{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018726591760299626, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005885500267522739, 'mean_word_length': 5.702508960573477, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison on testability of visual acuity, stereo acuity and colour vision tests between children with learning disabilities and children without learning disabilities in government primary schools

Context: Children with learning disabilities might have difficulties to communicate effectively and give reliable responses as required in various visual function testing procedures. Aims: The purpose of this study was to compare the testability of visual acuity using the modified Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) and Cambridge Crowding Cards, stereo acuity using Lang Stereo test II and Butterfly stereo tests and colour perception using Colour Vision Test Made Easy (CVTME) and Ishihara's Test for Colour Deficiency (Ishihara Test) between children in mainstream classes and children with learning disabilities in special education classes in government primary schools. Materials and Methods: A total of 100 primary school children (50 children from mainstream classes and 50 children from special education classes) matched in age were recruited in this cross-sectional comparative study. The testability was determined by the percentage of children who were able to give reliable respond as required by the respective tests. ‘Unable to test’ was defined as inappropriate response or uncooperative despite best efforts of the screener. Results: The testability of the modified ETDRS, Butterfly stereo test and Ishihara test for respective visual function tests were found lower among children in special education classes (P < 0.001) but not in Cambridge Crowding Cards, Lang Stereo test II and CVTME. Conclusion: Non verbal or “matching” approaches were found to be more superior in testing visual functions in children with learning disabilities. Modifications of vision testing procedures are essential for children with learning disabilities.