Pacific University Pacific University

CommonKnowledge CommonKnowledge

College of Optometry Theses, Dissertations and Capstone Projects

5-1993

Visagraphic eye movement analysis and subjective correlates Visagraphic eye movement analysis and subjective correlates

Curtis D. Opp Pacific University

Ben M. Stoebner Pacific University

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Opp, Curtis D. and Stoebner, Ben M., "Visagraphic eye movement analysis and subjective correlates" (1993). College of Optometry. 1072. https://commons.pacificu.edu/opt/1072

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations and Capstone Projects at CommonKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in College of Optometry by an authorized administrator of CommonKnowledge. For more information, please contact CommonKnowledge@pacificu.edu.

Visagraphic eye movement analysis and subjective correlates Visagraphic eye movement analysis and subjective correlates

Abstract Abstract The Visagraphic eye movement measurements of fifty-two Pacific University College of Optometry students was compared to the subjective answers to thirteen question concerning reading and visual performance asked of each individual. The objective Visagraphic measurements of Reading Rate With Rereading, Reading Rate Without Re-reading and Relative Efficiency correlated best with overall subjective reading performance, comprehension ability, and necessity to re-read material, other comparisons of subjective ans objective performance showed low correlations.

Degree Type Degree Type Thesis

Degree Name Degree Name Master of Science in Vision Science

Committee Chair Committee Chair Paul Kohl

Subject Categories Subject Categories Optometry

This thesis is available at CommonKnowledge: https://commons.pacificu.edu/opt/1072

Copyright and terms of use Copyright and terms of use

If you have downloaded this document directly from the web or from CommonKnowledge, see

the “Rights” section on the previous page for the terms of use.

If you have received this document through an interlibrary loan/document delivery service, the If you have received this document through an interlibrary loan/document delivery service, the

following terms of use apply: following terms of use apply:

Copyright in this work is held by the author(s). You may download or print any portion of this

document for personal use only, or for any use that is allowed by fair use (Title 17, §107 U.S.C.).

Except for personal or fair use, you or your borrowing library may not reproduce, remix,

republish, post, transmit, or distribute this document, or any portion thereof, without the

permission of the copyright owner. [Note: If this document is licensed under a Creative

Commons license (see “Rights” on the previous page) which allows broader usage rights, your

use is governed by the terms of that license.]

Inquiries regarding further use of these materials should be addressed to: CommonKnowledge

Rights, Pacific University Library, 2043 College Way, Forest Grove, OR 97116, (503) 352-7209.

Email inquiries may be directed to:.copyright@pacificu.edu

VISAGRAPHIC EYE MOVEMENT ANALYSIS AND SUBJECTIVE CORRELATES

By

CURTIS D. OPP BEN M. STOEBNER

A Thesis Submitted To the faculty of the College of Optometry

Pacific University Forest Grove, Oregon

for the degree of Doctor of Optometry

May 1993

Advisor

PaulKohtOD

Signatures

Curtis D. Opp

. rYff

~M;.b~¥ Paul Kohl, OD

A{/f

Biographies

Curtis D. Opp grew up in Pierre, South Dakota. He is the son of Norman and

Lauretta Opp. He earned his B.S. in biology in 1988 from the University of South

Dakota. After graduation, Curtis will be employed in private practice in Wagner

and Yankton, South Dakota.

Ben M. Stoebner grew up in Tehachapi, California. He is the eldest son of Mary

Jane and Ben E. Stoebner, OD (PUCO '53). He earned his B.A. in Biology in 1987

from the University of San Diego. In 1992-93 he served as the 26th President of

The American Optometric Student Association. Ben will be in residency at the

San Francisco VA Medical Center in 1993-94.

Acknowledgements

Our sincerest thanks goes to Paul Kohl, OD.

For his support and guidance in this thesis, and detication to our optometric

education, we are grateful.

Abstract

The Visagraphic eye movement measurements of fifty-two Pacific University

College of Optometry students was compared to the subjective answers to

thirteen question concerning reading and visual performance asked of each

individual. The objective Visagraphic measurements of Reading Rate With Re­

reading, Reading Rate Without Re-reading and Relative Efficiency correlated best

with overall subjective reading performance, comprehension ability, and

necessity to re-read material, other comparisons of subjective ans objective

performance showed low correlations.

