Procedures and Tools Used by Teachers When Completing Functional Vision Assessments with Children with Visual Impairments

Abstract

Introduction This study analyzed survey responses from 314 teachers of students with visual impairments regarding the tools and procedures used in completing functional vision assessments (FVAs). Methods Teachers of students with visual impairments in the United States and Canada completed an online survey during spring 2016. Results The majority of participants reported that they primarily assess pre-academic and academic students in kindergarten through 12th grade (K-12). More than 95% of all participants indicated that they assess near and distance visual acuity. Other commonly assessed skills and abilities were tracking ( n = 298; 95%), peripheral visual fields (n = 296; 94%), and color perception (n = 293; 93%). Approximately 50% of survey participants indicated that they use a screening tool in determining the need for an orientation and mobility (O&M) evaluation. Discussion The procedures and tools used by participants in completing FVAs varied based on the specific student being assessed. There was also considerable variation in visual skills assessed, as well as in what was included in the assessment report by the participants. Based on comments from participants, it appears that there are complex factors that influence the decision-making process regarding possible referrals for an O&M evaluation or a clinical low vision evaluation. Implications for practitioners Teachers should reflect on their own practices and procedures to determine whether they are including all pertinent information in their FVA reports, as well as explore whether they should assess additional visual skills in order to provide a rich description of how the student uses his or her vision throughout the day in a variety of environments.

Building Consensus about the Functional Vision Assessment Process: A Delphi Study

“…The authors found it surprising that both groups only rated 10 statements as extremely important in Round 1 (see Table 3). The authors were in agreement, however, with the importance of the 10 statements that have been corroborated by others including D’Andrea and Farrenkopf (2000); Erin and Paul (1996); Kaiser and Herzberg (2017); Lewis and Allman (2017); and Spungin et al (2017).…”

“…It may be challenging for university instructors to adequately prepare preservice teachers of students with visual impairments to complete FVAs for the heterogeneous student population. In a recent survey by Kaiser and Herzberg (2017), of 314 teachers, 29% reported that they had many gaps in their initial FVA training or that they did not receive training on content and procedures for conducting FVAs for academic students in kindergarten through 12th grade. In the same study, 51% of the teachers reported the same lack of training when asked about conducting FVAs for students under age 5 years or those with multiple disabilities.…”

“…Although completing and interpreting results of FVAs is considered a fundamental responsibility of teachers of students with visual impairments, there is little agreement among professionals regarding what FVAs should include (Kaiser & Herzberg, 2017; Shaw et al, 2009). Almost 25 years ago, Erin and Paul (1996) identified and recommended components that should be included in an FVA including history, observations, eye structure, eye reflexes, near visual acuity, distance visual acuity, visual fields, visual motility, visual skills, color perception, use of devices, and recommendations.…”

An Analysis of Data Collection Tools Used When Completing Functional Vision Assessments

“…Throughout this article, “FVA data collection tools” are used to describe the checklists, informal protocols, forms, tables, and spreadsheets used by teachers during the FVA process. In a recent survey of 314 teachers of students with visual impairments in the United States and Canada, 29% ( n = 92) responded that there were significant gaps in their initial training regarding procedures for conducting FVAs (Kaiser & Herzberg, 2017). Additionally, 84% ( n = 264) responded that their employer does not require them to use any specific FVA tool, and 90% ( n = 284) reported that they have made their own or modified other tools (Kaiser & Herzberg, 2017).…”

“…In a recent survey of 314 teachers of students with visual impairments in the United States and Canada, 29% ( n = 92) responded that there were significant gaps in their initial training regarding procedures for conducting FVAs (Kaiser & Herzberg, 2017). Additionally, 84% ( n = 264) responded that their employer does not require them to use any specific FVA tool, and 90% ( n = 284) reported that they have made their own or modified other tools (Kaiser & Herzberg, 2017). Similarly, in a survey of 233 teachers of students with visual impairments regarding the processes and materials used to complete FVAs, one half of the participants said they used tools that they had created, and 90% reported that a standardized tool would be helpful as long as it could be adapted to specific students (Shaw et al, 2009).…”