monocular-binocular visual acuity of adults
TRANSCRIPT
INATIONAL CENTER Sorioo 11For HEALTH STATISTICS Numbu 30
VITAL arad X?*ALTR STATISTICSDATA FROM THE NA~ONAL HEALTH SURVEY
Monocular-BinocularVisual Acuity of Adults
UnitedStates-1960-1962
Visual acuity levels for monocular, better monocular, ondbinocular visual acuity as determined by examination and
comparison with visual impairment findings from the inter-view preceding the examination.
Washington, D.C. April 1968
U.S. DEPARTMENTOF
HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
JohnW. GardnerSecretary
Public Health Service
Wi IIiam H. Stewart
Surgean General
Public Health Service Publication No. 1000-Series 11-No. 30A.
NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS
THEODORE D. WOOLSEY, Director
PHILIP S. LAWRENCE, SC.D., Associate Director
OSWALD K. SAGEN, PH.D.,, Assistant Director /or Health Statistics Development
WALT R. SIMMONS} M.A., Assistant Director for Research and Scientific Development
ALICE M. WATERHOUSE, M. D., Medical Consultant
JAMES E. KELLY, D. D. S., Dental Advisor
LOUIS R. STOLCIS, M. A., Executive O//icer
D1V1S1ONOF HEALTH EXAMINATION STATISTICS
ARTHUR J. McDOWELL, Director
PAUL T. BRUYERE, M.D., Assistant Director
JAMES T. BAIRD, JR., Cbie/j Analysis and Reports Branch
HENRY W. MILLER, chief, Operations and Quality Confro? Branch
PETER V. HAMILL, M.D., Medical Advisor
LAWRENCE E. VAN KIRK, D. D. S., Dental Advisor
COOPERATION OF THE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS
In accordance with specifications established by the
National Health Survey, the Bureau of the Census, under acontractual agreement, participated in the design and selec-tion of the sample, and carried out the first stage of the fieldinterviewing and certain parts of the statistical processing.
Public Health Service Publication No. 1000-Series 1l-No. 30
L.Ibra~ oj (hgrcss Catalog Card Number 67-62377
CONTENTSPage
Introduction ----------------------------------------------------------
Vision Examination ----------------------------------------------------
Ftidings -------------------------------------------------------------Distance Vision ----------------------------------------------------Near Vision --------------------------------------------------------Agreement Between Acuity Measures ---------------------------------Agreement Between Interview and Test Data ---------------------------
Discussion -----------------------------------------------------------
Summary -------------------------------------------------------------
References -----------------------------------------------------------
Detailed Tables -------------------------------------------------------
Appendix. Statistical Notes --------------------------------------------The Survey Desi~--------------------------------------------------Reliability ---------------------------------------------------------Sampling and Measurement Error ------------------------------------
.Categories ---------------------------------------------------
1
1
22668
10
10
10
12
2929292930
...Ill
v
THISREPORT CONTMNS national estimates based on findings jrom theHealth Examination Survey during 1960-62 on monocular and bettermonoculav visual acuity compaved with binocular acuity as well as acomparison of acuity test findings with information on viswal impair-ments obtained Jvom the household questionnaire preceding the exami-nation.
For this pavt of the suvvey a nationwide probability sample of 7,710pemons was selected to repvesent the 111 million adults in the civilian,noninstitutional population of the United States aged 18-79 years. Ofthese, 6,672 adults or move tluzn 85 percent were examined and tested.
Monocular and binocular central visual acuity at distance and near weremeasured without cycloplee”cs fov each examinee as part of the stand-ardized examination. Testing with a commedal scveening instrumentwas done without glasses for all examinees and repeated with glassesfov those who wove or bvought theivs to the examination. Nine test levelsweve used at distance and near.
Binocular visual acuity rates at the level of 20/20 or better were con-sistently higher thun those for better monocular acuity which in tuvnexceeded the Yates for either eye throughout the age vange. At the 20/30ov better levels and at the poover end of the acuity range-20/l 00 OYless—essentially no consistent difference was found between the vatesfor binoculav and better monocular visual acuity.
In geneval the trends by age and sex for better monocular vision weresimilar to those for binocular acuity.
Ovevall, a high order of agreement was found between better monocw-i& and binocular acuity both without and with usual correction. Agree-ment of test results for the left and the right eye was less good andpoorev for tests with usual correction than those without.
Agreement, between intevview and test akzta was good for those with ex-tremely defective visual acuity, and less good for those with defectivebut bettcw acuity.
Comparison with findings from previous studies is also included.
SYMBOLS
Data not available ----------------------- ---
Category not applicable ------------------- . . .
Quantity zero ---------------------------- -
Quantity more than O but less than 0.05 ----- 0.0
Figure does not meet standards ofreliability or precision ------------------ *
MONOCULAR-BINOCULAR VISUAL ACUITY
Jean Roberts,
INTRODUCTION
This report is one in the seriesand analyzing the plan, conduct, and
OF ADULTSDivision of Health Examination Statistics
describingfindings of
the first cycle of the Health Examination Survey.It presents survey results for monocular, bettermonocular, and binocular visual acuity as well asa comparison of acuity test findings with informa-tion on visual impairments obtained from thehousehold questionnaire preceding the examina-tion,
I The Health Examination Survey, which is thesource of these data, was organized as part of theNational Health Survey 1 to obtain statistics on thehealth status of the population of the United Statesthrough direct examination, tests, and measure-ments. The other two major programs of the Na-tional Health Survey are those in which data areobtained by household interview alone or frommedical and related records.
Previous reports have described the plan andinitial program of the Health Examination Survey2as well as the demographic composition of thesample used for the first cycle, the possible ef-fects of nonresponse on the findings, and the in-flation process used to convert examination find-ings into estimates for the adult population of theUnited States from which the sample was drawn. 3
In the first cycle, the Health ExaminationSurvey obtained data on certain chronic diseasesand physical and physiological measurementsamong adults in the civilian, noninstitutional pop-ulation of the United States 18 through 79 years
of age. This phase of the survey was started inOctober 1959 and completed in December 1962.Out of a defined sample of 7,710 adults, 6,672 ormore than 85 percent were examined.
No major demographic features of the adult~pulation were seriously distorted by the non-response, according to supplemental informationobtained on this latter group of the sample.
Medical and other staff administered thestandardized examination given during the singlevisit of the examinee to the specially designedmobile units used for the survey. Data comparableto those collected at that time by the Health In-terview Survey were obtained from the householdof the sample person prior to the examination.
A brief description of the sampIe design andselected standard errors of estimate for the datain this report are shown in the Appendix.
VISION EXAMNATION
Monocular and binocular central visual acuityfor distance and near vision were measured with-out cycloplegics for each examinee as part ofthe standardized examination in the first cycleof the Health Examination Survey. The right eye,left eye, and binocular acuity were tested withoutglasses for all examinees. Tests with glasseswere repeated for those who brought theirs to theexamination.
A commercial screening instrument was usedfor rapid testing under controlled conditions oflighting and target distance, within the limited
space available in the examining center. Goodcomparability was found between these targetsand the commonly used Snellen-type wall chartsand cards in the special methodological studydescribed previously.4 The polarization powerwithin the instrument was depended upon foraccuracy in monocular testing, rather than theoccluder, to reduce testing time and ,the possi-bility of occasionally forgetting to use the regularoccluder in the field. The degree of overratingwhen the occluder was not used was found to benegligible in the special study. 4
Optimum recominended scoring criteria wereused.4 To “pass, ” or to be able to read at a par-ticular level, no errors were allowed if the blockcontained fewer than four letters, and only oneerror was allowable in steps or blocks of fourletters. The visual acuity level or “score” for anexaminee was that which designated the block ofthe smallest letters he or she was able to readwith no more than the allowable number of errors.Acuity levels in this report are expressed in theSnellen notation. The following nine test levelswere used at distance and the corresponding levelsat near: 20/10, 20/15, 20/20, 20/30, 20/40, 20/50,20/70, 20/100, and 20/200.
Because of the limited staff who could beemployed full time in the examining units, visiontesting was done by a specially trained dentist.Acuity levels obtained on replicate” testing bythe various dental examiners in the survey w’erein at least as good agreement as is usually foundamong other examiners in this type of testing.
As in the previous reports on acuity find-ings,s-7 this one is limited to acuity at distanceand near uncorrected or without glasses and’ ‘cor-rected” or with whatever correction was usuallyworn and available at the examination. About 56percent of the examinees were tested only withoutglasses. Most of these persons did not own glasses;a few had neglected to bring theirs to the exami-nation. This latter group had acuity scores dis-tributed over the entire test range. Findings for“corrected” acuity will only slightly understate, ifat all, the true level of usual correction in theadult population. They will not, of course, repre-sent a measure of “best possible” vision or thedegree to which vision is “correctable” amongadults, since no tests to determine this were in-cluded in the examination.
This report presents data on monocularacuity, better monocular acuity, the relationshipbetween better monocular and binocular acuity,and the relation between acuity as determined bytest and as recognized by the examinee duringthe interview.
FINDINGS
Distance Vision
Health Examination Survey findings indicatean estimated 4S percent of the U.S. adult civil-ian, noninstitutional population in 1960-62 haduncorrected monocular acuity at distance of atleast 20/20 in their better eye. With their usualcorrection 66 percent reached or exceeded thislevel (tables 1-4).
The prevalence at this level was greateramong men than women— 52 percent comparedwith 44 percent for uncorrected distance visionand 69 percent compared with 63 percent whentesting was with usual correction.
This rate without correction was highestamong young adults 25-34 years of age, thendropped rapidly from 72 percent at that age toless than 1 percent by 75-79 years (tables 1 and 3and fig. 1). The peak was in the same age rangewhen testing was with usual correction butdropped somewhat more slowly until the older agegroups were reached, from 86 percent to 10 per-cent (tables 2 and 4 and fig. 1). The pattern by agewas similar among both men and women exceptthat the rate fell off most rapidly from 35 to 45years for women,.or 10 years earlier than for men,when tested with usual correction. The explanationfor this may lie in the fact that relatively moremen than women stay in the labor market duringthis period and hence are more aware of the needto keep their visual acuity corrected to this highlevel.
The proportion testing 20/20 or better Imtfiwithout and with usual correction was found to beslightly lower at 18-24 years of age than at 25-34years, although the differences in uncorrectedacuity for men and corrected acuity for women arenot statistically significant. This possibly reflectsthe larger proportion of the military not includedin the survey among the younger age group of thepopulation where visual standards with respect to
2
DISTANCE
100r
Uncorrected
1- ■ =mmm BhlQCUkM
I _ Better monocular
0
Age in yeare
NEAR
VISION
Ueual correction100
P,
- --..0 ---==$
80
60
40
20
o~80
Age in yeare
VISION
100
80
60
40
20
0
Uncorrected
r
mI I I
20 40 60 80Age In yeore
Uwal corrooiion100 r
01 I I I I I I I
20 40 60 80
Age in years
Figure i. Proportion of American adults with monocular and binocular visuai acuity of 20/20 or betterat distance and lU/iU or better at near.
induction or enlistment would tend to select per- cent with usual correction. As indicated in figure
sons with adequate distance acuity and reject 1 and tables 3 and 4,thispattem of differential
those with severely defective vision. was found in the rates for the younger age groups
Binocular acuity rates for 20/20 or better under 65 years of age with uncorrected vision
exceeded those for better monocular acuityat but throughout-the age range when tested with
distance, by6 percent, for uncorrected and7per- usual correction.