Introduction

Reading is a complex process that involves visual/functional, cognitive, and

perceptual functions I. It is widely accepted that saccades, regressions, and

fixations play key roles in the reading process. How do these and other visual,

perceptual, and cognitive phenomena affect our ability to learn from reading

print? To what extent do our eye movement skills, and subsequent reading

ability, affect our performance?

The cognitive aspect of reading involves two basic processes known as decoding

and comprehension. Decoding requires the ability to identify and discriminate

printed letters, the knowledge that separate sounds are combined into spoken

words, the cognition of letter-sound correspondences, and the ability to quickly

combine various sounds into words. Decoding allows us to pronounce words,

even if they have never been encountered before.

Comprehension allow us to interpret the meaning of previously decoded

messages. It involves knowledge of the grammar and syntax of the language, the

words meaning, the semantic relationship of words, text structure, and world

knowledge.

Perception is the process in which information from the environment, such as

reading material is extracted and organized. Perceptions are the product of

1 Taylor, S.E., Visagraph: Eye movement Recording System. New York, NY 1985.

1

experience, previous organization, and nervous system elaboration2. Forgus

believed that perception is the main process in the acquisition of knowledge3 .

Visual/functional aspects affecting reading ability, and subsequent learning

ability, includes visual acuity, refractive conditions, binocularity, and eye

movement skills. Although there is a surprising lack of consistent findings

between poor reading performance and low near point visual acuity, obviously

the print size must be above the resolution threshold of the reader.

Hyperopia is the refractive condition most cited as being related to reading

problems. Other conditions associated with below average readers are esophoria

at near, anisometropia, and anisekonia.

Many binocular problems such as heterophoria, convergence insufficiency,

deficient vergence ranges, and accommodative dysfunction can contribute to or

cause inefficient reading and discomfort. Flax felt that fusion problems may not

be manifest until the third or fourth grade of school, when reading demands are

increased. Flax summarized his work by saying "it is apparently better to be

completely one -eyed than to be inefficiently two-eyed4 ." Strabismus is the

condition of being "one-eyed5 ."

Normal reading eye movements include saccades, fixations, and regressions.

Fixational pauses usually encompass ninety percent of reading time. Rapid

2 Rosenbloom, A.A., Morgan M.W., Principles and Practice of Pediatric Optometry. Philadelphia, PA: Lippencott, Co., 1990. 3 Forgus, R.N., Perception. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1966 4 Flax, N., The Contribution of Visual Problems to Learning Disability. JAOA, 41(10), p. 844, Oct, 1970. 5 Griffin, J.R., Binocular Anomalies: Procedures for Vision Therapy. Chicago, IL., Professional Press, 1982.

2

saccadic eye movements are typically three degree jumps lasting twenty

milliseconds each. Regressive saccades account for approximately five to twenty

percent of reading time2 .

Oculomotor activity employed in reading is acquired through years of trial and

error, during which many perceptual and visual/functional adjustments are

made. With normal maturation, reading becomes more automatic and the

number of fixations and regressions decreased, while the span of fixation and

reading rate increases.

It is the purpose of this study to analyze and compare objective eye movement

data, as measured by the Visagraph eye movement recording device, with

subjective responses regarding reading ability, comprehension, reading/ visual

comfort, and oculomotor performance. It is the authors' opinion that the

subjective profile established will correlate with the objective measurements of

the Visagraph.

Methods

The cohort of the study is fifty-two third year optometry students attending

Pacific University. All participants were instructed on the proper use of the

Visagraph as part of the course, Basic Visual Training. The

Instructional/Communications Technology, Inc Visagraph was designed and

authorized by Stanford E. Taylor. The cohort self selected into pairs, acting as

both subject and administrator. An Apple He monitor was used with level

2Rosenbloom, A.A., Morgan M.W., Princip1es and Practice of Pediatric Optometry. PhiJadelphia, PA: Lippencott, Co., 1990.

3

thirteen as the reading selection. The authors utilized the Visagraph results by

permission. In addition, each participating individual submitted a confidential

questionnaire (example 1). The thirteen questions asked pertained to subjective

reading ability, comprehension of written material, reading/visual comfort, and

oculomotor performance. The cohort size was self selecting by voluntary

submission of both questionnaire and Visagraph results. It was comprised of

fifty-two students, thirty-four were males and 18 females with ages ranging from

22 to 48 and a mean of 27 years. A standard Visagraph recording form was

completed at the time of testing by each member (example 2)1 .

