G L Goodrich, J Kirby, B Donald, P Wagstaff, T Oros
VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Western Blind Rehabilitation Center, Palo Alto, CA, United States
The low vision literature contains many references on training low vision individuals to read with low vision devices, however none address the question of how much training is needed. Additionally, the efficacy of formal training versus practice is not addressed. In this study we compared three models of low vision training in two experiments. In Experiment 1 a within subjects design (N = 90) was used to compare the traditional model (TM) of training (10 sessions with an optical device and 15 sessions with a CCTV) with an empirically derived model (EM) based on a record review suggesting the TM was not a cost effective model since most of the performance increase occurred in the first half of training. In Experiment 2 we used a between groups design to compare the EM with the US private sector model (PM) which is one session of training with an optical device (N = 14) and two training sessions with a CCTV (N = 27). In both experiments practice sessions were provided in addition to the training so that all subjects had equal exposure to their reading devices. The data indicates that the TM results in poorer performance than the EM and that the PM does not allow patients to attain maximum reading performance (speed or duration). The data also suggests that formal training provides benefits not available from independent practice. We found there were dosage effects in low vision training suggesting that it is possible to optimize low vision training.
Return to the ISLRR.ORG Home Page