3
DISTANCE VISION
I 00 Usual correction
z01=ai&on
Uncw rect.sd
r I00
80
60
40
PI-1--
1-—- Right eye
mmm..sm Left eye
o~ o~60 60
Age in years60
Age in years
NEAR VISION
Uncorrected100 r
80
60
40
20
020 40 60 80
loo
60
60
40
Usual ccwection
Age in years Age in yeors
Figure 2. Proportion of American adults with monocular and binocular visual acuity of 20/30 or betterat distance and lqj21 or better at near.
Monocular acuity rates, uncorrected, at this physical difference ktween the eyes (tables 3-8level for the right and the left eye were similar. and fig, 1).The slightly higher rates fortheleft eye among At the 20/30 or better level there was es-those 35-74 years with usual correction prabably sentially no difference between the rates for bin-reflected sampling errors rather than any real ocular and better monocular distance vision with
4
DISTANCE
Uncorrected100
80
160
40
20l-z,<,,,*W’
●,*.
.*’”~-.●a.*’’’/&P--.,
..’4’4”.*P
....’9&’w
“’’’ri’m
o~40 60 80
100
r
80
60
40
20
0
VISION
Usual correction
100rt
80
[
.-mm-m=. Binocu~or
— Boiler monocular
*,*,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Right 0%
t
-s- Left Oye60
2:U20 40 60 80
Age in years Age inyears
NEAR VISION
Uncorrected
.
I
20 40 60 BO
Age In years
100
[
60
60
40 1
Usual correction
<..*.
...
20 40 60 60
Age in yeare
Figure 3. Proportion of American adults with monocular and binocular visual acuity of 20/100 or less atdistance and 1%/70 or less at near.
or without usual correction. Only chance differ- difference will be noted between the better mo-ences were noted between the right and the left nocular and binocular acuity rates at distanceeye (fig. 2). with and without usual correction (fig. 3). There
If the poorer end of the acuity scale is con- was, however, a consistent difference between the
sidered where the gradations are coarser, little right and the left eye which was noticeable par-
5
titularly from 35 years of age on. Why the ratefor the right eye should consistently exceed thatfor the left is not readily evident from the avail-able data. Since the order of testing the eyes wasalternated, it cannot be attributed to learning.
Near Vision
Without correction 41 percent of the adultswere found to test at least 14/14 at near withtheir better eye, while 57 percent reached thislevel when tested with their usual correction(tables 9-12).
The prevalence rate at 14/14 or. better was
slightly greater for men than women, but thedifference is not as marked as in distance vision.
At this level, the trend with age was similarto that for distance vision with a few exceptions.Evidence of the rapid decline for near acuity wasseen about 10 years earlier than for distancevision, at 35-44 years of age, and from then onwas more rapid for uncorrected (but not for cor-rected) near acuity.
Monocular acuity rates fell short of those forbinocular acuity, by4 percent for those with uncor-rected vision and 8 percent for those with usualcorrection (tables 11 and 12 and fig. 1). This
trend was noted throughout the age range for acuitywith usual correction but only for younger personsunder 35 years of age with uncorrected vision.
As for distance vision, acuity rates for nearvision at this level for the right and for the lefteye tended to be similar; the deviations from thistrend are too small to be of significance statisti-cally (tables 13-16).
Good agreement was found between the acuityrates at 14/21 or better for binocular and bettermonocular vision, both without and with usualcorrection (fig. 2).
& the lower end of the near acuity range,14/70 or less, essentially no consistent differencewas evident between the rates at this level forbetter monocular and binocular vision, with orwithout usual correction. The consistent excess inthe rate for the right eye over the left was foundin near as in distance vision (fig, 3).
Agreement Between Acuity
Measures
Considering the entire range of acuit y scores,
a high order of agreement was found Mweenbinocular and better monocular acuity rangingfrom tO.90 to +0.93 as shown in table A and
Table A. Correlation between various measures of central visual acuity
Acuity measure
Better monocular and binocular
Uncorrected distance acuity -------------------------------------Uncorrected near acuity -----------------------------------------Distance with usual correction ----------------------------------Near with usual correction -------- -------- -------- --------------
Right eye and left eye
Uncorrected distance acuity -------------------------------------Uncorrected near acuity -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -Distance with usual correction ----------------------------------Near with usual correction --------------------------------------
of
6
Correlationcoefficient
FTotal Men
+0.92 +0.91+0.90 i-O. 89+0.93 +0.91+0.90 +0.88
-IL+0.66 +0.61+0.76 -1-0.74+0.32 +0.26+0, 44 +0.41
Women
+0.92+0.90+0.94+0.92,
+0.69+0.78+0.37+0.46
Iproduct.moment correlation coefficient computed from measurements of acl.dtykl te131M
degrees of visual angle (see reference 4).
20
[ ‘R,L - + 0.66
u>u R- L1OO9+ 0.642 L
/’0/
~ 15/’
g/’
%.1 - 3.29K
,/’
Id/’
/’dz*
/’”/10
iD /“~ ,/
0“’i ,/
,/Es ;~
ili *Eo
0/ I I I I
o 5 10 Is 20
DEGREES OF VISUAL ANGLE -LEFT EYE
.
Figure 4. Regression of right on left uncorrecteddistance visual acuity for adults.
(Visualangle is reciprocalof Snellen notationIn decimal form with 20120=1.0, 20140=2.0, etc.)
figure 4. The correlations were slightly but notsignificantly higher among women than men andof about the same magnitude for distance as fornear acuity. As expected with this degree ofas-sociation, between68 and71 percent ofthepairedscores were at the same level while only 2t03percent differed by more than one level eitherwith or without visual correction. (SeetableBandthe standard error of estimate around the re-gression line in figure 4.) It is apparent thatingeneral where differences dooccurtheyare foundmore often in the better than the poorer acuitylevels. This would be expected since the scalegradation is finer at the better acuity levels.
From the regression line it will be noted thatbinocular acuity levels tend, on the average, toexceed those for monocular acuity at levels of20/80 or better while the reverse is true at thepoorer acuity levels.
Agreement between acuity levels attained forthe right and the left eye was of a lower order ofmagnitude than that for binocular and better mo-nocular vision and substantially less good withusual correction than without—+0.32 and +0.44
‘l!able B. Extent of disagreement betweenmeasures of better raonocular and binoc-ular visual acuity
Leveldifference
c
None ----------1 . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 --’ ---------’ ..-
-------------&-----------5 -------------6 -------- -----7-------- -----8 --------- ----
I
Percent of total group
68.7028.9
;::0;1
67.529.13.00.40.1
70.82:.:
0;2.
compared with +0.66 and +0.76-as shown in tableA. Here the degree of association is better withnear than distance vision and consistently betterfor women than for men.
20 r /K
I/
a
/
//- + 0.92 ,/
i ‘M,B /’
u/ /
./
z/’
M- 0.2441 + 0.950B / //’
: 15/
/ //.
%1 ‘M.E- 1.37.~’-/.”
o 5 10 15 20
DEGREES OF VISUAL ANGLE - BINOCULAR
Figure 5. Regression of better monocular on bin-ocular distance visual acuity for adults.
(Visual angle is reciprocal of SnelIen notationin decimal form with 20/20=1.0, 20/110=2.0,etc.)
7
Table C. Extent of disagreement betweenvisual acuity in the right and the lefteye
Leveldifference
None----------1-------------2--------------------------
:---------------------.....
:-------------7-------------8-------------
IUncorrected ,cor~~c~~on
Di_s-tance INear ~&e Near
Percent of total group
46.136.0
9.73.62,0
M0.30.2
50.235.9
7.52.8
M0.60.30.1
48.736.7
;.:
1:71.2
::;0.2
48.337.4
7.12.51.7
H0.40.2
Disagreementsof two levelsor more werefoundin 14to18percentoftheexaminees,most
of them occurringwithinthefinergradationsoftest-lettersizeatthebetteracuitylevels(tableC).
From theregressionlineinfigure5 itisapparentthatatacuitylevelsof20/60or better,acuityfortherighteyeontheaveragefellslightlyshort of thatfor the leftwhile’atthepooreracuitylevelsthereversewas found.Despitethis,
theproportiontesting20/1000rlessfortherighteye tendedto exceedthatfor theleft,aspre-viouslyindicated,reflectingtheskewnessofthedistributionof acuities.
Agreement Between Interview
and Test Data
At thetime of thehouseholdinterviewjustpriorto theexamination,prospectiveexaminees
Table D. Visual acuity status on interview and binocular acuity test findings withusual correction
—
Binocular acuity with usualcorrection
Total------------------------
Distance acuity
Total------------------------
20/100 or less ---------------------20/40-20/70------------------------20/30 or better--------------------
Near acuity
Total------------------------
14/70 or less----------------------14/28-14/49------------------------14/21 or better--------------------
Impairment as reported on interview
One
Total One blind,Blind, blind, other One or No eye
both other bothnormal trouble
eyes de- er not de- re.
fective fective portedmen-tioned
Percent distribution of interview findings
100.0II 100. 0.1 I 0.4 j 2.6 ] 96.9
Percent distribution of acuity levels
100.0
7100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2.3 100.0 33.3 21.4--- ;:.; 2::; 19.1
9;:2 --- ● 64.3 59.5
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4.4 100.0 66.7 10.7 23.710.9 --- 33.3 14.3 30.184.7 --- --- 75.0 46.2
100.0
:::92.0
100.0
1:::85.9
10.03 percent.
8
Table E. Visual acuity status on interview and better monocular acuity test findingswith usual correction
Better monocular acuity with usualcorrection
Total------------------------
Distance acuity
Total------------------------
20/100 or less---------------------20/40-20/70------------------------20/30 or better--------------------
Near acuitv
Total------------------------
14/70 or less----------------------14/28-14/49------------------------14/21 or better --------------------
10.03 percent.
Total
e
Impairment as reported in interviewI[ I I
OneOne blind,
Blind, blind, otherboth other normaleyes or not
fe$ive men-tioned
One orbothde-
fective
No eyetrouble
po%ed
Percent distribution of interview findings
100.0~ 10.0 I 0.1 I 0.4 I 2.6 I 96.9
Percent distribution of acuity levels
100.0
::;90.1
100.0
were asked “Can you see well enough to readordinary newspaper print with glasses?” inaddi-
tion to the general questions on impairmentsorsymptoms, If the person answered “no” to thequestion onreading newspaperprint hewasclassi-fied as “blind in both eyes.’’ Ifheotherwisere-ported having impaired visionorkingblind inoneor both eyes, the visual status of theexamineewas so classified.
The extent of agreement between centralvisual acuity scores, with usual correction, fromthe examination and visual status as determinedby interview are shown for binocular vision intable Dand for better monocular vision intable E.
Agreement between test and interview dataisgenerally fairly good but better for those report-
100.0 I 100.OI 100.OI 100.0 I 100.0
100.0 100.0-.. ------ ---
100.01 100.0
50.021.428.6
100.0
23.731.245.1
100.0
1.6
8;:!!