The statistical analysis used is a correlational study of subjective versus objective

findings where reading, comprehension, reading/visual comfort, and

performance are concerned. StatView 512+ v1.1 by BrainPower, Inc. was utilized

to generate simple second order regression curves, at a 90% confidence interval,

for the subjective and objective variables of the study. The scored subjective

variables were questions 1-8, 12 and 13 of the student questionnaire. Objective

variables were generated by the Visagraph and are Fixations/100 words,

Regressions/100 words, Directional Attack/%, Average Span of Recognition,

Average Duration of Fixation, Rate Without Rereading, Rate With Rereading,

Relative Efficiency, And Comprehension. This analysis was performed

comparing each of the scored questions to each of the variables from the

visigraph (see Table 1). The Rand R2 value for each comparison is listed with R

values in the "Good" or above range printed in distinctive type. A best fit line

appears for the "Good" and above correlations (see Graphs 1-21).

1 Taylor, S.E., Visagraph: Eye movement Recording System. New York, NY 1985. 6 Francis, Roy G., Beginning Social Statistics. Burgess Publishing Co. Minneapolis, MN 1967.

4

In addressing the problem of correlation, an assessment of variance was achieved

through computation of Rand R2 values. The R2 value tells us how much of our

hypothesis we have solved by appealing to a "best fit" line. R2 is simply the

amount of "explained" variance. The R value is known as the "product

correlation" or "coefficient of correlation." The strict interpretation of R is

reportedly very difficult, however the following table from Francis6 provides an

approximate and usable scale:

Range ofR

0.70 or higher

0.50 to 0.69

0.30 to 0.49

0.20 to 0.29

0.10 to 0.19

0.10 to 0.90

Meaning

Extremely Rare. Has a computational error been made? Recompute to make sure.

Very Good. Few studies sport correlation's of this magnitude.

Good. Not too many studies have zero order correlations like this. Be not ashamed.

Quite Ordinary. Many studies report a number of correlation's in this range.

Quite Low. If N is large enough to reject chance, may mention this But note that when R = 0.10, R2 = 0.01, leaving 99% of the unexplained.

Really! After all statistical significance does not imply theoretical importance.

5

Results

Question 1 asked a fundamental question regarding relative reading ability. The

best correlates from the Visagraph to question one were Fixations/100, Rate

Without Re-reading, Rate With Re-reading, and Relative Efficiency. These

comparisons produced R values of 0.479, 0.532, 0.504, and 0.465 respectively. By

Francis' evaluation we may say that the Visagraph's Rate Without and With Re­

reading are very good correlates to subjective relative reading ability (see Table 1,

Graphs 1,2). The correlation of Question 1 to Rate Without Re-reading shows the

highest correlation of the study with an R2 of 0.283 (see Table 1, Graph 1). Also,

Fixations/100 and Relative Efficiency prove to be good correlates (see Table 1,

Graphs 3,4)

Question 2 asked the question of subjective comprehension with a single pass

through reading material. As with question 1, the best correlates were

Fixations/100, Rate Without Re-reading, Rate With Re-reading, and Relative

Efficiency. With R values of 0.389, 0.514, 0.481, and 0.439 respectively we can say

that there is good correlation in three of the four Visagraph findings, with very

good correlation relative to Rate Without Re-reading (see Table 1, Graphs 5-8).

The third highest correlation of the study is between question 2 and Rate Without

Re-reading at R2 equalling 0.264 (see Table 1, Graph 6) .

Question 3 begged the problem of re-reading. As with questions 1 and 2, 3 also

shows greatest correlation to Fixations/100, Rate Without Re-reading, Rate With

Re-reading, and Relative Efficiency (see Table 1, Graphs 9-12). Relative tore­

reading, all four Visagraph results show good correlation. Interestingly, question

6

3 did not correlate well with directional attack or number of regressions/100,

yielding R values of 0.274 and 0.158 respectively (see Table 1).

Question 4 addressed the problem of skipping words. We see that only

Fixations/100 demonstrated good correlation at an R value of 0.319 (see Table 1,

Graph 13). Only ordinary or lower correlation were found to the other variables

(see Table 1.

