324 THOMAS HARRISON EAMES

'Cowan, A., and McAndrews, L. F. Arch, of Ophth., 1931, v. 5, May, p. 760. ' Goalwin, H. A. Arch, of Ophth., 1931, v. 6, August, p. 221. ' Druault, A. Arch. d'Opht., 1898, v. 18, p. 68S. ' Majewski, K. W. Arch. d'Opht., 1930, v. 47, July, p. 440. * Comberg, W. Trans. German Ophth. Soc, 1930, June. Abst. Arch, of Ophth., 1930,

v. 4, October, p. 606. 9 Gonin, J. Ann. d'Ocul., 1931, v. 168, January, p. 1. 10 Vogt, A. Klin. Monatsbl. f. Augenh., 1930, v. 84, March, pp. 305-339. " Schoenberg, M. Arch, of Ophth., 1930, v. 3, June, p. 684. B Amsler, M., and Dubois, H. Schweiz. med. Wchnschr., 1929, v. 59, June 22, p. 658. 18 Matthiesen, L. Arch. f. Ophth., 1879, v. 25, pt. 4, p. 257. M Salzmann, M. Arch. f. Ophth., 1929, v. 123, p. 252. " Colenbrander, M. C. Arch. f. Ophth., 1932, v. 128, p. 80. M Lindner, K. Arch. f. Ophth., 1929, v. 123, p. 233. " Duke-Elder, W. S. Text-book of Ophthalmology. London, Henry Kimpton, 1932, v. 1. ™ Cowan, A. Ophthalmic Optics. Philadelphia, T. A. Davis Co., 1927. M McKeown, H. S. Trans. Amer. Acad. Ophth. and Otolaryng., 1932, p. 240. MFerree, C. E., Rand, G., and Hardy, C. Arch, of Ophth., 1931, v. 5, May, p. 717.

IMPROVEMENT IN READING FOLLOWING THE CORRECTION OF T H E EYE DEFECTS OF NONREADERS

THOMAS HARRISON EAMES WEST SOMERVILLE, MASS.

In a group of 28 nonreaders, ocular deficiencies were corrected or treated and seven months later improvement in reading was greater among them than in a control group tested under comparable circumstances. From the Harvard University School of Educa­tion.

Difficulty in learning to read was once regarded as being due to partial word blindness or to mental deficiency, but improved pedagogy paved the way for a complete change of view and the pendulum swung from the pathological to the psychological extreme. The un­derlying handicaps which interfere with school success were neglected in favor of new methods of teaching, in the hope that a purely educational technic could be developed and applied to reading-dis­ability cases by the class-room teacher or school psychologist. Special teaching has been helpful but not really satisfac­tory, and one turns again to the consid­eration of fundamental causes.

In previous studies1 the writer has demonstrated the participancy of ocular defects in the etiology of reading dis­ability, and the present study was made in order to determine how much im­provement in reading follows the cor­rection of the eye troubles of nonread­ers. It was very difficult to obtain usable data on the various children who had been studied previously because differ­ent reading tests had been used in the

schools from which the subjects had come. Standard reading tests had not been administered in some schools and reports were made in terms of school marks or the general impressions of the respective teachers. These reports, although appreciated, were not adapted to statistical treatment and could not be used. From an original group of 114 cases of reading disability, 28 were finally collected which had been tested at comparable intervals with the same standard reading test. Of these 20 had been tested by the same psychologist; 7 by a grade supervisor; and one by a principal who had special training in psychological testing. The reading test was administered at the beginning of the school year and a complete eye ex­amination, with special attention to de­fects of the ocular muscles and deficien­cies of fusion, was made soon after­ward. All eye defects discovered were corrected or treated according to the na­ture of the difficulty. The same reading test was given again seven months later. During the interval the children had returned to their schools and had re-

CORRECTION OF EYE DEFECTS OF NONREADERS 325

ceived only such help as their teachers had seen fit to give them.

As a control group, an equal number of unselected cases was taken from the school records. These children had been tested at the same times, with the same test, and by the school psychologist who had tested the greater part of the other group. Several of them were found to be in the same room and under the same teacher as some of the non-readers.

Table COMPARISON OF READING AGE INCREMENTS

Reading-disability Unselected group group

Median 7.80 S.33 Q, 6.00 3.40 Q, 12.00 11.00 No. cases 28 28 Interval between tests 7 7 Medians and quartiles are expressed in months of reading age. Interval between tests is expressed in chronological months.

The reading test used was the Gates Primary Reading Test, and its results were interpreted in reading age, hence, for 7 months of instruction a theoreti­cally normal child would be expected to obtain an increment of 7 months of

reading age. The accompanying table shows that the unselected group pre­sented a median increment of 5.33 months of reading age, while the read­ing-disability group, the members of which had received correction of eye defects and fusional deficiencies, show­ed an increment of 7.80 months of read­ing age.

The greater median increment made by the reading-disability group may be explained by the fact that the members were all retarded below their normal reading ages before treatment. When the impeding conditions had been re­moved or lessened, these children were enabled to approach the normal reading age more rapidly because of greater rel­ative maturity in relation to the work to be done. The other group was read­ing at age and was working at its nor­mal level all the time.

The implications of this study are as follows:

1. Correction of eye difficulties is im­portant in the treatment of reading dis­ability cases.

2. In general, nonreaders may be ex­pected to make normal monthly prog­ress in reading following correction of eye defects and fusional deficiencies.

31 Chester Street.

References 1 Eames, T. H. A comparison of the ocular characteristics of unselected and reading

disability groups. Jour. Educ. Res., 1932, v. 25, No. 3, pp. 211-215. . Eye defects in reading disability. Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat Monthly, 1931,

v. 10, No. 3, pp. 124-125.