100.0100.0 100.0--- .-.--- ---
50.032.117.9
24.942.2 1::;32.9 81.9
ing extremely defective vision—’’blind in botheyes” or “one blind, other defective’’—than forthose reporting no eye trouble.
Among those whose “corrected’’visual acuitytest results were 20/100orless and14/700rlessbut who reported noeye troubleor trouble read-ing newsprint, alxmt two-thirds stated they woreglassesatleast partofthetime butdidnotbringthem to the examination. Hence their actual testresults with their usualcorrection wouldprobablynot have been this low. The remaining one-thirdtesting at this level reported they did not wearglasses atall. These examineesapparently eitherdid not realize they had avisual problem orhad ‘refused to admit it when they were interviewed.
DISCUSSION
Few studies are reported in the literaturegiving monocular acuity findings obtained by simi-lar methods to those used in the. present survey.
Karpinos8 in his study of a 50-percent sampleof the 276,000 Selective Service registrants agedthrough 26 years examined in the Armed Forcesexamining stations from January 1957 throughSeptember 1958 showed a high level of agreementbetween tests of the right and the left eye. Eighty-five percent tested at the same level and onlyabout seven percent differed by more than onelevel of acuity. This is a far higher level of agree-ment than that found among men 18-24 years ofage in the present study, where only about 36 per-cent were in agreement and nearly 20 percentdiffered by more than one level.
Sorsby and others 9 found in their study of1,033 men 18-22 years of age called for NationalService in Great Britain that 68 percent tested6/6 or better (comparable to the 20/20 level buttested with appropriately sized letters at 6 feet)in the better eye without correction, only slightlybelow the 73 percent found for men 18-24 yearsof age in the present study.
Rambo and Sang~l 10 in their study of the ac-commodation of the people of India reanalyzeddata from previous studies among mid-Europeangroups of Donders, 11 Duane,l 2-14 and Sheard.l 5Although testing methods were not the same asthckse used in the present study, they found onlychance differences between acuities in the rightand the left eye; their findings showed betteragreement but were roughly comparable to thosefindings from the present study.
SUMMARY
Monocular visual acuity findings for each eyeand the better eye are analyzed here and comparedwith binocular acuity findings and results fromprevious investigations in this area as reported inthe literature. Comparison with responses onvisual status from the interview is also included.
From the present study national estimatesbased on Health Examination Survey findingsamong a complex probability sample highly repre-sentative of adults 18-79 years of age in the ci-
vilian, noninstitutional population of the UnitedStates in 1960-62 are as follows.
The rates for binocular visual acuity levels of20/20 or better were *consistently higher thanthose for better monocular acuity, which in turnexceeded the rates for either the right or theleft eye throughout the age range.
At the 20/30 or better levels and at thepoorer end of the acuity range–20/100 or less–essentiMly no consistent difference was foundbetween the rates for binocular and better mo-nocular visual acuity.
In general the trends by age and sex forbetter monocular vision were similar to thosefor binocular acuity.
Overall, a high order of agreement wasfound between better monocular and binocularacuity both without and with usual correction.Agreement of test results for the left and theright eye was less good and was poorer for testsin which usual correction was used than for thosewithout. Agreement was, as expected, better atthe lower acuity levels where measurement grada-tions were coarser.
Agreement between interview and test datawas good for those with extremely defectivevisual acuity and less good for those with betterbut still defective vision.
REFERENCES
lNational Center for Health ‘Statistics: Origin, program,and operation of the U.S. National Health ‘Survey. Vita? andHe@% Statistics. PHS Pub. No. 1000-Series l-No. 1. PublicHealth “Service. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Aug. 1963.
%ationaI Center for Health Statistics: Plan and initial
program of tbe Health Examination Survey. Vita.f and HealthStatistics. PHS Pub. No. 1000-Senes l-No. 4. Public Health
Service. Washington. U.”S. Government Printing Office, July
1965.
%ational Center for Health Statistics: Cycle I of tbe
Health Examination Survey, sample and response. Vital andHealth Statistics. PHS Pub. No. 1000-Series 11-No. L Public
Health Service. Washington. U.S. ‘Government Printing Office,
Apr. 1964.
‘%ational Center for Health ‘Statistics: Comparison of two
vision-tasting devices. Vita2 and HeaZth Statistics. PHS Pub,No. 1000-Seriee 2-No.1. Public Health Service. Washington.
U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1963.
10
%ational Center for Health ‘Statistics: Binocular visual
acuity of adults, United States, 1960-1962. Vitrzt and HealthStatistics. PHS Pub. No. 1000-’Series 11-No. 3. Public HealthService. Washington. U.’S. Government Printing Offioe, June1964.
6National Center for Health ‘Statistics: Binocular visualacuity of adults by region and selected demographic charac-teristics, United States, 1960-1962. VitaZ and HeaZth Stati.s-
tius, PHS Pub. No. 1000-Series 11-No. 25. Public HealthSsrvice. Washington. U.’S. Government Printing Office, June1967.
7National Center for Health ‘Statistics: History and exami-nation findings related to visual acuity among adults, UnitedStates, 1960. 196!2. Vital and Health Statistics. PHS Pub. No.1000-Seriee 11-No. 28. Public Health “Service. Washington.U.S. Government Printing Office, Mar. 1968.
8Karpinos, B. D.: Racial differences in visual acuity. PrLb.
Health Rep, 75 (11): 1045-1050, Nov. 1960.
9%rsby, A., and others: Vision, visual acuity, and ocular
refraction of young men, findings in a sample of 1,033 sub-jects. Brit.M.J. I: 1394-1398, May 7, 1960.
10Rambo, V. C., and Sangal, S. P.: A study of the accom-
modation of the people of India. Am. J. Ophth. 49: 993-1004,May 1960.
11Donders, F. C.; Anomalies of Accommodation and Re-
traction of the Eye. New ‘Sydenham Society, 1864.
12Duane, A.: AnomaIies of accommodation clinicallyconsidered. Tr. Am. Ophth. Soc. 14: 386-398, 1916.
13Duane, A.: General optical properties of the eye, inErnest Fuchs, Teztbook o~Ophthalmology. Philadelphia. J. B.Lippincott Co., 1924. pp. 173-177.
14Duane, A.: Subnormal accormncdation. Arch. Ophth. 54:566-587, 1925.
15Sheard, C.: Physiological Optics. Cleveland, Ohio.
Cleveland Press, 1918.
ooo —
11
------- ---- ---Dt lAILkD IABLI.5
Table 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Rates for adulta at specifiedacuity levels for uncorrectedcentral distancevision in the better eye: United States, 1960-62--------------------------------
Rates for adults at specifiedacuity levels for “corrected”central distancevision in the better eye: United States, 1960-62--------------------------------
Rates for adults at selectedacuity levels for uncorrectedmonocular and binocu-lar central visual acuity at distance:United States, 1960-62-------------------
Rates for adulta at selectedacuity levels for “corrected”monocularand binocu-lar centralvisual acuity at distance:United States, 1960-62-------------------
Rates for adults at specified acuity levels for uncorrectedcentral distancevision in the right eye: United States, 1960-62---------------------------------
Rates for adults at specifiedacuity levels for uncorrectedcentral distancevision in the left eye: United States, 1960-62----------------------------------
Rates for adults at specifiedacuity levels for “corrected”central distancevision in the right eye: United States, 1960-62---------------------------------
Rates for adults at specifiedacuity levels for “corrected”central distancevision in the left eye: United States, 1960-62----------------------------------
Rates for adults at specifiedacuity levels for uncorrectedcentralnear viaionin the better eye: United Statea, 1960-62---------------------------------------
Ratea for adults at specifiedacuity levels for “corrected”centralnear visionin the better eye: United States, 1960-62---------------------------------------
Rates for adults at selectedacuity levels for uncorrectedmonocularand binocu-lar centralvisual acuity at near: United States, 1960-62-----------------------
Ratea for adults at selectedacuity levels for “corrected”monocularand binocu-lar centralvisual acuity at near: United States, 1960-62-----------------------
Rates for adults at specifiedacuity levels for uncorrectedcentralnear visionin the right eye: United States, 1960-62----------------------------------------
Rates for adults at specified acuity levels for uncorrectedcentralnear visionin the left eye: United States, 1960-62-----------------------------------------
Rates for adults at specifiedacuity levels for “corrected”centralnear visionin the right eye: United States, 1960-62----------------------------------------
Rates for adulta at specifiedacuity levels for “corrected”centralnear visionin the left eye: United States, 1960-62-----------------------------------------
Page
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
Table 1. Rates for adults at specifiedacuity levels for uncorrectedcentral distancevision inthe better eye: United States, 1960-62
Acuity level
Sex and age 20/10or
more20/200 Less than
20/20020/15
Both sexes Rate per 100 adults
All ages, 18-79-- 0.7 24.7 22.6 20.3 6.4 5.0 4.8 7.5 5.5 2.4
18-24 years----------
25-34 years----------
35-44 years----------
45-54 years----------
55-64 years----------
65-74 years----------
75-79 years----------
1.6
1,2
1.1
0.1
0.2
-
1.0
2.6
1.8
1.2
0;2
0.5
42.2
41.2
35.4
14.5
2.8
0.6
28.8
48.4
45.1
43.2
19.4
2.0
0.8
21.0
23.9
29.7
33.5
22;4
11.8
3.8
0.3
22.6
22,0
28.2
29.6
24.5
15.8
7.8
0.6
22.6
17.6
14.4
17.4
28.4
26.6
19.6
14.1
20.2
16.3
12.0
14.6
27.0
31.9
24.3
20.1
20.4
2.7
2.8
3.3
9.4
11.4
io.4
16.3
6.3
1,1
2.1
2.8
8.8
13.0
11.7
18.4
6.5
1.5
1.1
1.5
7.1
8.6
13.1
16.4
5.3
1.6
1.6
1.5
7.2
9.4
14.3
15.3
4.7
2.7
2.1
1.7
4.6
9.6
10.9
15.1
4.4
2.7
1.8
1.8
4,0
9.1
905
15.4
5.2
2.6
2.1
2.5
6.7
16.8
21.1
20.3
5.6
1.5
2.7
2.1
4.8
10.5
17.4
16.3
9.2
3.1
3.6
2.2
5.5
9.2
13.4
9.2
4.3
2.7
3.6
2.2
3.8
6.4
9.8
6.8
6.6
2.0
1,8
2,0
1*2
2.9
7,0
8.0
1.5
1.2
1.0
0.9
0.2
1.8
4.4
7.0
3.2
Men—
All ages, 18-79--
18-24 years----------
25-34 years----------
35-44 years----------
45-54 years----------
55-64 years----------
65-74 years----------
75-79 years----------
Women
All ages, 18-79--
18-24 yenrs----------
25-34 years----------
35-44 years----------
45-54 years----------
55-64 years----------
65-74 years----------
75-79 years----------
0.7
0.6
1.0
0.1
0.4
-
37.0
37;.7
28.2
9.8
3,5
0.5
25.6
31.2
37.2
20.5
8.1
0.4
18.7
16,7
20.2
29.7
21.8
15.8
8.2
4.1
3.3
3.7
9.9
10.0
9.4
14.1
1.5
0.6
1.6
7.1
7.9
12.2
17.6
2.8
2.3
1.7
5.2
10.1
12.0
14.8
3.6
1.4
3.0
8.4
22.7
24.0
24.4
3.5
3.6
2.1
7.1
11,7
16.4
11.8
2.6
2.5
1.5
2.2
3.8
9.1
9.1
13
Table 2. Rates for adults at specifiedacuity levels for “corrected”central distancevision Inthe better eye: United States, 1960-62
Sex and age
Both sexes
All ages, 18-79--
18-24 years----------
25-34 years----------
35-44 years----------
45-54years----------
55-64 years----------
65-74 years----------
75-79 year8----------
&n
All ages, 18-79--
18-24 years----------
25-34 years----------
35-44 years----------
45-54 years----------
55-64 years----------
65-74 years----------
75-79 years----------
w?
