This single-subject study explored the effects of different mounting systems of prescribed near magnification (handheld, stand-mounted, spectacle-mounted, and electronic) on reading performance and preference in students with low vision. Participants included five students ranging from 3rd to 11th grade, and with various etiologies. Reading performance and preference varied widely with each mounting system, with no clear patterns across students. The differences in mounting systems did appear to be a determining factor in the reading performance and preference among students and should be taken into account when selecting and prescribing devices for students.
AhnS. J.LeggeG. E. (1995). Psychophysics of reading-XIII. Predictors of magnifier-aided reading speed in low vision. Vision Research, 35, 1931–1938.
2.
BackmanO. (2000). Interactive factors in the reading rehabilitation of elderly persons with low vision in Sweden. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 94, 638–647.
3.
BirkimerJ. C.BrownJ. H. (1979). Back to basics: Percentage agreement measures are adequate, but there are easier ways. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 535–543.
4.
BurnsP. C.RoeB. D. (1993). Informal reading inventory: Preprimer to twelfth grade, fourth edition. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
5.
CohenJ. M.WaissB. (1991a). Comparison of reading speed in normal observers through different forms of equivalent power low vision devices. Optometry and Vision Science, 68, 127–131.
6.
CohenJ. M.WaissB. (1991b). Reading speed through different equivalent power low vision devices with identical field of view. Optometry and Vision Science, 68, 795–797.
7.
CornA. L.BellJ. K.AndersenE.BachoferC.JoseR. T.PerezA. M. (2003). Providing access to the visual environment: A model of low vision services for children. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 97, 261–272.
8.
CornA. L.WallR. S.BellJ. K. (2000). Impact of optical devices on reading rates and expectations for visual functioning of school-age children and youth with low vision. Visual Impairment Research, 2, 33–41.
9.
CornA. L.WallR. S.JoseR. TBellJ. K.WilcoxK.PerezA. (2002). An initial study of reading and comprehension rates for students who received optical devices. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 96, 322–334.
10.
EhrlichD. (1987). A comparative study in the use of closed-circuit television reading machines and optical aids by patients with retinitis pigmentosa and maculopathy. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 7, 293–302.
GoodrichG. L.KirbyJ. (2001). A comparison of patient reading performance and preference: Optical devices, handheld CCTV (Innoventions Magni-Cam), or stand-mounted CCTV (Optelec Clearview or TSI Genie). Optometry, 72, 519–528.
13.
GoodrichG. L.KirbyJ.WagstaffP.OrosT.McDevittB. (2004). A comparative study of reading performance with a head-mounted laser display and conventional low vision devices. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 98, 148–159.
14.
HasbrouckJ.TindalG. A. (2006). Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable assessment tool for reading teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59, 636–644.
15.
IndeK. (1978). Low vision training in Sweden. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 72, 307–310.
16.
Industrial Home for the Blind. (1957). Optical Aids Service – Survey on 500 Cases – March 1953 to December 1955. New York, NY: Industrial Home for the Blind.
17.
JoseR. T.CummingsJ.McAdamsL. (1975). The model low vision clinical service: An interdisciplinary vision rehabilitation program. New Outlook for the Blind, 69, 249–254.
18.
JoseR. T.SpringerD. A. (1973). Optical aids: An interdisciplinary prescription. New Outlook for the Blind, 67, 12–18.
19.
KennedyC. H. (2005). Single-case designs for educational research. New York, NY: Pearson Education, Inc.
20.
KoenigA. J.HolbrookM. C. (1995). Learning media assessment of students with visual impairments: A resource guide for teachers. Austin: Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired.
21.
MancilG. L.NowakowskiR. (1986). Evaluation of reading speed with four low vision aids. Journal of Optometry and Physiological Optics, 63, 708–713.
22.
MyrbergM.BackmanO.LennerstrandG. (1996). Reading proficiency of elderly visually impaired persons after rehabilitation. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 90, 341–351.
SmithJ. K.ErinJ. N. (2002). The effects of practice with prescribed reading glasses on students with low vision. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 96, 765–782.
25.
StelmackJ.RedaD.AhlersS.BainbridgeL.McCrayJ. (1991). Reading performance of geriatric patients post exudative maculopathy. Journal of the American Optometric Association, 62, 53–57.
