Vision Therapy

from vision therapy. She had severe developmental vision delays, including (at age 8-1/2) the focusing speed of a 3yo, convergence and tracking problems, and field-of-vision at nearpoint the size of a nickel. VT brought these skills up to age-appropriate levels, but we then needed to follow-up with a cognitive training program (we did PACE, http://www.learninginfo.com) to develop skills such as visual short-term memory, visual sequencing, pattern recognition, etc. Prior to PACE she was diagnosed as severely dyseidetic.

If you use the search option on this bb, you will probably pull up other posts about vision therapy.

A search on the “special needs” homeschooling bulletin board at http://www.vegsource.com will also pull up a lot of posts from parents with experience of vision therapy. (Just be sure to change the search option from “recipes” to “discussion groups” first!)

Mary

I know lots of people have related good experiences with vision therapy, but it is important to know that there are virtually no well-controlled studies that show it to be effective, except for a very few people with very specific kinds of problems. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t work, it just means that there currently is no good proof that it does. In fact, the link below comes to the conclusion that it is quackery most of the time. If you are thinking about whether to do it, you should first hear the worst things being said about it. Otherwise you might get the impression that this is a well-established proven method of treatment.

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/eyequack.html

My daughter went through vision therapy for a year and a half after she was diagnosed with lazy eye. Her vision was markedly improved and, interestingly enough, a year later when she was diagnosed with attention problems, her visual scanning scores were off the charts. So her it helped her a lot and, I think, helped her compensate for some of her other learning problems. I highly recommend it!!

I would also note WHO is making the judgment. When I was researching vision therapy, I found that across the board the medical profession thought it was quackery, so it was opthalmologist vs. optomotrist, which is really too bad. If they could work together for the benefit of the child, everyone would be better off.

that I read all the quackery site information a long time ago. What’s really bad about that site is that it is terribly biased. It’s true that no solid scientific studies have been conducted to determine the benefits of vision therapy. However, the quackery site goes way beyond this conclusion and cites research studies that “prove” vision therapy is worthless and a scam. These research studies are so scientifically flawed, it is very obvious that the writers made up their minds and then searched for any research — however badly done — that would confirm their pre-conceived ideas. Anyone with a reasonable background in science would be scandalized, as I was, that this junk is actually offered to the public as valid “research”.

I do think it’s good for everyone to read both sides. I read both sides, and concluded that the arguments in favor of vision therapy seemed much more reasonable than the arguments against it. Since I had a child who could not wait ten or twenty years for scientific validation one way or the other, I decided to take a chance and observe results for myself. I’m very glad I did.

Mary

Mary,

Which are the research studies that are scientifically flawed? What’s the problem with them? I’m trying to decide whether I think VT would be helpful to my son, so I’m interested in seeing what might be wrong about studies showing it is not helpful. I think the problem with lots of interventions that are available is that the research proving that they work just hasn’t been done, even though the therapy may really work. For example, even though we all have heard of sensory integration, and kids like my son have benefitted from SI techniques, there is really no good research validating the diagnosis or the effectiveness of the therapy. Programs like Brain Gym and Interactive Metronome, and even Fast Forward all seem to work for some kids, but there is no hard, scientific evidence of their effectiveness. If we could get the research conducted, we’d all be in a better position to do the right things for our kids. As you point out though, until that happens, we’ve just got to do our own research and hope we don’t head down too many blind alleys.

Andrea

Andrea,

My son also has SI issues, primarily vestibular, and has gone through vision therapy. We got some good improvements but not as much as I had hoped. We also are doing Neuronet therapy which focuses on the vestibular system and I asked the therapist about our less than perfect results, since I knew she referred people to a behavioral optometrist for evaluations. She told me that the problem with computer based, flat (paper and pencil) type approaches like we used is that they don’t work the vestibular system and only take kids so far. She told me that you need to integrate movement (she uses a ball) for maximum results. Now, I suspect it depends on the kid (and she sees a certain type of kid) but since you know your child has SI issues, I would be careful about the therapist. We are incorporating visual work into what we are doing with Neuronet but she told me of a different behavioral optometrist who did similar work to what she does.

And the therapist I originally saw was COVD certified so that alone may not mean enough. We also saw an OT specializing in sensory integration who told me that doing sensory integration work along side vision therapy produces quicker results so I think for certain kids this may really matter.

Beth

is the one that took a group of children with reading problems, separated them into two groups, and gave one group vision therapy. According to the quackery site, the results of this study “proved” that vision therapy was worthless.

I feel ridiculous pointing out the obvious, but these children were never evaluated for vision problems before they were incorporated into the study. The sole selection criterion was a reading problem. The type of vision therapy provided was also not defined in any way. You can’t just provide vision therapy to a group of children, say, the way you provide physical exercises. Vision therapy is always tailored to an individual’s specific needs. Finally, even if a child has a problem with reading because of developmental vision delays, and vision therapy corrects the vision problems, this doesn’t mean that the child then automatically knows how to read! The child may still need explicit instruction in all those reading skills that kids without vision problems were able to develop over a period of years. This study based its conclusion solely on tests of reading at the end of the study. “Research” like this should not be called research at all.

It’s not very well known, but the AMA actually recognizes vision therapy as effective for certain eye problems (can’t remember exactly which, but I think one is binocularity). If I had an endless amount of time I could look up the reference (or you can find it yourself on the ReadNOW list at http://www.groups.yahoo.com, in the archived messages). Vision therapy definitely *does* have research-based evidence that supports its usefulness for a limited number of specific conditions. What is lacking is good research for many other applications that have been developed in the last ten years or so — mostly by optometrists, who lack credibility in the medical community.

Mary

My daughter has gone in for vision therapy she was missing words,sentences and mixing letters when she reads.They said she has tracking problems and double vision within her reading range.Said use glasses for month and come back had trouble getting daughter to use glasses. We had to come back a month later to see.We went in earlier cause did not get full exam from regular eye doctor who referred us told us then she was better but to come back in a month.Because so much time has past am taking matters in own hands and having daughter pass a ball between us for help in her tracking and also using a nintendo game where the ball bounces off a paddle at bottom of screen she needs to control which I figure might help her to track.Also put beads on a string and have her look from bead to bead for the double vision.We will see when we go back in if worked.

If you have looked at the activites of brain gym and the movements and some of the movements of vision theraphy along with the book smart moves you maybe able see that one the connection that they talk about makes sende two that it does’nt hurt and three the testiomonials may be considered research to some. If you want to pay $25.00 with research matterials to make you feel that it is proven that is good you can obtain a copy at braingym.org website. But the results I saw personally was what confinces me. YOu could even take a brain gym 101 class and they may give you reseach. if you want to read about my experience then you may find it on this bulitin board under cherie.hope this helps. don’t knock until you tried it you might be surprised. good luck in your search…..