Question 5 asked a fundamental question regarding relative reading speed. Not

surprisingly, the highest correlations were to Fixations/100, Rate Without Re­

reading, Rate With Re-reading, and Relative Efficiency. Three of the four showed

good correlation while Rate Without Re-reading gave very good correlation with

an R value of 0.530 (see Table 1, Graphs 14-17). The correlation of Rate Without

Re-reading to Question 5 was the second highest correlation of the study yielding

R2 of 0.281 (see Table 1, Graph 15).

Question 6 probed the subjective importance of the relationship of vision and

learning. No Visagraph correlates greater than quite ordinary were found (see

Table 1).

Question 7 asked about the subjective appeal of reading for pleasure. Only

Comprehension, at R value 0.315, is shown to be a good correlate (see Table 1,

Graph 18).

Question 8 frankly asked about the occurrence of ocular fatigue, headaches, and

asthenopia after reading. Average Span of Recognition and Comprehension

7

were both found to be good correlates at R values 0.314 and 0.440 respectively (see

table 1, Graph 19,20).

Question 9, 10, and 11 serve as landmarks for sensitivity to reading performance,

motivation in performance enhancement and generalized necessity for refractive

error correction (see Table 1 bottom left).

Question 12 probed the subjective performance in ball sports. Interestingly, only

Comprehension was a good correlate at R value 0.492 (see Table 1, Graph 21).

With the majority of objective variables being quite low correlates (see Table 1).

Question 13 asked the direct question of academic performance as measured by

grade point average. Surprisingly, all correlations fell in the quite low and Really!

low categories (see Table 1).

Conclusion

A correctional study of objective eye movement data, as measured by the

Visagraph eye movement recording device, to subjective responses regarding

reading ability, comprehension, reading/visual comfort, and oculomotor

performance has been achieved. This study shows that the objective Visagraphic

measurements of reading rate, with and without re-reading, and relative

efficiency correlate best with overall subjective reading performance,

comprehension ability, and necessity to re-read material. Our results suggest

that the Visagraph results correlate best, though not entirely, to subjective

responses to questions dealing directly with reading (Questions 1-5, 8). In those

questions dealing with performance secondary to reading or fine eye control, the

8

subjective responses were generally not correlated. For example, questions six

and seven regards vision as it pertains to learning and pleasure. It is well known

that learning in humans proceeds through a variety of sensory inputs, not

exclusively visual. Also, the desirability of reading may lie within intrinsic

personal factors and be independent of ocular movement efficiency. Therefore,

whether or not the subjects felt vision was important or pleasurable, correlated

poorly with Visagraphic findings. Likewise, we see that grade point average, a

result of many factors outside of pure reading such as organization,

completeness, and time management, did not correlate well. Also subjective

ability in ball sports was not a consistent correlate. Obviously, dynamic-reactive

sports involve integration of many senses and constitutes more complex behavior

than static reading, not surprisingly one may not expecte correlation with

Visagraphic findings.

As subjective perception of overall reading ability and speed correlated best with

reading rate, overall efficiency, and fixations it is in these areas that the

Viasgraph may be best suited for analysis. Based on this study's findings,

especially in those adults who's chief complaint includes poor reading ability,

low comprehension, necessity of re-reading material, and low reading speed, the

Viasgraph is an indicated device in differentially diagnosing the etiology of such

complaints.

It is the authors' opinion that the subjective profile established partially correlates

with the objective measurements of the Visagraph in these adult subject, despite

such unknown variables as user error, differences in subject motivation, and

variations in familiarity with the parameters of this study.

9

Bibliography

Flax, N., The Contribution of Visual Problems to Learning Disability. JAOA, 41(10), p. 844, Oct, 1970.

Forgus, R.N., Perception. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1966.

Francis, Roy G., Beginning Social Statistics. Burgess Publishing Co. Minneapolis, MN 1967.

Griffin, J.R., Binocular Anomalies: Procedures for Vision Therapy. Chicago, IL., Professional Press, 1982.

Rosenbloom, A.A., Morgan M.W., Principles and Practice of Pediatric Optometry. Philadelphia, PA: Lippencott, Co., 1990.

Taylor, S.E., Visagraph: Eye movement Recording System. New York, NY 1985.