All ages, 18-79--
18-24 years----------
25-34 years----------
35-44 years----------
45-54 years----------
55-64 years----------
65-74 years----------
75-79 years----------
—Acuity level
20/10 Lessor 20/15 20/20 20/30 20/40 20/50 20/70 20/100 20/200 than
more 20/200
Rate per 100 adults
0.$—
2.(
~ol
1.1
0.4
.
.
.
1.2
3.2
2.0
1.2
0.7
0.6
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.2
32.5
50*~
50.5
44.3
25.8
9’.2
3.7
1.0
37.0
53.9
55.1
51.1
32.0
9.1
4*4
2.0
29.2
47*3
46.4
38.0
19.8
9.3
3.0
32.1_
28.9
33.6
38.0
35.6
30.6
22.4
9.1
30,7
25.5
31.8
32.8
35.5
30.9
26.8
9.5
33.3
31.7
35.2
42.7
35.6
30.2
18.8
8.8
24.2—
16.0
11.5
13.5
28.2
43.4
44*4
44.9
22.2
15.5
8.7
11.9
23.8
43.1
40.8
51.6
26.0
16.4
1401
15.1
32.4
43.6
47.3
38.1
4.L_
l.i
1.4
1.5
5.1
8.0
11.2
14.0
4.1
0.7
1.4
1.6
4.3
9,1
10.4
12.0
4.6
2.6
1.4
1.5
5.8
6.8
11.9
16.1
2.4-
0.5
0.3
0.6
2.1
4.3
7.8
15,1
2.3
0.7
0.4
0.3
2.1
3.9
6.6
17.3
2.5
0.3
0.2
0.8
2.1
4.7
8.8
12.9
1.3—
0.3
0.4
0.5
1.0
2.3
3.7
7.9
1.1
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.8
4.5
4.9
1.5
0.1
0.5
0.6
1.7
2.8
3.0
10.9
0.9—
0.1
0.5
0.2
0.9
0.8
3.7
4.1
0.8
0.1
0.3
0.8
0.7
4.3
1.1
1.1
0.2
0.8
0.2
1.1
1.0
3.3
7.3
0.5—
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.5
1.0
1.4
2.4
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.8
1.6
1.5
0..6
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.8
1.1
1.2
3.4
0.4>
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.4
1.6
1.2
0.2
.
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.4
2.5
2.4
I
14
Table3. Ratesfor adultsat selectedacuitylevelsforuncorrectedmonocularand binocularcentral visual acuitvat @stance: United States, 960-62
IRight eye Left eyeI r I I I
Better eye Binocular
I [ I I ISex and age 20/20 20/100 20/20 20/10020/30 20/30
be%er 1% be~er 133
20/20 20/100 20/20 20/10020/30 20/30
be%er 1:s be~er 1:s, ,
Jloth eexes
All ages,18-79--
>,
1
18-24years----------
25-34years----------
1 35-44years----------
45-54years----------
55-64yeare----------
65-7.4yeare----------
75-79ymare----------
Men—
All agea,lS-79.-
18-24years----------
25-34years----------
35.44yeare----------
45-54yeare----------
55-64years----------
65-74yeare----------
75-79yeara----------
Women
All ages,18-79--
18-24years----------
25-34yeare----------
35-44yeara----------
45-54years----------
55-64years----------
65-74years----------
75-79years----------
Rate per 100 adults
39.6 22.0 22.C 39.7_
58.E
60.6
5s.6
29.4
9.7
2.6
43.0
22.4
21.6
21.7
22.6
27.4
25.6
13.7
10.0
22.7
19.7
21.2
20.3
26.4
30.3
18.6
15.7
22.2
19.2
9,$
9.6
8.(
16.5
35.s
4S.6
47.C
14.9
7.2
9.3
6.9
12.5
25,6
38.5
37.2
23.0
48.1
67.;
72.1
68.!
37.1
14.E
4.4
0.:
52.4
20.:
17.(
~4.L
17.4
28.4
26.6
19.6
14.1
20.2
15.1
7.;
J.!
5.5
13.L
28.f
41.:
37.E
11.4
5.4
7.4
5.2
8.9
18.8
31.5
30.1
19.0
53.9_
74.8
77.3
76.7
44.6
21.0
5.7
1.5
57.7
15.4_
10.4
9.6
10.9
23.7
21.8
19.3
13.1
15.5
9.4
7.4
8.8
22.9
27.2
23.4
17.6
15.2
16,1_
8.3
7.5
5.9
13.8
30.0
44.9
42.0
12.1
5.8
7.4
5.0
9.4
20.7
33.5
39.3
19.7
59.1
63.6
56.5
27.4
9.7
3.0
0.3
42.4
21.1
18.5
24.9
29.9
21.1
14.0
7.9
22.2
11,7
10.9
9.1
20.0
39.9
55.9
58.5
18.2
63.4
65.4
57.8
32.9
11.9
5.6
0.6
37.0
19.3
15.9
24.7
29.5
25.6
17.1
10.2
21,8
10,1
10.7
8.2
16.0
30.6
44.1
56.4
25.5
64.4
61.9
61.9
35.0
1006
5.6
36.8
73.0
75.1
74.0
44.1
17.8
8.6
0.6
44.1
16.3
12.0
14.6
27.0
31.9
24.3
20.1
20.4
79.5
79.8
79.7
50.2
24.7
9.3
1.2
50.5
55.5
61.9
55.4
22.1
7.7
1.0
.
22.6
20.8
25.0
30.3
17.0
11.5
5.6
13.2
11.1
10.0
23,8
48.5
65.6
60.7
54.1
59.3
55.5
24.0
8.8
0.2
23.2
22.2
24.8
28.4
21.1
9.6
4.2
12.3
9.9
9.0
21.2
45.5
56.8
57.0
63.3
69.5
66.4
30.4
12.0
1.0
18.7
16.7
20.0
29.7
21.8
15.8
8.2
9.7
7.5
6.6
17.7
38.2
49.6
45.3
70.7
75.3
74.0
39.4
17.5
2.9
1.6
11.3
11.6
12.8
24.2
17.0
16.1
S.5
10.2
7.6
6.6
18.0
38.4
53.7
45.0
15
Table 4. Rates for adults at selected acuity levels for “corrected’tmonocular and binocular central visual acuitvat d~stance: United States, 1960-62
Right eye
!EIEE
Binocular
ZEElz
Sex and age
Both sexes
All ages, 18-79--
1S-24 years----------
25-34 years----------
35-44 years----------
45-54 years----------
55-64 years----------
65-74 years----------
75-79 years----------
lien—
All ages, lS-79--
18-24 years----------
25-34 years----------
35-44 years----------
45-54 years----------
55-64 years----------
65-74 years----------
75-79 years----------
Women
All ages, 18-79--
18-24 years----------
25-34 years----------
35-44 years----------
45-54 years----------
55-64 years----------
65-74 yeare----------
75-79 years----------
Rate per 100 adults
53.7 5.2 28.5
21.6
20.8
21.5
32.0
43.2
39.6
34.2
26.6
19.1
19.2
20.4
28.0
43.2
35.5
39.9
30.2
4.3
1.6
2.4
1.8
3.7
6.0
12.8
17.3
3.9
1.3
1.6
1.7
3.4
6.0
12.9
13.0
4.7
24.2_
16.0
11.5
13.5
28.2
43.4
44.4
44.9
22.2
15.5
8.7
11.9
23.8
43.1
40.8
51.6
26.0
1.8_
0.3
0.8
0.5
1.7
2.3
6.7
7.8
1.4
0.2
0.6
1.2
2.0
6.4
2.5
2.2
17.7_
10.2
7.4
7.1
20.5
33.5
38.9
38.6
15.8
8.6
5.4
5.8
1s.0
32.5
35.0
38.0
19.5
2.3-
0.3
0.8
0.4 1
2.3
3.7
8.1
11.2
1.9
0.6
0.5
1.3
3.5
7.6
9.8
2.6
29.4 55.1_
71.3
72.5
71.0
50.4
31.2
18.2
5.1
57.8
74.1
74.7
72.6
56.4
31.0
22.3
4.7
52.7
65.9—
81.2
85.5
83.3
61.8
39.7
26.1
10.1
6S.9
82.6
88.9
85.2
6S.2
40.0
31.3
11.6
63.1
72.8—
87.7
89.6
90.0
71.0
50.1
32.2
15.0
75.7
89.6
92.5
91.3
75.3
51.5
36.9
18.9
70.4
71.4
75;3
69.4
47.2
25.0
16.4
7.4
55.2
70.8
78.0
68.4
52.4
24.8
18.6
11.6
52.3
20.8
18.8
23.2
36.0
43.8
41.4
36,8
28.3
20.3
15.6
24.0
32.6
43.9
40.3
42.6
30.4
2.1
1.8
2.3
4.4
8.5
14.5
23.4
5.0
3.0
1.2
2.5
3.6
9.6
14.1
19.6
5.3
71.8
72.9
70.3
42.3
25.2
14.6
3.3
21.2
21.8
22.4
39.3
43.7
42.2
31.0
1.4
2.4
2.0
5.2
7.5
14.9
27.5
69.0
70.4
69.5
44.7
31.5
14.9
5.5
23.6
22..1
22.6
35,9
43.3
42.9
28.6
1.8
3.0
1.9
4.0
6.0
12.8
21.s
80.0
82.4
81.6
55.7
39.5
21.9
8.8
16.4
14.1
15.1
32.4
43.6
47.3
38.1
0.6
1.3
0.4
2.2
2.5
7.0
13.1
86.0
87.1
88.8
66.9
48.9
28.5
11.2
11.6
9.3
8.2
22.9
34.4
42.1
39.1
0.6
0.9
0.4
3.2
3.8
8.5
12.4
.
I
16
Table 5. Rates for adults at specified acuity levels for uncorrected central distance vision inthe right eye: United Statea, 1960-62
Acuity level
/20/10or 20/15 20 /20 20/30 20/40 20/50 20/70 20/100 2i3/21313 L;;~2;p
more
Sex and age
Both sexes Rate per 100 adults
All ages, 18-79-- 0.3 18.0 21.3 22.C 6.6 7.0 2.8 10.: 6.8 5.0
L8-24 years----------
[ 25-34 years----------
35-44 yeara----------
45-54 years----------
55-64 years----------
65-74 years----------
75-79 years----------
0.9
0,4
0.2
0.1
0.3
30.5
31.0
25.9
9,5
2.0
0.5
20.7
27.7
32.1
30.4
17,9
7.6
2.6
0.3
21.5
21.1
18.5
24.9
29.9
21,1
14.0
7.9
22.2
4.2
2.8
3.9
9.3
12.1
9.8
7.9
7.1
1.9
2.4
3.7
9.9
12.7
13.4
19.6
7.2
1.8
1.8
1.8
3.6
4.4
3.7
5.7
2.9
3.8
3.4
4’..
