College of Optometry Student Theses, Dissertations and Capstones

Document Type



Comparison of Three Clinical Tests of Accommodation to Hofstetter's Norms to Guide Diagnosis and Treatment

Degree Name

Master of Science (M.S.) in Clinical Vision Research

Copyright Statement

All rights reserved. This publication is intended for use solely by faculty, students, and staff of Nova Southeastern University. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, now known or later developed, including but not limited to photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the author or the publisher.


College of Optometry

First Advisor

Shallo-Hoffmann, Josephine

Date of original Performance / Presentation


Publication Date / Copyright Date



Nova Southeastern University


PURPOSE: It has been documented previously that the push up (PU) and pull away (PA) methods overestimate accommodative amplitude (AA), while the minus lens-to-blur (MLB) method underestimates it. It also has been shown that the PU and PA methods produce similar results. We sought to compare data obtained from these three clinically used methods to determine AA in children and young adults with base-line normative data predicted by Hofstetter. METHODS: Ninety healthy subjects (mean 11.7 years, range: 6-36 and 50F/40M), split into two groups, children (mean 9.8 years, range: 6-13 and 38F/22M) and young adults (mean 25.5 years, range: 21-36 and 16F/14M), were recruited from the patient and student populations of two schools of optometry. The subjects completed three accommodative tests presented in a random order: PA, PU, and MLB methods. RESULTS: Findings from the MLB technique varied significantly from Hofstetter's normative values (P




This document is currently not available here.

  Link to NovaCat