Table 1

Question l Question2 Question3 Question4 Queslio.n 5 Question6 Question7 Question 8 Quli!Stion 12 Question 13

Rxationsnoo 0.47910.229 ~..389/0.151 0.3.32/0.l JOr 0..319/0.102. ~:4.$8/0.210' jo.210/0.0U 0.176/0Jl31 <1.261/0.069 Q_.()63j 0 .004 0.01 6/2~69E-4

Kegretision~llOO 0.2<5/0.Ml 0.105/U:On 0.274/0.0'75 O.I30/Ml7 0.184/ll'J()J4 0.263/0.0691 Ul·.:001)/0.!B2 0-118/0.014 0.14]/0.020 0.070/0.005

Di:rectionaJ Attadcl% 0.063/0.00l (O.ml)/0.001 ·0,]58/0,025 {0'.020) 14.00£-4 0.032/0.001 021-4/0.046 (0.126)/0.016 0'.019/3..51E-4 0.152/0.023 0®/0.<m

Ave. Span of Recognition (0.01}4)/U4Er3 a. 120/0.0]2 (0.070)/0.0011 o.oss/o.om (0.006) I 4.05E-5 (0.152)/0.023 OJ 00/ 0.010 to .. SH/0.01 8 ' 0.092/0.00'J (0..070)/0..005

A:ve. Outation of Fixation 0.265/lllO'lO 0.122/0.ms (0.063)/0.004 0.063/ 0.004, 0.006/3.52E-5 (0.]-Ja)f0.022 1.1.105/0.011 0.138/0.019 0.00.1/0.001 (OJO'ror)/0.005

Rate Without Rereading '(0·.5)2)10,28:'). lO.!n•WD.UI4 (0.423) /0.179 {0.239)/0-057 1 {o."o'1'0.281 (0.272)/0.074 ((U64-)/fWl7 (0.11:4)/ll.OlJ (0.214)/0.046 cuoo;o.mo

Rate With Re.reading (O.sM)I'MSl (0.481)./0.231 ko . .tmta.t69 1{0.197}/0.009 ~0.496)/0.2.4-6 (0.2'10)/0.09'3 (0, 130)/0.017 (0.114}/0.013· W..245) /0-000 O.cm>/0..005

Relative Efiidency ~0.46!5) /0.216 llto.439J /1119'3 1 {!l416}/D.I73 . (0.217) /0.047 ~.492)/0·.24'2. {0.291)/0.08.5 (l).l 05)/0.0ll l0..105)/0.0J] (.0.161)/0.026 0.()84/0.007

Comptehension (0.1161)/0f!l6 (0.141)/0.020· 0.069/0.008 (0.130)/{).017 0·.1.22/0.015 0-283/0.080 ;{0315) /0.1)99 (0.440)/0.194 10'.491/0.242 1 oml/4.22&4

Leg~d { r..nt!gt!'~ve VwyGQO<J Good

% weilring conedion. 80

% believing that their 96

reading pedotm.mce co,uld be impmved.

% that would like to 85

improve their reading ~ance.

- -

Page 1

Question l Graph l

y = -43.232x + 401.206, A-squared: .283 600

550 0

500 0 Cl .£ "tJ 450 CIS 0 (I)

0 ..... 0 (I) 400 0 CI:

5 350 0 £ ~ 300

* 250 CI:

200

150

100 .5 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5

Question 1

Graph 2

y = -40.971x + 387.719, A-squared: .254 600

550 []

500 []

Cl c 450 ] Cl D ~ 400 (I)

a: 350 £

~ 300 (I)

«i 250 CI:

150

100 2 .5 1 .5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5

Question 1

Question l

Graph 3

y = 9.088x + 67.201, R-squared: .229 150

140 I!J.

I!J. I!J.

130 6 I!J.

120 0 0

11 0 or-...... en r::: 0 -~ X 90 u:::

80

70 I!J. 6

60 6 50 3

.5 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 Question 1

Graph 4

y = -.69x + 4.912, R-squared: .216 9

8 0

7 >. 0 u 6 r::: 0 0 Q)

"(3

:E 5 UJ Q) > 4 ~ Q)

3 a:

2

0+--r--~~~~~~--~~--r--r~~~~--~~--~-r--~~--+ 4 .5 1 .5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4 .5 5 5.5

Question 1

Question 2

Graph 5

y = 7.437x + 70.947, A-squared: .151 150

140 0

. 130 § 0

120 0 0

11 0 ...-...... C/) r:::: 0 100 0 8 -~ )(

90 u:::

80 0

70 0 0

0 0

60 0 50 I

.5 1 .5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 Question 2

Graph 6

)' = -41.966x + 403.913, A-squared: .264 600

550 0

500 0 Cl r:::: 'g 450

0 ~ 8 Q) 400 0 a: 5 350 0 -£;

~ 300 .$

250 rn a:

200

150_ D [J

100 2 . 5 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5

Question 2

Question 2

Graph 7

y = -39.572x + 389.007, A-squared: .231 600

550 A

500 A

j Ol .s 450 '0 A !1l A ~ 400 I])

0::: ll -E 350 t ~

* 300

A 0::: 250

A 200

150 A

100 3 .5 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5

Question 2

Graph 8

y = -.666x + 4.921, A-squared: .193 9

8

7 >- <> (J

6 c: <> ·o (]) '(3 :E 5 <> UJ I]) > 4 ·~

Q) 3 0:::

2

1

0 4 .5 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5

i Question 2

Question 3

Graph 9

y = 8.069x + 66.96, R-squared: . 11 150 . 140 0

130 0 8 0

120 0 0 0

11 0

B ~

~ ---(/) c 0 0 100 0 -~ .-0

X 90- 0 ~ u:

0 ! ---80 -70- 8 0

0 0 60 8 50 0 1 ,, . • .

1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 [7 Question 3

Graph 10

y = -44.051x + 421.423, R-squared: .179 600

550 0

500 0 Cl c '6 450 Cll

B ~ § a> 400 a:

5 350 0

0 ~ 0 £ D ~ 300 a> 8 iii 250 a:

200

150

100 2 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4 .5 5 5.5

Question 3

0> c::

'i5 ctl (]) .... (])

0::: -:5 ~ ,gl ctl

0:::

>. (.) c:: (]) ·o 1E UJ (])

-~ «i Qi 0:::

Question 3

y = -42.976x + 411.351, R-squared: .169 600

550 6

500 A

450 a 400

350 A A 6 6

300

250 6

200 A 150 ' 100

1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 Question 3

y = -.821 X + 5.65, R-squared: .173 9

8 0

7

0 6 0 0

5 0

4

3

2

0+---r-~~-,---T---r---r--,---~--~~~-,---,---y---r--~--~ 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Question 3 4 4.5 5 5.5

Graph 11

3

Graph 12

4

Question 4

Graph 13

y = 7.549x + 74.227, A-squa red: .102

120 0 0

11 0 .--.. en c 100 0

~ -~ 90 lL

80

70 0 0

~ 0 60

50 .5 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5

Question 4

Question 5

Graph 14

y = 8.787x + 67.923, A-squared: .21 150

140 0 0

0 130 0 120

0 0

11 0 ~ --1/l c 0 100 ~ X

90 u: 80

70 0

60 0 50

.5 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 Question 5

Graph 15

y = -43.412x + 402.574, A-squared: .281 600

550 0

500 0 0> c :g 450

0 ~ D Q) 400 13 cc -:::1 350 0 £ ~ 300

~ 250 cc 200

150

100 2 . 5 1 .5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 . 5 5.5

Question 5

Question 5

Graph 16

,Y = -40.6Bx + 387.653, A-squared: .246 600

550 A

500 A 0> -~ 450 "0 fl. ro ~ 400 <D a:

350 -5 ~ 300

* a: 250

200

150

100 3 .5 1 .5 2 2 .5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5

Question 5

Graph 17

y = -.744x + 5.1, A-squared: .242 9

8 <> 7

>. <> (,) 6 c <> <D () ()

'i3 ti': 5 w <D > 4 -~

a> 3 a:

2

0+--r----~-r----~~~r-~-,----~-T----T--r----r-~~r-~-;----,--T--+ 4 .5 1 .5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5

Question 5

Question 7

Graph 18

y = -.455x + 9.273, A-squared: .099 1 0.5

10 0 0

9.5

c 9 - 0 0 0 0 ·u;

8.5 c Q)

..c ~ 8 0 0.. E 7.5 0 0

7 0 0

6.5

6 0

5.5 . . . .. 75 1.25 1 .5 1. 75 2 2.25 2.5 2. 75 3 3.25

Question 7

Question 8

Graph 19

y = 1.075x + .391, R-squared: .018 100

0 90

80 c 0 70 ·.;::: ·c: 0> 60 0 u Q)

50 a: 0

40 c C\1 0. 30 (f)

~ 20

1 0

0 1'\ " - - --1 0 1 . .

0 2 3 4 5 6 7 [7 Question 8

Graph 20

y = -.396x + 8.967, R-squared: .194 10.5

1 0 0

9.5

c 9 0

0 D 'Vi 8 .5 c Q)

_c Q) 8 ...... 0. E 7.5 0 0

7

6.5

6 0

5.5 2 .5 1.5 2 2 .5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5

Question 8

Question 12

Graph 21

y = .7'68x '+ 8.185, R-squa,red,: .242 1 0 .5.

1 0 0

9 .5

c 9 0

"(ij 8.5 c

Cl) ..c ~ 8 0. E 7.5 0

(,)

7

6 .5

6 0

5 .5 .5 1 1 .5 2 2.5 3 3 .5 4 4.5

,a ues'llon 12

Example 1 , p:;r 1

The following is a questionnaire pertaining to your vision and its affects on reading ability, comprehension, learning, and performance. Strict confidentiality will be used, but in order to facilitate the study, ·we would like your full name in the space provided. No names will be cited in the resulting paper, which is based, in part, upon the answers you've given below.

Full name ___________________________________ _ Birth date ______________ _ (last, first) (month/day/year)

Year in school _____________ _ Female Male (ie 1st, 2nd, 3rd .... )

1. Do you feel that you are a(n) .... excellent reader=l, good reader=2, average readcr=3, below average=4, or poor reader=5 (please circle one)

2. How do you rate your ability to comprehend written material after reading it the first time?

excellent=l, good=2, average=3, below average=4, or poor=5 (please circle one)

3. How often is it necessary to re-read material? never=l, hardly ever=2, sometimes=3, quite frequently=4, or frequently=5 (please circle one)

4. How often do you skip words while reading? never= 1, hardly ever=2, sometimes=3, quite frequently=4, frequently=5 (please circle one) .

5. How do you rate your reading speed? very fast=1, fast=2, avcrage=3, somewhat slow=4, or very slow=5

6. How important is your vision when it comes to learning? critical= I, very important=2, important=3, somewhat important=4, unimportant=5 (please circle one)

7. Assuming you had no school reading assignments . and had only material to read for pleasure, how often would/do you read?

as much as possible=!, often=2, sometimes=3, hardly ever=4, never=5 (please circle one)

8. Do you experien::e ocular fatigue, headaches, or any discomfort after reading? yes__ no If so, how long do you read before this symptom(s) occur? 1-15 minutes, 16-30 min, 31-60 min, 61 min-3 hrs., or over 3 hrs. (please circle one)

9. Do you use corrective cyewear (including contact lenses) to read? yes __ no __

10. Do you think your reading performance can be improved? yes__ no

turn over please ....

Example 1 , pg 2

page 2

11. Would you like to improve your reading performance? yes__ no __

12. How do you rate your athletic ability in ball sports? excellent= 1, very good=2, average=3, below ave.=4, poor=5 (please circle one)

13. Your combined undergraduate and optometry school grade point average would be closest to:

(1) a 4.0, (2) a 3.5, (3) a 3.0, (4) a 2.5 or (5) a 2.0

(please circle one)

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND COOPERATION ....

Example 2 ~DQ VISAGRAPH EYE-MOVEMENT PERFORMANCE RECORD

~arne ----------~L~ .. ~,---------------------,,~,,~.,--------------------------.A~'' >chooi/Organizat ion ---------------------Class/Div ision--------------­

~ddress --------~.~"-.. ~,--------------------~c;~,v~------------------------,.~,.~,.------------zz.,~P-------

rest Date _j Grade Placement I '--------.1......- (year and month) '------~------~

-

;ftl," l!l!g,.>;,ll1liTii'illi;i IF'~IU!F©IT'<~li\!I!Cll;i !P~©J~<'li t!,J:s

Data (most actl'ole eye)

Part 1'

~=~~ 1Se l ection L'--''----'

Part2 2

Adv. Adv. Adv, Ad\1. Adv.