9.2
21.8
27.2
27.6
9.0
4.8
4.2
2.5
7.4
11.6
14.2
13.7
5.3
3.1
3.2
2.3
3.4
6.4
14.6
17.2
3.9
1.7
2.6
2.1
2.8
5.3
10.7
14.6
5.9
Men—
All ages, 18-79--
18-24 years----------
25-34 years----------
35-44 years----------
45-54 years----------
55-64 years----------
65-74 years----------
75-79 years----------
34.4
34.0
30.1
13.7
1,2
0.4
15.6
1.3
0,6
0.2
27.7
30.8
27.7
19.2
10.7
5.2
0.6
21.2
19.3
15.9
24.7
29,5
25.6/
17.1
10.2
21.8
4.0
3.0
3.8
9.2
13.4
13.2
8.4
6.1
2.0
2.9
3.0
8.5
14.3
16.1
21.2
6.8
1.2
2.1
2.4
3.8
4.2
3.8
3.2
2.7
3.1
4.0
3.6
8.8
16.9
23.0
29.9
11.5
5.3
4.0
2.4
4.4
8.3
10.4
11.8
8.1
Women
All ages, 18-79--
18-24 years----------
25-34 years----------
35-44 yeara----------.
45-54 years----------
55-64 years----------.1
65-74 yeara----------
,75-79 years----------
0,4
0.3
0.4
0.2
‘-
27.2
28,3
22.0
5.5
2,8
0.5
27.8
33.4
32.9
16.6
4.7
0.4
22.6
20.8
25.0
30.3
17.0
11.5
5.6
4.4
2.6
4.0
9.3
11.0
7.0
7.3
1.8
2.0
4.4
11.2
11.3
11.2
18.0
2.4
1.6
1.2
3.3
4.5
3.7
8.3
4.4
2.9
5.0
9.8
26.4
30.6
25.3
4.4
4.4
2.7
10.2
14.8
17.3
15.6
4.3
3.8
2.4
3.9
7.4
17.7
19.8
17
Table 6. Rates for adults at specified acuity levels for uncorrectedcentral distancevision inthe left eye: United States, 1960-62
Acuity level
20/200
Sex and age !0/10or
moreLess than20/200
20/15 20/20 20/30 20/40 20/50 20/70 20/100
Rate per 100 adultsBoth sexes
All ages, 18-79--
18-24 years----------
25-34.years----------
35-44 years----------
45-54 years ----------
55-64 years----------
65-74 years----------
75-79 years----------
Men—
All ages, 18-79--
18-24 years----------
25-34 years----------
35-44 years----------
45-54 years----------
55-64 years-----+---
65-74 years----------
75-79 years----------
Women
All ages, 18-79--
18-24 years----------
25-34 years----------
35-44 years----------
45-54 years----------
55-64 yearn----------
65-74 years----------
75-79 years----------
0.5.
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.1
0.1
0.7
18.4—
33.6
32,0
25.4
9.7
1.2
0.3
22.2
41.3
34.8
32,3
13.2
1.4
0.8
15.0
27.1
29.3
19.1
6.4
1.1
20.8 22.4—
21.6
21.7
22.6
27.4
25.6
13.7
10.0
22.7
19.7
21.2
20.3
26.4
30.3
18.6
15.7
22.2
23.2
22.2
24.S
28.4
21.1
9.6
4.2
7.3 3.5 7.9 7.0 6.9 5*3 ,-
24.5
27.8
32.2
19.5
8.4
2.3
20.0
3.8
3.8
5.5
10.8
9.4
11.0
16.4
7.6
1.8
1.4
1.4
5.3
5.7
7.3
7.0
4.0
1.7
1.8
1..4
7.0
6.2
7.4
8.0
3.0
4.0
2.8
3.9
10.0
13.8
16.8
19.4
7.8
3.1
2.0
2.5
7.2
15.2
18.1
15.1
5*5
3.0
3.6
3.2
6.1
13.3
16.7
17.7
5.5
3.9
4.1 \
2.3
3.7
7,4
13.8
14.3
3.9
2.6
2.8
1.8
2.6
5.9
11.0
11.1
1.2
1.4
1.2
0.2
0.3
21.9
25.7
28.4
21.7
9.2
4.8
21.5
26.7
29.6
35.7
17.5
7.6
0.2
3.2
3.0
501
11.2
11.9
12.6
18.0
7.0
3.7
2.6
4.4
7.8
15.4
17.3
21.0
8.0
1.6
2.3
2.7
5.0
9.8
17.1
11.0
8.4
3.1
4.2
2.4
4.8
9.8
10.5
15.1
8.2 6.5
4.3
1.7
2.4
9.2
20.2
18.9
19.2
2.9
3.0
3.9
7.2
16,4
21.9
20.3
5.0
5.2
2.8
4.7
8.8
16.1
17.5
0.2
0.4
0.7
0.1
0.2
4.3
4.5
5.8
10.5
7.0
9.7
14.7
2.0
1.0
1.3
3.8
5.2
7.2
6.0
4.2
3.0
3.4
12.1
12.4
16.4
17.9
18
Table 7. Rates for adults at specified acuity levels for ‘Corrected”centraldistancevision inthe right eye: United States, 1960-62
*
Acuity level
20/10or 20/15 20/20 20/30 20/40 20/50 20/70 20/100 20/200 L;;;2;;@
more
Sex and age
Both sexes Rate per 100 adults
* All ages, 18-79-- 0.3 24.6 29.4 6.0 4.5 2.4 1.1 1.71.2
18-24 years ----------
L 25-34 yeara ----------
35-44 years----------
45-54 years ----------
55-64 years----------
65-74 years----------
75-79 years ----------
0.8
0.5
0.2
0,3
1.6
0.6
0.2
36.4
39.0
33.5
18.2
6.7
3.1
1.0
27.1
38.6
42.4
37.3
22.3
6.1
3.1
2.0
22.3
34,5
35.9
30.1
14.2
7.3
3.0
34.2
35.e
35.6
29.0
18.3
13.3
6.4
27.8
30.7
35.0
31.1
30.0
18.8
15.5
9.5
29.8
37.1
36.6
39.8
28.1
17.9
11.6
3.3
20.8
18.8
23.2
36.0
43.8
41.4
36,8
28.3
20.3
15.6
24.0
32.6
43.9
40.3
42.6
30.4
21.2
21.8
22,4
39.3
43.7
42.2
31.0
3.2
1.7
2.6
6.4
12.3
14.9
9.2
5.9
1.5
1.1
1.7
4.4
9.6
10.6
19.7
4.1
1.0
1.1
0.8
1.5
0.7
2.2
3.2
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.0
1.5
1.0
2.1
1.6
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.5
1.9
4.0
5.4
10.0
2.4
1.8
0.7
1.8
1.3
4.8
5.2
8.6
2.3
0.5
0.6
0.4
O*9
2.4
2.2
3.6
0.9
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
2.2
3.1
2.1
1.2
0.6
0.3
0.4
1.6
2.1
7.0
9.9
1.7
0.8
0.2
0.4
1.8
2.6
5.8
8.9
1.8
0.3
0.3
0.4
1.3
1.7
8.0
10.9
All ages, 18-79--
L8-24 years----------
25-34 years----------
35-44 years----------
45-54 years----------
55-64 years ----------
65-74 years----------
75-79 years----------
3.3
2.2
3.0
5.6
11.2
17.0
5.2
6.0
3.1
1.3
2,3
7.2
13.4
13.2
13.2
1.1
1.4
1.1
4.3
9.5
7.8
19.5
4.9All ages, 18-79--
18-24 years----------
25-34 years----------
35-44 years----------.
45-54 years----------
55-64 years ----------K
65-74 years----------
75-79 years----------
0.2
0.4
0.4
1.8
0.8
2.4
4.5
9.7
12.8
20.0
0.6
0.8
0.6
1.5
0.5
2.3
5.0
0.5
1.2
1.3
2;4
3.3
5.5
11.3
0.6
0.8
0.4
1.4
2.5
1.4
5.2
19
Table 8. Rates for adults at svecifiedacuity levels for “corrected”centraldistancevision inth; left eye: United States, 1960-62
Acuity level
20/10or 20/15 20/20 20/30 20/40 20/50 20I70 20/100 20/200 L;;~2;gan
more
.
Sex and age
Both sexes
All ages, 18-79--
18-24 yeara--------+
25-34 years----------
35-44 years----------
45-54 years----------
55-64 years----------
65-74 yeara----------
75-79 years ----------
~n
All ages, 18-79--
18-24 years ----------
25-34 years----------
35-44 years ----------
45-54 years ----------
55-64 years ----------
65-74 years ----------
75-79 years----------
Women
All ages, 18-79--
18-24 years----------
25-34 years----------
35-44 years----------
45-54 years----------
55-64 years----------
65-74 years----------
75-79 years----------
Rate per 100 adults
0.6 24.3 30.1 28.5 6.3 3.3 1.2 1.1 2.1 ,2.5
1.3
1.0
0.9
0.5
1.0
39.7
39.5
32.2
17.3
5.2
1.6
28.4
30.4
32.0
37.9
32.7
26.1
16.6
5.1
28.4
21.6
20.8
21.5
32.0
43.2
39.6
34.2
26.6
3.3
2.5
3.1
7.5
8.7
15.3
21.6
5.9
0.7
0.9
0.9
3.6
3.6
6.9
8.9
2.8
1.4
1.0
1.7
2.7
7.2
7.1
12.6
3.1
0.3
0.6
0.4
1.1
0.9
5.1
3.1
1.2
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.6
2.1
2.2
7.6
0.8
1.1
1.2 )
0.8
2.0
3.0
5.5
6.7
1.9
108
1.6
1.2
0.7
0.4
46.8
43.0
38.8
21.9
5.3
2.7
20.6
25.4
30.1
32.7
33.8
25.7
19.6
4.7
31.7
0.8
1.2
0.7
4.1
4.1
6.4
10.4
2.3
1.6
0.9
1.5
2.0
6.8
7.6
11.1
3.5
0.2
0.3
0.3
1.0
0.9
7.2
2.1
1.1
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.4
1.9
1.3
5.9
1.3
1.0
0.9
0.9
2.0
3.2
4.3
5.0
19.1
19.2
20.4
28.0
43.2
35.5
39.9
30.2
3.1
2.3
3.1
6.0
8.9
15.2
20.8
6.6 2.2
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.2
33.6
36.2
26.1
12.8
5.1
0.8
34.6
33.8
42.7
31.7
26.4
14.1
5.5
23.6
22.1
22.6
35.9
43.3
42.9
28.6
3.6
2.7
3.1
9.0
8.5
15.3
22.4
0.6
0.6
1.0
3.0
3.2
7.4
7;5
1.3
1.1
1.8
3.4
7.5
6.7
14.2
0.4
1.0
0.5
1.2
1.0
3.4
4.1
0.3
0.6
0.7
0.9
2.3
2.9
9.2
1.1
1.5
0.8
1.9
2.7 ●
6.5
8.5
20
Table 9. Rates for adults at specifiedacuity levels for uncorrectedcentralnear vision in thebetter eye: United States, 1960-62
\
Sex and age
Both sexes
. All ages, 18-79-.
