This report describes development of spherical equivalent refraction (SER) and axial length (AL) in two population-based cohorts of white, European children. Predictive factors for myopic growth were explored. Participants were aged 6–7- (n = 390) and 12–13-years (n = 657) at baseline. SER and AL were assessed at baseline and 3, 6 and 9 years prospectively. Between 6 and 16 years: latent growth mixture modelling identified four SER classes (Persistent Emmetropes-PEMM, Persistent Moderate Hyperopes-PMHYP, Persistent High Hyperopes-PHHYP and Emerging Myopes-EMYO) as optimal to characterise refractive progression and two classes to characterise AL. Between 12 and 22-years: five SER classes (PHHYP, PMHYP, PEMM, Low Progressing Myopes-LPMYO and High Progressing Myopes-HPMYO) and four AL classes were identified. EMYO had significantly longer baseline AL (≥ 23.19 mm) (OR 2.5, CI 1.05–5.97) and at least one myopic parent (OR 6.28, CI 1.01–38.93). More myopic SER at 6–7 years (≤ + 0.19D) signalled risk for earlier myopia onset by 10-years in comparison to baseline SER of those who became myopic by 13 or 16 years (p ≤ 0.02). SER and AL progressed more slowly in myopes aged 12–22-years (− 0.16D, 0.15 mm) compared to 6–16-years (− 0.41D, 0.30 mm). These growth trajectories and risk criteria allow prediction of abnormal myopigenic growth and constitute an important resource for developing and testing anti-myopia interventions.

There is a greater change in both spherical refractive error and axial length in younger children when compared with teenagers. Although increase in axial length drives refractive change during childhood and teenage years, lens compensation continues to occur in an attempt to maintain emmetropia. White children living in Northern Europe demonstrate dramatically less change in spherical refractive error over a fixed period of time than their East Asian counterparts. In contrast, they appear to exhibit more rapid myopic progression than UK children studied in the mid-20th century.

This study found no significant difference in HOA across refractive groups. The current study also highlights the importance of knowledge of axial length when analyzing HOA.

Questionnaires are a valid tool in self-identification of myopic refractive status. However, they are not an effective way of identifying hyperopia and astigmatism and objective or subjective refraction remains the most appropriate method of identifying such individuals.

The increased stray light values induced by cataract-simulating filters has a significant effect on all tests. However, GRP, which is known to be limited by retinal sampling rather than contrast, remains the most robust of the tests to the effects of intraocular stray light. The degree to which the normative "sensitivity" range for different types of perimetry might incorporate a component caused by individual differences in intraocular stray light is discussed and requires further research.