PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to use the Experience Sampling Method (ESM) to evaluate the daily visual activities of a group of optometry students and to determine whether the ESM could detect differences in visual activities when a difference was thought to exist. METHODS: Sixty-two optometry students, at four different levels of training, at The Ohio State University College of Optometry were tested using the ESM during a 14-day period. A subgroup of 18 subjects in their fourth year of study was asked to repeat the 14-day ESM on a second occasion. The two ESM periods were specifically chosen at times when the subjects were expected to have markedly different nearwork profiles. RESULTS: A comparison of members from the four optometry classes when the fourth-year students were taking final written examinations showed no significant differences in the proportion of nearwork among groups (p = 0.170); however, when the fourth-year students were primarily performing eye examinations during clinical rotations, there was a significant difference in the proportion of nearwork among training levels (13.8% for fourth-year students compared with 24.9%, 23.7%, and 30.4% for the other optometry classes; p = 0.0001). The percentage of time spent doing nearwork and performing eye examinations was significantly different between two ESM periods (paired t-test, p = 0.0001 for each activity). CONCLUSIONS: The ESM is capable of detecting differences in the proportion of time spent doing nearwork and performing eye examinations among groups of optometry students in different levels of training with different daily visual demands and between two ESM periods when these activities were expected to differ. The ESM can be used as an alternative method for nearwork quantification in future studies.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to use the Experience Sampling Method (ESM) to evaluate the daily visual activities of a group of optometry students and to determine whether the ESM could detect differences in visual activities when a difference was thought to exist. METHODS: Sixty-two optometry students, at four different levels of training, at The Ohio State University College of Optometry were tested using the ESM during a 14-day period. A subgroup of 18 subjects in their fourth year of study was asked to repeat the 14-day ESM on a second occasion. The two ESM periods were specifically chosen at times when the subjects were expected to have markedly different nearwork profiles. RESULTS: A comparison of members from the four optometry classes when the fourth-year students were taking final written examinations showed no significant differences in the proportion of nearwork among groups (p = 0.170); however, when the fourth-year students were primarily performing eye examinations during clinical rotations, there was a significant difference in the proportion of nearwork among training levels (13.8% for fourth-year students compared with 24.9%, 23.7%, and 30.4% for the other optometry classes; p = 0.0001). The percentage of time spent doing nearwork and performing eye examinations was significantly different between two ESM periods (paired t-test, p = 0.0001 for each activity). CONCLUSIONS: The ESM is capable of detecting differences in the proportion of time spent doing nearwork and performing eye examinations among groups of optometry students in different levels of training with different daily visual demands and between two ESM periods when these activities were expected to differ. The ESM can be used as an alternative method for nearwork quantification in future studies.
Authors: Lisa A Jones; Loraine T Sinnott; Donald O Mutti; Gladys L Mitchell; Melvin L Moeschberger; Karla Zadnik Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 4.799