18-24 years----------
, 25-34 years----------
35-44 years----------
45-54 years----------
55-64 years----------
65-74 years----------
75-79 years----------
Men—
All ages, 18-79--
18-24 yeara----------
25-34 yeazs----------
35-44 yeara----------
45-54 yeara----------
55-64 yeara----------
65-74 years----------
75-79 yeara----------
Women
AIJ ages, 1.8-79--
18-24 yeara ----------
25-34 yeara ----------
35-44 years----------.
45-54 yeara ----------
55-64 years----------.
65-74 years----------
75-79 years ----------
Acuity level
Less than14/140
14/7or
more*
14/10.5 14/14 14/49 s4/70 14/140
Rate per 100 adults
oo~_
1.1
1.0
0.5
0.2
0.7
20.!
45.[
42.:
26.(
1.2
0.1
.
23.7
19.[_
33.:
34.7
34.:
4.5
O*:
19.2
11./_
11.1
13.!
20.!
12.;
2*:
2.(
4.:
1o.:
4’.. 4.: 6.3 11.8 14.9
0.7
1.7
3.2
21.9
36.1
38.3
33.9
12.9
0.3
1.7
1.7
19.0
31.9
34.9
28.6
16.6
5.7
0.6
1.0
0.7
5.3
12.7
21.0
18.2
4.5
3.:
1*1
5.(
7.5
3.i
3.:
7.i
4.2
1.(
1.1
2.:
9.>
6.2
7.0
5.2
4.4
0.2
0.7
2.4
9.4
7.4
8.6
4.6
4.1
().$
1.8
3.7
13.1
10.3
9.0
9.6
6.7
0.6
2.4
2.4
14.2
12.5
10.4
6.4
5.9
1.9
1.1
3.6
23.4
27.5
18.6
21.4
12.7
1.7
1.2
2.8
24.7
29.3
23.1
24.5
11.1
L*7
1.5
0.2
0.5
0.3
“52.7
47.8
31.6
1.8
0.2
17.6
40.0
37.3
20.8
0.7
30.1
32,5
34.5
6.0
0.4
20.3
36.1
36.4
34.2
3.9
0.2
9.;
9.5
19.:
13.1
2.8
3.6
8.5
12.7
2.2
1.0
4,8
8.0
4.4
2.9
11.6
4.4
0.9
0.9
0.4
3.4
10.9
16.5
15.7
6.8
0.6
0.6
0.7
12.9
17.6
21.5
12.4
3.1
1.8
4.1
1.8
5.3
7.8
3.0
3.9
2.8
1.6
1.4
2.6
8.9
5.3
5.6
5.8
1.2
1.2
4.9
12.1
8.3
7.8
12.9
2.1
1.0
4*5
22.3
25.8
15.0
18.3
1.0
1.6
4.5
24.8
39.9
41.2
39-4
0.4
l.O
1.0
7.0
14.4
24.7
20.8
21
Table 10. tlcOrrectedflcentralnear vision in theRates for adults at specifiedacuity levels fOr ___ ..better eye: United States,1960-62
Acuity level
14/7or Less than14/10.5 14/14 14/21 14/28 14/35 14/49 14/70 14/140 14/140morenSex and age
Both sexes
All ages, lS-79--
18-24 years----------
25-34 years----------
35-44 years----------
45-54 years----------
55-64 years----------
65-74 years----------
75-79 years----------
Men
All ages, lS-79--
18-24 years----------
25-34 years----------
35-44 years----------
45-54 years----------
55-64 years----------
65-74 years----------
75-79 years----------
Women
All ages, 18-79--
18-24 years----------
25-34 years----------
35-44 years-----------
45-54 years----------
55-64 years----------
65-74 years----------
75-79 years----------
Rate per 100 adults
0.6
0.8
1.4
0.8
0.l
0.1
0.6
25.0 31.4 26.5 6.4 3.4 2.4 1.3 0.5 .2.5
0.3
0.2
1.6
6.5
6.4
6.2
11.9
3.8
0.2
O*3
0,7
6.2
3.2
5.0
7.4
2.9
0.1
0.2
0.3
1.3
3.6
3.5
2.5
1.3
50.7
47.1
30.5
7.5
3.8
1.4
28.9
35,4
37.2
42.1
23.8
26.5
18.3
7.1
29.7
11.O
12.7
20.2
39.1
39.3
46.2
33.2
23.8
1.5
0.7
2.8
10.9
11.4
13.5
21.3
5.8
0.2
1.0
4.0
5.0
4.4
12.7
2.8
0.1
0.6
4.6
6.1
6.3
11.7
2.1
.
0;1 ‘L
0.1
0.6
0.8
1,5
3,8
0.4
1.1
1.8
0.6
0.5
56,4
53.5
36.1
9.9
6.0
2.6
21.4
31.5
34.4
38.7
25,6
25.8
18.4
2.4
32.9
38.6
39.7
45.2
22.1
27.0
18.1
11.8
9.1
8.4
19.9
34.9
32.6
45.2
44.0
28.9
12.6
16.5
20.4
43.1
45.6
47.1
22.3
1.7
1.2
2,6
8.5
10.8
11.7
19.6
7.1
1.3
0.4
3.0
13.3
12.0
15.0
23.0
0.2
0.3
0.8
6.9
8.9
6.3
12.2
3,1
0.3
0.2
2.3
6.0
4.1
6.0
11.5
0.3
0.4
7.4
4.5
5.8
5.4
2.1
.
0.2
1.5
4.6
3.4
1.5
1.3
-
0.1
0.2
0.6
0.8
0.3
3.1
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.9
5.0
1.9
4.5
9.3
0.3
0.5
0.4
1.2
2.7
3.6
3.6
0.6
1.0
1.0
0.2
0.1
46.0
41.2
25.4
5.2
1.7
0.4
.
0.2
1.3
3,4
4.0
2.8
13.8
0,1
0.1
0,6
0.7,
2.5
4.6
22
Table 11. Races for adults at selected acuity levels for uncorrected monocular and binocular central visualacuity at near: United States, 1960-62
Right eye Left eye Better eye
1 I I I I I
Binocular
EEE
Sex and age
14/2114/70
1::s
14/14
be~~er
‘14/70
1%
14/1414/21
be~er
14/70
1:;s
Both sexee Rate per 100 adults
All agee, 18-79------ 34.5 13.8 39.3 34.8 14.5 35.6 40.8 11.8_
11.4
13.9
20.5
12.7
2.9
2.6
4.2
10.9
9.7
9.9
19.3
13.1
2.8
3.6
8.5
12.7
12.9
17.6
21.5
12.4
3.1
1.8
.
32.4 44.7 8.9 31.8
18-24yeare --------------
25-34yeare --------------
35-44years --------------●
45-54 years--------------
55-64 years--------------
65-74 yeara--------------
75-79 years--------------
69.8
69.5
47.7
3.9
0.4
-
37.0
73.8
73.6
53.1
4.9
0.6
.
32.1
66.4
65.7
42.8
3.0
0.2
.
.
18.8
17.9
25.6
9.1
1.8
1,4
3.5
12.9
17.0
13.0
25.6
10.1
1.6
1.9
7.0
14.6
20.4
22,4
25.6
8.1
1.9
0.9
.
4.7
6.6
13.8
62.9
85.8
86.9
86.7
37.2
5.0
6.8
10.2
59.0
83.9
85.0
76.6
41.2
4*5
6.4
17.1
66,6
87,4
88,5
96,8
68.3
67.9
51.3
4.8
0.1
-
37.7
73.1
73.0
56.3
6.4
0.2
.
-
32.2
64.3
63.2
46.6
3.2
.
.
.
19.9
19.4
25.1
10.8
2.1
1.4
4.2
13.4
17.5
15.4
24.5
10.5
1.9
2.0
8.5
15.6
22.0
23.0
25.7
11.0
2.2
0.8
.
4.9
6.5
9.6
54.4
80.9
83.5
76.5
33.5
4.7
6.3
7.1
50.6
78.0
80.2
71.5
37.5
5.0
6,6
11.8
58.1
83.6
86.2
81.6
SO.2
78.0
60.8
6.4
0.4
43.5
84.4
82.1
66.4
8.2
0.6
.
38.3
76.7
74.3
55.7
4.7
0,2
.
.
3.2
3.7
7.5
50.6
76.3
78.0
73.6
30.2
2.8
3.8
4.8
47.0
72.2
74.5
68.8
3*4
3.4
3.7
10.0
54.1
80.1
80.8
78.5
83.3
83.8
68.7
9.5
0.8
3.5
47.6
87.3
86.5
75.1
12.2
1.0
.
7.0
42.1
79.6
81.2
62.8
7.0
0.7
.
.
