波兰二年级学生的住宿设施测试结果和学业成绩。

B Kedzia, G Tondel, D Pieczyrak, W C Maples
{"title":"波兰二年级学生的住宿设施测试结果和学业成绩。","authors":"B Kedzia,&nbsp;G Tondel,&nbsp;D Pieczyrak,&nbsp;W C Maples","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Accommodative infacility, as commonly measured by accommodative flippers, has been implicated as a factor in academic underperformance. This study compares four areas of academics (reading, writing, math and gym) to accommodative flexibility scores.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Seventy-six elementary school children with a mean age was 8 years, 8 months were tested monocularly and binocularly with traditional accommodative flexibility flipper testing and with a new accommodative flexibility apparatus that allows control of visual acuteness, minification/magnification, and reaction time. These scores were then compared with academic scores using a number of failure criteria. The academic ratings were based on teacher responses for each student.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our data did not show any clear correlation or relationship between evaluations by reading, writing, math, or gym teachers and accommodative flexibility by either the traditional or new testing methods.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Accommodative function, free of contaminating variables, does not appear to predict academic function any better than the traditional.</p>","PeriodicalId":17208,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Optometric Association","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1999-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accommodative facility test results and academic success in Polish second graders.\",\"authors\":\"B Kedzia,&nbsp;G Tondel,&nbsp;D Pieczyrak,&nbsp;W C Maples\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Accommodative infacility, as commonly measured by accommodative flippers, has been implicated as a factor in academic underperformance. This study compares four areas of academics (reading, writing, math and gym) to accommodative flexibility scores.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Seventy-six elementary school children with a mean age was 8 years, 8 months were tested monocularly and binocularly with traditional accommodative flexibility flipper testing and with a new accommodative flexibility apparatus that allows control of visual acuteness, minification/magnification, and reaction time. These scores were then compared with academic scores using a number of failure criteria. The academic ratings were based on teacher responses for each student.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our data did not show any clear correlation or relationship between evaluations by reading, writing, math, or gym teachers and accommodative flexibility by either the traditional or new testing methods.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Accommodative function, free of contaminating variables, does not appear to predict academic function any better than the traditional.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17208,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American Optometric Association\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1999-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American Optometric Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Optometric Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:适应性不足,通常由适应性脚蹼衡量,被认为是学业表现不佳的一个因素。这项研究比较了四个学术领域(阅读、写作、数学和体育)和适应性灵活性得分。方法:对76名平均年龄8岁8个月的小学生进行单眼和双眼测试,分别采用传统的调节柔韧性鳍形测试和一种新的调节柔韧性装置,控制视觉灵敏度、缩小/放大和反应时间。然后将这些分数与一些不及格标准的学术分数进行比较。学业评分是基于老师对每个学生的回答。结果:我们的数据没有显示阅读、写作、数学或体育教师的评估与传统或新测试方法的适应性灵活性之间有任何明确的相关性或关系。结论:不含污染变量的调节函数对学术功能的预测并不优于传统的调节函数。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Accommodative facility test results and academic success in Polish second graders.

Background: Accommodative infacility, as commonly measured by accommodative flippers, has been implicated as a factor in academic underperformance. This study compares four areas of academics (reading, writing, math and gym) to accommodative flexibility scores.

Methods: Seventy-six elementary school children with a mean age was 8 years, 8 months were tested monocularly and binocularly with traditional accommodative flexibility flipper testing and with a new accommodative flexibility apparatus that allows control of visual acuteness, minification/magnification, and reaction time. These scores were then compared with academic scores using a number of failure criteria. The academic ratings were based on teacher responses for each student.

Results: Our data did not show any clear correlation or relationship between evaluations by reading, writing, math, or gym teachers and accommodative flexibility by either the traditional or new testing methods.

Conclusion: Accommodative function, free of contaminating variables, does not appear to predict academic function any better than the traditional.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Practice management. Ocular cicatricial pemphigoid. Retinal capillary hemangioma. Giant papillary conjunctivitis. Nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1