Vision screening protocol and equipment guidelines differ among schools across the United States. Budget cuts are forcing many school nurses to reevaluate their vision screening programs, as well as items in their vision screening toolboxes. School nurses tasked with inventorying those toolboxes to determine which items to toss, keep, or replace are oftentimes perplexed by the copious choices featured in vendor catalogs and websites. For school nurses who want their vision screening toolboxes to include eye charts, national and international eye chart design guidelines are available to help ensure selected eye charts are standardized. A national consensus policy exists that recommends specific eye charts. And, a large body of vision screening literature is available to help school nurses make informed decisions. Current documents suggest that LEA Symbols are appropriate for young children and Sloan Letters are a better choice than “Snellen” charts for older children.
AllenH. F. (1957). A new picture series for preschool vision testing. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 44(1), 38-41.
2.
American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Practice and Ambulatory Medicine, Section on Ophthalmology; American Association of Certified Orthoptists; American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus; American Academy of Ophthalmology. (2003). Eye examination in infants, children and young adults by pediatricians. Pediatrics, 111(4Pt. 1), 902-907.
3.
AppelboomT. M. (1985). A history of vision screening. The Journal of School Health, 55(4), 138-141.
4.
BennettA. G. (1965). Ophthalmic test types. A review of previous work and discussions on some controversial questions. The British Journal of Physiological Optics, 22(4), 238-271.
Committee on Vision. (1980). Recommended standard procedures for the clinical measurement and specification of visual acuity. Report of working group 39. Assembly of Behavioral and Social Sciences, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. Advances in Ophthalmology, 41, 103-148.
ElkindD. C. (1961). Children’s conceptions of right and left: Piaget replication study IV. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 99, 269-276.
9.
EwingA. E. (1920). Test objects for the illiterate. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 3, 5-22.
10.
FerrisF. L.FreidlinV.KassoffA.GreenS. B.MiltonR. C. (1993). Relative letter and position difficulty on visual acuity charts from the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 116(6), 735-740.
11.
FerrisF. L.KassoffA.BresnickG. H.BaileyI. (1982). New visual acuity charts for clinical research. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 94(1), 91-96.
12.
FfooksO. (1965). Vision test for children: Use of symbols. The British Journal of Ophthalmology, 49, 312-314.
13.
HartmannE. E.DobsonV.HainlineL.Marsh-TootleW.QuinnG. E.RuttumM. S.SchmidtP. P.SimonsK. (2000). Preschool vision screening: Summary of a Task Force report. Behalf of the Maternal and Child Health Bureau and the National Eye Institute Task Force on Vision Screening in the Preschool Child. Pediatrics, 106(5), 1105-1116.
14.
HeredR. W.MurphyS.ClancyM. (1997). Comparison of the HOTV and Lea Symbols charts for preschool vision screening. Journal of Ophthalmic Nursing & Technology, 16(2), 68-73.
KaiserP. K. (2009). Prospective evaluation of visual acuity assessment: A comparison of Snellen versus ETDRS charts in clinical practice (An AOS Thesis). Transactions of the American Ophthalmological Society, 107, 311-324.
20.
LeatS. J.LiW.EppK. (1999). Crowding in central and eccentric vision: The effects of contour interaction and attention. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 40(2), 504-512.
21.
ProctorS. E. (2005). To see or not to see: Screening the vision of children in school. Castle Rock, CO: National Association of School Nurses.
22.
ReganJ. J. (1935). Routine vision testing of school children: A plea for standardization. The New England Journal of Medicine, 213(11), 519-520.
23.
RobbinsS. L.ChristianW. K.HertleR. W.GranetD. B. (2003). Vision testing in the pediatric population. Ophthalmology Clinics of North America, 16(2), 253-267.
24.
SaarelaT. P.WestheimerG.HerzonM. H. (2010). The effect of spacing regularity on visual crowding. Journal of Vision, 10(10), 17, 1-7.
25.
SloanL. L. (1959). New test charts for the measurement of visual acuity at far and near distances. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 48, 807-813.
26.
SnellenH. (1900). On the methods of determining the acuity of vision. In NorrisW. F.OliverC. A. (Eds.). System of diseases of the eye (Vol. 2, pp. 11-29). Philadelphia, PA: J. B. Lippincott.
27.
StuartJ. A.BurianH. M. (1962). A study of separation difficulty: Its relationship to visual acuity in normal and amblyopic eyes. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 53, 471-477.
Vision on Preschoolers Study Group. (2003). Threshold visual acuity testing of preschool children using the crowded HOTV and Lea Symbols acuity tests. Journal of AAPOS, 7(6), 396-399.
30.
Vision in Preschoolers Study Group. (2004a). Comparison of preschool vision screening tests as administered by licensed eye care professionals in the Vision in Preschoolers Study. Ophthalmology, 111(4), 637-650.
31.
Vision in Preschoolers Study Group. (2004b). Preschool visual acuity screening with HOTV and Lea Symbols: Testability and between-test agreement. Optometry and Vision Science, 81(9), 678-683.
32.
Vision in Preschoolers Study Group. (2005). Preschool vision screening tests administered by nurse screeners compared with lay screeners in the vision in preschoolers study. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 46(8), 2639-2648.
33.
Vision in Preschoolers Study Group. (2010). Effect of age using Lea Symbols or HOTV for preschool vision screening. Optometry and Vision Science, 87(2), 87-95.
34.
World Health Organization. (2003). Consultation on development of standards for characterization of vision loss and visual functioning. Retrieved from http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2003/WHO_PBL_03.91.pdf
35.
YoungsonR. M. (1975). Anomaly in visual acuity testing in children. British Journal of Ophthalmology, 59(3), 168-170.