9.6
8.3
14.5
11.3
3.1
2.2
1.2
7.7
7.4
4.9
12.6
12.2
3.0
2.4
1.1
9.9
11.5
11,4
16.2
10.5
3.2
2,0
1.3
3.1
4.3
8.0
48.8
72.5
78.6
71.7
29.6
2.8
4,3
4,,9
46.4
69.4
75.2
61,0
33.7
3.4
4.3
10.9
50.9
75.3
81.4
82.3
lien—
All agee, 18-79------
18-24years--------------
25-34yeare --------------
35-44year8--------------
45-54years --------------
55-64yeare --------------
65-74yeare --------------
75-79yeart3--------------
woman
All agee, 18-79------
18-24years --------------
~ 25-34yeara --------------
35-44yeara --------------
45-54yeara --------------
55-64yeare --------------
65-74yeare --------------
75-79years --------------
23
Table 12. Rates for adults at selected acuity levels forllcorrected’’mmocular and binocular central visual acuityat near: United States, 1960-62
Binocular
ZEIE
Right eye Left eye Better eye
I II I
Sex and age 14/14or
>etter
14/7014/21
1:s
14/14 14/7014/21
be~er 1:s
Both sexes Sate per 100 adults
All age$, 18-79------ 46.3 29.6 47.4 56.9 26.5 64.9 I8.5 29.2 6.9-
1.4
2.2
2.9
8.8
13.9
14.6
26.3
7.2
1.6
2.0
2.5
9.4
16.0
14.7
22.2
6.7
1.2
2.4
3.3
8.2
11,9
14.4
30.6
4.2 19.8 4.4
76.4
76.3
58.2
21.1
18.8
14.4
4.4
48.5
78.0
S0.8
61.7
23.3
19.2
15.8
2.4
44.2
75.0
72.2
54.9
19,0
18.4
13.3
6.4
90.9
91.9
82.0
43.8
39.2
26.1
13.0
67.1
91.5
93.8
85.5
47.0
40.5
27.2
17.0
63.0
18-24 years--------------
25-34 years--------------
35-44 years--------------
45-54 yearn--------------
55-64 years--------------
65-74 years--------------
75-79 years---------------
18.2
19.3
28.8
37.8
38.8
39.8
27.8
26.2
16.2
14.3
27.0
34.4
31.8
36.0
36.2
32,6
0.8
1.2
4.1
13.0
15.8
17.9
35.2
9.2
0.9
1.3
3.5
14.8
19.4
18.5
27.8
7.9
0.8
1.2
4.7
11.2
12.4
17.4
42.8
74,7
75.2
62.2
24.4
21.6
12.0
4.4
50.4
78.0
80.0
63.9
29.6
24.0
13.5
1.5
44.6
72.0
70.8
60.5
19.4
19.3
10.7
7.3
20.1
19.5
26.3
36.3
39.0
42.3
21.5
26.3
17.3
14.3
26.5
31,9
33.7
40.8
26.9
31.8
22.4
24.3
26.1
40.4
43.9
43.5
16.1
86.9
85.6
73.4
31.4
30.3
19.6
7.1
59.2
89.0
89.6
75.4
35.5
31.8
21.1
2.4
54.8
11.0
12.7
20.2
39.1
39.3
46.2
33.2
23.8
9.1
8.4
19.9
34.9
32.6
45.2
44.0
28.9
0.1
0.5
1.4
5.9
9.4
9.4
18.9
4.5
0.2
1.0
6.7
11.5
10.0
16.2
4.0
7.7
6.4
12.2
29.7
33.2
40.3
30.0
17.2
7.4
3.9
11.0
26.0
27.5
37.6
26.4
22.2
0.2
0.6
1.3
7.3
8.2
10.9
17.1
All ages, 18-79------ 4.8
0.5
1.1
8,5
10.4
11.2
13.9
18-24 years--------------
25-34 years--------------
35-44 years--------------
45-54 years--------------
55-64 years--------------
65-74 years--------------
75-79 years--------------
Wcmert
All ages, 18-79------ 4.1
18-24 years--------------
25-34 years--------------
35-44 years--------------
45-54 years--------------
55-64 years--------------
65-74 years--------------
75-79 yeare--------------
19.9
23.8
30.4
41.0
45.3
42.9
19.4
85.2
81.8
71.5
27.5
28.9
18.5
11.8
12.6
16.5
20.4
43.1
45.6
47.1
22.3
0.3
0.8
1.8
5.1
7.5
8.9
22.0
90.5
90.0
78.9
40.8
38.1
25.0
9.0
7.9
8.7
13.3
33.3
38.4
42.4
33.5
0.3
0.8
1.5
6.1
6.3
1008
20.4
24
I
Table 13. Ratea for adults at specifiedacuity levels for uncorrectedcentralnear vision in theright eye: United States, 1960-62
Acuity level
Sex and age 14/7or
more14/14 14/21 14/28 14/35 14/49 14/7014/10.5
Both sexes Rate per 100 adults
All ages, 18-79-- 0.2 15.7 18.6 13.8 3.f 5.0 3.6 13.7 15.2 10.4
18-24 years---------->,
25-34 years----------
35-44 years----------
45-54 years----------
55-64 yeara----------
65-74 years----------
75-79 years----------
0.2
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.2
37.0
33.2
18.0
0.8
0.1
18.3
32.7
35.8
29.6
3.0
0.3
18.5
18.8
17.9
25.6
9.1
1.8
1.4
3.5
12.9
3.L
2.1
5.C
6’..
2.4
3.C
3.9
3.6
2.1
2.1
4.6
10.3
5.4
5.2
4.3
5.2
1.1
1.8
3.3
7.5
4.3
3.4
1.5
4.0
2.4
2.6
7.3
26.8
27.1
18.9
26.0
14.2
1.0
2.0
4.3
25.9
35.4
33.2
29.5
14.2
1.3
1.9
2.2
10.2
23.2
34.8
31.1
8.8
yeJl
All ages, 18-79--
18-24 years----------
25-34 years----------
35-44 years----------
45-54 yeara----------
55-64 years----------
65-74 years----------
75-79 years----------
0.2
0.6
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.3
43.3
37.2
22.3
1.2
0.2
13.4
31.6
29.4
14.0
0.4
30.4
35.8
30.7
3.3
0.4
18.6
17.0
13.0
25.6
10.1
1.6
1.9
7.0
14.6
1.5
1.9
4.3
6.2
3.0
3.0
6.4
4.1
5.0
2.2
5.6
6.4
1.8
3.1
1.5
1.4
2.0
4.2
10.9
5.2
7.7
6.9
4.7
2.7
2.2
5.0
9.6
5.5
3.1
1.6
1.3
2.7
2.5
8.9
5.6
2.4
3.1
3.2
2.9
2.6
6.2
26.8
29.6
22.2
22.9
13.2
2.0
2.6
8.2
26.7
24.8
16.2
29.1
0.8
2.1
2.9
24.1
33.0
33.6
26.0
16.2
1.1
2.0
5.6
27.6
37.7
32.9
33.2
1.3
2.0
1.0
8.0
21.3
29.1
27.7
11.8
1.3
1.8
3.3
12.3
24.9
39.5
34.6
Women
All ages, 18-79--
18-24 years----------
25-34 years----------
35-44 years----------
45-54 years----------
55-64 yeara----------
65-74 yeara----------
75-79 years----------
34.6
.35.9
28.5
2.6
0.2
20.4
22.4
25.6
8.1
1.9
0.9
-
1.0
1.0
4.0
6.2
3.1
4.3
25
Table 14. Rates for adults at specifiedacuity levels for uncorrectedcentralnear ViSiIXIin theleft eye: United States, 1960-62
Acuity level
14/7or 14/10.5 14/14 14/21 14/28 14/35 14/49 14/70 14/140 y;~l:ynnore
Sex’andage
Rate per 100 adultsBoth sexes
All agea, 18-79--
18-24 years----------
25-34 years----------
35-44 years----------
45-54 years----------
55-64 years----------
65-74 years----------
75-79 years----------
Men—
All ages, 18-79--
18-24 yeacs----------
25-34 years----------
35-44 years----------
45-54 years----------
55-64 years----------
65-74 years----------
75-79 years----------
women
+11 ages, 18-79--;
18-24 years----------
25-34 yeara----------
35-44 yeara----------
45-54 years----------
55-64 yeara----------
65-74 years----------
75-79 years----------
14.5
19.9
19.4
25.1
10.8
2.1
1.4
4.2
13.4
4.2—
3.0
2.8
5.3
8.0
2.6
1.7
4.3
4.1
10.2—
1.8
1.4
3.9
21.6
20.9
14.9
15.1
11.2
15.9
1.3
2.5
3.4
23,9
37.5
39.9
33.7
13.9
0.3 15.1 19.4 3.2 7.6—
2.1
1.9
6.3
16.3
10.2
901
10.4
8.0
9.6—
0.9
0.6
0.3
0.1
0.4
33.7
30.2
19.8
1.0
0.1
18.0
33.7
37.2
31.2
3.7
19.2
1.7
1.5
2.4
5.7
4.0
4.2
4.3
3.3
1.7
2.5 \
2.2
9.0
22.5
28.6
27.7
8.3
2.1
2.5
1.6
6.8
22.3
22.9
22.0
1,9
1.0
3.0
23.8
22.8
19.5
20.1
9.2
0.7
2.8
2.5
20.0
32.8
37.8
29.4
17.6
105
1.0
0,2
0.2
0.2
40.0
35.1
24.6
1.7
0.2
12.5
31.7
36.9
31.6
4.6
.
19.5
35.4
37.4
30.8
2.8
17.5
15.4
24.5
10.5
1.9
2.0
8.5
15.6
2.7
1.8
4.7
8.6
2,8
1.9
7.5
4.3
3.3
3.8
5.9
7.4
2.4
1.6
1*3
0.9
1.7
1.7
6.5
5.4
3.7
4.6
3.1
2.4
1.3
3.0
5.0
2.7
4.7
4.2
100
1.9
5.6
17.3
1106
12.2
7.9
7*3 10.7
1.4
2.5
2.8
11.1
22.7 ,
33.3
33.5
0.4
0.2
004
-
-
28.4
25.6
15.4
0.4
.
22.0
23.0
25.7
11.0
2.2
0.8
3.0
2.0
7.0
15.3
9.0
6.6
12.9
1.7
1.8
4.6
19.4
19.1
11.2
10.1
1.8
2.3
4.3
27.6
41.8
41.7
38.0
26
Table 15. ,Rates for adults at specifiedacuity levels for “corrected”centralnear vision in theright eye: United States, 1960-62
Acuity level
14/7Less thanO:e L4/10.5 14/14 14/21 14/28 14135 14/49 14/70 14/140 ~4,~40
Sex and age
Rate per 100 adultsBoth sexes
, All agea, 18-79--
18-24 yeara----------
25-34 yeara----------
35-44 yeara----------
45-54 yeara----------
55-64 years----------
65-74 years----------
75-79 years----------I
Men—
All ages, 18-79--
18-24 years----------
25-34 years----------
35-44 years----------
45-54 yeara----------
55-64 years----------
65-74 years----------
75-79 yeara----------
Women
AU agea, 18-79--
L8-24 years----------
25-34 yeara----------
35-44 years----------
45-54 years----------
55-64 years----------.
65-74 years----------
75-79 years--------=-
0.3 18.9 27.1 29.6 6.4 2.2 4.4 2.2 1.97.1
0.2
0.7
0.4
0.1
0.l
0.3
40.8
37.5
21*O
4.6
2.7
0.8
21.9
18.2
19.3
28.8
37.8
38.8
39.8
27.8
26.2
35,?
38.1
36.7
16.5
16.1
13.6
4.4
26.3
2.6
1.6
3.7
11.7
12.7
13.2
14.1
6.9
2.4
1.6
3.8
10.9
12.7
12.8
13.8
7.2
1.2
0.9
3.5
11.5
11.6
11.9
14.2
6.7
1.4
1.2
2.6
10.7
13.8
14.0
15.7
6.1
0.7
0.7
1.7
4.9
2.3
2.7
4.1
2.4
0.4
0.4
2.9
8.5
7.6
6.1
18.3
4.8
0.4
0.6
0,9
2.6
5.5
5.1
4.1
2.5
0.1
0.3
0.4
1.9
2.7
6.7
12.8
1.9
0.2
1.0
0.4
0.2
45.4
42.3
25.7
5.5
4.4
1.8
16.2
32.4
37.4
35.6
17.8
14.9
14.0
2.4
27.7
16.2
14.3
27.0
34.4
31.8
36.0
36.2
32.6
1.1
006
1.3
5.8
3.0
2.8
4.0
2.0
0.2
0.4
2.4
9.2
9.3
7.6
14.8
4.1
0.5
0.6
0.8
3.3
6.6
5.6
1.1
2.0
0.2
0.3
0.3
2.4
3.5
5.1
11.9
1.8
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.1
37.0
33.1
16.8
3.7
1.1
37.9
38.7
37.7
15.2
17.2
13.3
6.4
19.9
23.8
30.4
41.0
45.3
42.9
19.4
2.8
1.6
3.6
12.4
12.7
13.5
14.4
1.0
0.6
4.4
12.2
9.5
10.2
12.8
0.4
0.7
2.0
4.0
1.7
2-.?
