocan MC, Najera‐covarrubias M, Wright KW. Comparison of visual acuity levels in pediatric patients with amblyopia using Wright figures, Allen optotypes, and Snellen letters. J AAPOS 2005; 9: 48–52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graf MH, Becker R, Kaufmann H. Lea symbols: visual acuity assessment and detection of amblyopia. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2000; 238: 53–58.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyvarinen L, Nasanen R, Laurinen P. New visual acuity test for pre‐school children. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1980; 58: 507–511.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bertuzzi F, Orsoni JG, Porta MR, Paliaga GP, Miglior S. Sensitivity and specificity of a visual acuity screening protocol performed with the Lea Symbols 15‐line folding distance chart in preschool children. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2006; 84: 807–811.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Agervi P, Kugelberg U, Kugelberg M, Simonsson G, Fornander M, Zetterstrom C. Randomized evaluation of spectacles plus alternate‐day occlusion to treat amblyopia. Ophthalmology 2010; 117: 381–387.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woodhouse JM, Morjaria SA, Adler PM. Acuity measurements in adult subjects using a preferential looking test. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2007; 27: 54–59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dobson V, Maguire M, Orel‐bixler D, Quinn G, Ying GS. Visual acuity results in school‐aged children and adults: Lea Symbols chart versus Bailey‐Lovie chart. Optom Vis Sci 2003; 80: 650–654.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dobson V, Clifford‐donaldson CE, Miller JM, Garvey KA, Harvey EM. A comparison of Lea Symbol vs ETDRS letter distance visual acuity in a population of young children with a high prevalence of astigmatism. J AAPOS 2009; 13: 253–257.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Candy TR, Mishoulam SR, Nosofsky RM, Dobson V. Adult discrimination performance for pediatric acuity test optotypes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011; 52: 4307–4313.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elliott MC, Firth AY. The logMAR Kay picture test and the logMAR acuity test: a comparative study. Eye (Lond) 2009; 23: 85–88.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shah N, Laidlaw DA, Rashid S, Hysi P. Validation of printed and computerised crowded Kay picture logMAR tests against gold standard ETDRS acuity test chart measurements in adult and amblyopic paediatric subjects. Eye (Lond) 2011; 26: 593–600.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmes JM, Beck RW, Repka MX, Leske DA, Kraker RT, Blair RC, Moke PS et al. The amblyopia treatment study visual acuity testing protocol. Arch Ophthalmol 2001; 119: 1345–1353.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pickert SM, Wachs H. Stimulus and communication demands of visual acuity tests. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1980; 57: 875–880.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lippmann O. Vision screening of young children. Am J Public Health 1971; 61: 1586–1601.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egan DF, Brown R. Vision testing of young children in the age range 18 months to 4 1/2 years. Child Care Health Dev 1984; 10: 381–390.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rydberg A, Ericson B, Lennerstrand G, Jacobson L, Lindstedt E. Assessment of visual acuity in children aged 1 1/2–6 years, with normal and subnormal vision. Strabismus 1999; 7: 1–24.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sheridan MD, Gardiner PA. Sheridan‐Gardiner test for visual acuity. Br Med J 1970; 2: 108–109.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Miller JM, Dobson V, Harvey EM, Sherrill DL. Cost‐efficient vision screening for astigmatism in Native American preschool children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003; 44: 3756–3763.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anstice N, Spink J, Abdul‐rahman A. Review of preschool vision screening referrals in South Auckland, New Zealand. Clin Exp Optom 2012; 95: 442–448.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newman DK, Hitchcock A, Mccarthy H, Keast‐butler J, Moore AT. Preschool vision screening: outcome of children referred to the hospital eye service. Br J Ophthalmol 1996; 80: 1077–1082.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheridan MD. What is normal distance vision at five to seven years? Dev Med Child Neurol 1974; 16: 189–195.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmid M, Largo RH. Visual acuity and stereopsis between the ages of 5 and 10 years. A cross‐sectional study. Euro J Pediatr 1986; 145: 475–479.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mcgraw PV, Winn B, Gray LS, Elliott DB. Improving the reliability of visual acuity measures in young children. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2000; 20: 173–184.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robaei D, Rose K, Ojaimi E, Kifley A, Huynh S, Mitchell P. Visual acuity and the caused of visual loss in a population‐based sample of 6‐year‐old Australian children. Am Acad Ophthalmol 2005; 112: 1275–1282.
   Google Scholar
• Rice ML, Leske DA, Holmes JM. Comparison of the amblyopia treatment study HOTV and electronic‐early treatment of diabetic retinopathy study visual acuity protocols in children aged 5 to 12 years. Am J Ophthalmol 2004; 137: 278–282.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manny R, Hussein MEM, Gwiazda J, Marsh‐tottle W, Group TC. Repeatability of ETDRS visual acuity in children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003; 44: 3294–3300.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cotter SA, Chu RH, Chandler DL, Beck RW, Holmes JM, Rice ML, Hertle RW et al. Reliability of the electronic early treatment diabetic retinopathy study testing protocol in children 7 to <13 years old. Am J Ophthalmol 2003; 136: 655–661.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laidlaw DAH, Abbott A, Rosser DA. Development of a clinically feasible logMAR alternative to the Snellen chart: performance of the ‘compact reduced logMAR’ visual acuity chart in amblyopic children. Brit J Ophthalmol 2003; 87: 1232–1234.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dobson V, Clifford‐donaldson CE, Green TK, Miller JM, Harvey EM. Normative monocular visual acuity for early treatment diabetic retinopathy study charts in emmetropic children 5 to 12 Years of Age. Ophthalmology 2009; 116: 1397–1401.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myers VS, Gidlewski N, Quinn GE, Miller D, Dobson V. Distance and near visual acuity, contrast sensitivity and visual fields of 10‐year‐old children. Arch Ophthalmol 1999; 117: 94–99.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fern KD, Manny RE, Davis JR, Gibson RR. Contour interaction in the preschool child. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1986; 63: 313–318.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Flom MC, Weymouth FW, Kahneman D. Visual resolution and contour interaction. J Opt Soc Am 1963; 53: 1026–1032.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hess RF, Jacobs RJ. A preliminary report of acuity and contour interactions across the amblyope's visual field. Vision Res 1979; 19: 1403–1408.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levi DM, Klein SA. Vernier acuity, crowding and amblyopia. Vision Res 1985; 25: 979–991.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hilton AF, Stanley JC. Pitfalls in testing children's vision by the Sheridan Gardiner single optotype method. Br J Ophthalmol 1972; 56: 135–139.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jeon ST, Hamid J, Maurer D, Lewis TL. Developmental changes during childhood in single‐letter acuity and its crowding by surrounding contours. J Exp Child Psychol 2010; 107: 423–437.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimm W, Rassow B, Wesemann W, Saur K, Hilz R. Correlation of optotypes with the Landolt ring—a fresh look at the comparability of optotypes. Optom Vis Sci 1994; 71: 6–13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferris FL 3rd, Kassoff A, Bresnick GH, Bailey I. New visual acuity charts for clinical research. Am J Ophthalmol 1982; 94: 91–96.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atkinson J, Anker S, Evans C, Hall R, Pimm‐smith E. Visual acuity testing of young children with the Cambridge Crowding Cards at 3 and 6-m. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1988; 66: 505–508.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar