Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2024 Nov 4;65(13):48. doi: 10.1167/iovs.65.13.48.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess fine motor skills and reading proficiency in adults with amblyopia and/or strabismus, and to determine how these relate to clinical measures of vision and self-reported vision-related quality of life.
METHODS: Fine motor skills (Manual dexterity – Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency [BOT-2]) and reading performance (International Reading Speed Texts [IReST]) were assessed in 23 adults with non-strabismic amblyopia, 20 with non-amblyopic strabismus, 52 with both amblyopia and strabismus, and 19 with normal visual development. Visual acuity and binocular function score (BFS), obtained from stereoacuity and presence/absence of suppression, were also determined. Vision-related quality of life was assessed with the Amblyopia and Strabismus Questionnaire (A&SQ) in those with amblyopia and/or strabismus. Statistical analysis included ANOVA and multiple regression models.
RESULTS: Participants with amblyopia and/or strabismus exhibited poorer performance in all five manual dexterity sub-items and the overall standardized score (P < 0.05). The reading rate was significantly slower across all amblyopia/strabismus groups (P < 0.05). Poorer fine motor skills and slower reading performance were associated with each other (R = 0.29). Clinical visual characteristics (visual acuity [VA], BFS, and presence of strabismus) explained 39% of the variance in fine motor skills score (R2 = 0.39), however, these explained only 6% of the variance in reading speed (R2 = 0.06). Self-report of functional ability related most to BFS, whereas psychosocial impact related to the presence of strabismus. The clinical and functional characteristics predicted 4% of the variance in functional impact score (R2 = 0.038) and explained 16% of the variance in psychosocial impact score (R2 = 0.16).
CONCLUSIONS: The functional and psychosocial effects of amblyopia and strabismus are common and persist into adulthood, with outcomes inadequately accounted for by clinical measures of vision.
PMID:39576625 | DOI:10.1167/iovs.65.13.48