4.2
0.5
0.3
3.4
7.8
6.0
4.8
21.9
0.3
0.5
0.9
1.9
4.4
4.6
7.2
0.3
0.4
1.4
2.0
8.0
13.8
27
Table 16. Rates for adults at sr$ecifiedacuitv levels for “corrected”centralnear vision in theieft eye: Unit_&dStates,1960-62
Acuity level
14/7~::e “14/10.5 14/14 14/21 14/28 14/35 14/49 14/70 14/140 L:;;l:p
Sex and age
Rate per 100 adultsBoth sexes
5.0 2.6 2..0 2.3All ages, 18-79-- 0.3 18.0 29.1 29.2 8.2 3.:
18-24 years----------
25-34 years----------
35-44 years----------
45-54 years----------
55-64 years----------
65-74 years----------
75-79 years----------
0.6
0.7
0,4
0.3
38.0
32.5
23.2
5.5
1.7
0.8
21.6
36.1
42.0
38.6
18.9
19.9
11.1
4.3
28.6
33.1
41.0
35.7
21.6
21.5
12.1
1,5
29.5
38.6
42.9
41.2
16.4
18.4
10.3
7.3
20.1
19.5
26,3
36.3
39.0
42.3
21.5
26,3
17.3
14.3
26.5
31.9
33.7
40.8
26.9
31.8
22.4
24.3,
26.1
40.4
43.9
43.5
16.1
1.9
1.2
4.3
13.9
13.8
16.3
24.5
7.0
1.6
1.1
3.6
11.9
10.3
16.2
22,3
9.1
2.1
1.2
5.0
15.8
17.1
16.4
26.8
O.t
1.(
1.7
6.2
5.2
5.8
7.6
3.6
1.0
0.9
2.6
10.4
6.4
9.1
15.4
5.5
0.1
0.,6
1.2
4.6
5.1
3.8
11.1
2.9
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.8
4.4
4.7
10.3
1.9
0.8
0.9 b
0.9
2.4
4.3
6.1
4.9
Men—
All ages, 18-79-- 2.3
18-24 years----------
25-34 years----------
35-44 years----------
45-54 years----------
55-64 years----------
65-74 years----------
75-79 years----------
44.0
38.2
28,1
8.0
2.5
1.4
14.8
0.4
1.2
1.9
10.8
9.2
9.5
19.5
4.6
0.3
0.5
0.6
‘1,7
4.2
5.7
7.2
2.1
1.2
0.9
1,0
2.6
5.8
3.4
4.2
0,9
0,8
0.2
0.3
1.1
1.3
1.4
6.3
6.8
5.3
7.5
3.1
0.7
0.6
1.9
6.1
3.8
6.2
7.8
0.6
0.9
5,1
5.9
5.6
10.9
2,4
Women
2.2All ages, 18-79--
18-24 years----------
25-34 years----------
35-44 years----------
45-54 years----------
55-64 years----------
65-74 years----------
75-79 years----------
0.4
0.6
0.6
32,9
27.2
18.8
3.0
1.0
0.4
1.6
0.7
3.1
10.1
3.9
8.8
11.4
0.3
0.7
1.5
4.1
4.4
2.4
11.5
0.4
0.8
1.0
2.0
4.6
3.9
13.4
0.5
1.0
0.8
2.1
3,0
8.2
5.6
28
APPENDIX
STATISTICAL NOTES
The Survey Design i
The first cycle of the HealtA Examination Surveyemployed a highly stratified multistage probability de-sign in which a sample of the civilian, noninstitutionalpopulation of the conterminous United States 18-79 yearsof age was selected, At the first stage, a sample of 42primary sampling units (PSU’S) was drawn from amongthe 1,900 geographic units into which the United Stateswas divided, Random selection was controlled withinregional and size-of-urban-place strata into which theunits were classified. As used here a PSU is a standardmetropolitan statistical area or one to three contiguouscounties. Later stages result in the random selectionof clusters of typically about four persons from a neigh-borhood within the PSU. The total sample included some7,700 persons in 29 different States. The detailed struc-ture of the design and conduct of the survey have beendescribed in previous reports. 2*3
Reliability
The methodological strength of the survey derivesespecially from its use of scientific probability sam-pling techniques and highly standardized and closelycontrolled measurement processes. This does not implythat statistics from the survey are exact or withouterror. Data from the survey are imperfect for threemajor reasons: (1) results are subject to sampling error,(2) the actual conduct of a survey never agrees perfectlywith tie design, and (3) the measurement processesthemselves are inexact even though standardized andcontrolled.
The first-stage evaluation of the survey was re-ported in reference 3, which dealt principally with ananalysis of the faithfulness with w~ch the samplingdesign was carried out. This study notes that out of the7,700 sample persons the 6,670 pers@@ who were ex-
{ amined-a response rate of over 86 percqnt—gave evi-dence that they were a highly represeimative sample ofthe civilian, noninstitutional population of the UnitedStates, Imputation of nonrespondents wqs accomplishedby attributing to nonexamined persons the character-
istics of examined persons as described in reference3. The specific procedures used amounted to inflatingthe sampling weight for each examined person in orderto compensate for sample persons at that stand of thesame age-sex group who were not examined. In addi-tion to persons not examined at all, there were somewhose examination was incomplete in one procedure oranother. Age, sex, and race were known for every ex-amined person, but for a number of the examinees, one.or more of the vision tests were not availtile. Theextent of these missing data is shown in reference 5. Asindicated there, a regression-type decision was madesubjectively on the basis of existing scores and test re-sults for other persons of the same age, sex, and racefor persons for whom at least one part of the visiontest was completed. Where none of the vision testswere given, for some a probability selection was madeof a response from the same age-sex-race group andhis scores assigned to the nonrespondent. For the re-mainder the distribution of acuity levels was assumedto be the same as for the examined group.
Sampling and Measurement Error
In the present report, reference has been made toefforts to minimize bias and variability of the measure-ment techniques.
The probability design of the survey makes pasiblethe calculation of sampling errors. Traditionally therole of the sampling error has been the determinationof how imprecise the survey results may be becausethey come from a sample rather than from the measure-ment of all elements in the universe. The estimation.of sampling errors for a study of the type of the HealthExamination Survey is difficult for at least three rea-sons: (1) measurement error and “pure” samplingerror are confounded in the data—it is not easy to finda procedure which will either completely include bothor treat one or the other separately, (2) the survey de-sign and estimation procedure are complex and accord-ingly require computationally involved techniques forthe calculation of variances, and (3) from the surveycome thousands of statistics, many for subclasses of
29
Table I. RelatLve ’mrnplLng error for proportion of persons with specified visual acuity,l by sexand age: United States, .1960-62
Acuity level
~()~;l or better ------------------------------------------
20/20--------------------------.......-------------------
%{:: --------------------------20/50--------------------------20/70--------------------------20/100-------------------------20/200-------------------------Less than 20/200---------------20/20 or better ----------------20/100 or less -----------------
Total,1.8-79years
0.160.020.020.040.050.060.100.040.060.080.020.04
18-79years
0.180.040.050.050.060.090.100.060.100.180.040.06
Men
18-24years
0.300.050.100.080.180.600.500.300.40---
0.050.30
35-44years-
0.500.050.060.120.300.250.220.25:.;:
0:050.25
65-74years
-..0.700.150.120.160.220.280.150.220.150.150.15
18-79years
0.180.040.020.060.050.060.160.050.050.090.020.05
women
25-34years
0.350.050.050.180.250.400.500.250,300.300.050.25
45-54years
---0.070.080.090.130.140.150.100.100.240.070.10
75-79years
-------..0.500.25:.;;
0:260.300.600.750.26
lEstimated relative sampling errors are shown in the table, as computed, for selected cells.It should be understood in any instance inwhich the estimated error for a particular cell differsmarkedly from those for other similar cells that the discrepancy may be a reflection of a realphenomenon, but might be the consequence of the fact that the sampling error is itself subject tosampling variation.
the population for which there are a small number ofsample caees. Estimates of sampling error are ob-tained from the sample data and are themselves subjectto sampling error when the number ofcasesin acellis small or, even occasionally, when the number ofcases is substantial.
Estimates of approximate sampling variability forselected statistics used in this report are presented intable I. These estimates have been prepared byarep-lication technique which yields overall variabilitythrough observation of variability among random sub-samples of the total sample. The method reflects both“pure” sampling variance and a part ofthe measure-mentvariance.
In accordance with the usual practice, the intervalestimate for any statistic maybe considered the range
within one standard error of the tabulated statisticwith 68 percent confidence, or the range within twostandard errors of the tabulated statistic with 95 per-cent confidenc e.
Small Categories
In some tables magnitudes are shown for cells forwhich the sample size is so small that the samplingerror may be several times as great as the statisticitself. Obviously in such instancee the statistic hasnomeaning itself except to indicate that the true quantityis small. Such numbers, if shown, have beenincludedin the belief that they help to convey animpreseion ofthe overall story of the table.
* U. S. GoVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE - [S70 - 4aE_m7 P. 0. s
30
.
.
Sen”es 1.
Sen”es 2.
Series 3.
Sen”es 4.
Sevies 10.
Series 11.
Series 12.
Se7-ies 13.
Series 20.
Series 21.
i
Series 22.
OUTLINE OF REPORT SERIES FOR VITAL AND HEALTH
Public Health Service Publication No. 1000
STATISTICS
Programs and collection procedures.— Reports which describe the general programs of the NationalCenter for Health Statistics and its otllces and divisions, data collection methods used, definitions,and other material necessary for understanding the data.
Data evaluation and methods vesearch. ‘h—Studies of new statistic methodology including: experi-mental tests of new survey methods, studies of vital statistics collection methods, new analyticaltechniques, objective evaluations of reliability of collected data, contributions to statistical theory.
Analytical studies. -Reports presenting analytical or interpretive studies based on vital and healthstatistics, carrying the analysis further than the expository types of reports in the other series.
Documents and committee reports. — Final reports of major committees concerned with vital andhealth statistics, and documents such as recommended model vital registration laws and revised birthand death certificates.
Data from the Health Interview Suvvey. —Statistics on illness, accidental injuries, disability, use ofhospital, medical, dental, and other services, and other health-related topics, based on data collectedin a continuing national household interview survey.
Data from the Health Examination Survey. —Data from direct examination, testing, and measure-ment of national samples of the population provide the basis for two types of reports: (1) estimatesof the medically defined prevalence of specific diseases in the United States and the distributions ofthe population with respect to physical, physiological, and psychological characteristics; and (2)analysis of relationships among the various measurements without reference to an explicit finiteuniverse of persons.
Data from the Institutional Population Surveys. — Statistics relating to the health characteristics ofpersons in institutions, and on medical, nursing, and personal care received, based on nationalsamples of establishments providing these services and samples of the residents or patients.
Data from the Hospital Discharge Survey. —Statistics relating to discharged patients in short-stayhospitals, based on a sample of patient records in a national sample of hospitals.
Data on mortaiity. —Various statistics on mortality other than as included in amual or monthlyreports— special analyses by cause of death, age, and other demographic variables, also geographicand time series analyses.
Data on natality, marriage, and divorce. — Various statistics on natality, marriage, and divorce otherthan as included in amual or monthly reports— spxial analyses by demographic variables, alsogeographic and time series analyses, studies of fertility.
Data fj-om the National Natafzty and Mortality su?weyS. —Statistics on characteristics of births anddeaths not available from the vital records, based on sample surveys stemming from these records,including such topics as mortality by socioeconomic class, medical experience in the last year oflife, characteristics of pregnancy, etc.
For a list of titles of reports published in these series, write to: Office of Information
National Center for Health StatisticsU.S. Public Health ServiceWashington, D.C. 20201