Pre Post CrDde L•._..l

4 5 6 10 1 T 12 Col. 1 2 3 4 5

• Less than 15% ··Good 16-22% •• Av~rage 2340% ··Poor

1 Part t it tabn from "Grt~dll L11vel Norms for th• Components of the Fundamental Aeadin9 Skill," by Stanford E. Taylor, Helen Ft&clo:enpohl , 111d Jemllt L. Pettee, EDL. RMMreh aM lnfoHn .. lon Bullelltt No. 3, Edueat)o~ OevefopmM~~ '--bc:lra­tories,1960.

2 P.rt 2 repr.t.,-.u typical r•llding perform11n<::11 etrtrl!ct!f"istics for uained readert, eccumuluted from various rttading centttt employir~g ln•trum•nt triHn ;ng teehnlqu•s and using eva· l'nOVemt'nt photogr•phy n ar~ evalu· atlwproeedtu•.

- --- --- -

11;'" [;l[e;IT ,,\li'li'&tK I ·i;'lf'~~ill]';iGlJ,~'\f IRU<L ~' ;;,"U .1'

A.E.

Grade Equiv. Aelat1ve Efficiency • Rate

Grade Equiv. Fixations+ Regressions

1. Head Movement

2. Rereading

3. lack of Return Sweep

4. Habitual Refixation on Return Sweep

5. Extreme Variation in Duration of Fixat10r•

6. Ext reme Variations in Fixations

7. Apparent Difficulty with Binocular Coordination

'3. 495, P9 -2._

-,(r:::ll:;? INSTRUCTIONALJCOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY, INC. J \.. '-:::1 U 10 Stepar Place • Huntmgton Station, New York 11746

R. E Grade Level

.29 .. 1.0

.41 . 1.5

.54 .. 2.0

.63 .... 2 .5

.73 .. .. . 30

.83 ... ···· ······ ······ ·· ... 3.5

.93 ··· ··· ········· ··· ·· ····· · 4.0 1.01 4.5 1.10 . 5.0 1.1 8 . 5.5 1.28 ... ·········· ·· ··· .. 6.0 1.34 . 6.5 1.42 . 7.0 1.50 .. 7.5 1.57 . 8 .0 1.64 8.5 1.71 . . .. ... .. .. .. ····· .. 9.0 1.79 .... 9.5 1.87 .. 10.0 1.97 .. 10.5 2.07 .. 11 .0 2.16 ...... 11.5 2.25 .. 12.0 2.40 12.5 2.66 ... .. ...... .. ......... 13.0 277 .... . 13.5 295 . .... 14.0 3.86 . ...... ..... .. . Adv. 1 5.48 . . ....... Adv. 2 7.74 . Adv.3

10.77 ..... ... ... ........... ... Adv. 4 13.48 . Adv 5

June 9 , 1986. Prir'l1ed ir'l U .S.A. Order No. VSASS'1

VISAGRAPH TEST ReSULTS and

1/CT'S FLUENCY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

Test Results

• Excessive number of fixations {eye stops) and accompanying reduced span of rec· ogn ition (amount of words Ol" word-parts perceived per eye stop}

• E;o;cessive number of regressions

• Unusually prolonged duration of fixation (length of eye pause)

• Poor directional attack

Inadequate return sweeps

• Habitual re-reading

• Inadequate rate with comprehension

• Poor information processing

Fluency Development Progams

Guided _Reading

Tach-Mate

Vu-Mate

Guided Reading

Tach·Mate

vu-Mate

Guided Reading !es­pecially Visual Efficiency training)

Guided Reading

Read/Along

READ

Guided Reading

Gu ided Reading

PAVE Program

Word Memory Program

Processing Power Program

Guided Reading Program

Word Memory Program

Processing Power Program

Guided Reading Program

PAVE Program

Word Memory Program

Guided Reading Program

PAVE Program

Processing Power Program

Guided Reading Program

Processing Power Program

Guided Reading Program

Comprehension PoWer Prog.ram

Processing Power Program

Guided Reading Program

Processing Power Program

Guided Reading Program

Comprehension Power Program

The use of 1/CT's programs of fluency development will improve an ind ividuals's visual/functional, perceptual , and information processing capabilities. Thes'e improvements will reflect in both reading efficiency, as measured by eye-movement recording, as well as increased effectiveness, as measured by standardized reading tests or other appraisa ls.

VTS 33.495, pg . 2