Vision Therapy straight talk questions

[displace]

So, I'm considering getting a comprehensive vision therapy optometrist to evaluate DS.  After researching it a bit, I've found very conflicting things about it, ranging from thoughts that it's not really effective, to changing people's lives.

 

I'm wondering a few things. 

1) Is there good evidence on the effectiveness of it?

2) Any personal experiences with good/bad/neutral thoughts?

3) How long does therapy last?  A website for a vision therapist "near" me seems to require 3 hours of therapy per week, in 3-5 "phases".  The best I can guess is each phase is about 5-6 weeks?

4) How super expensive is it?

5) Could I get a comprehensive exam, and if anything is found then do some treatments at home?

 

All of this may be premature, but I like to be prepared and want to do some research about it.  I realize a lot of answers will vary considering prices, length of treatments, etc, but I'm just trying to get a basic idea so anything would be helpful you'd like to share.  Thanks.

[PeterPan]

You should start with just a basic, normal visit to that eye doc and ask them to *screen* him for the developmental vision stuff.  Describe the problems you're having and ask them to screen to tell you if a full developmental vision eval is warranted.  

 

Yes, it's expensive.

Yes, you'll have homework.

Yes, it works.

No, it does not cure polio, reverse genes, or do other wonders.  It fixes things that were due to vision and you sometimes see bonus improvements because there will be some work on EF.

 

Your place should be willing to answer these questions.  Each place is different, and you should call several places to compare.  Some kids have serious sensory integration issues, retained primitive reflexes, etc., that need to be dealt with in order for the vision therapy to be effective.  The more complex the problems you're having, the more you need to make sure ALL those things are getting addressed.  You may need an OT eval if there's dysgraphia going on.  If there is dysgraphia, the only question is which first, the OT or the VT.  Right now, because it's still summer, OTs are quite open for scheduling.  You might give one a buzz and see how quickly you can get in.  

 

We did OT and VT at the same time, and that can work.  Some people have situations where doing one or the other first is better.  Just depends on the situation.

[OneStepAtATime]

Agree with most of what Elizabeth posted (as usual :) - love your brain OhE! ).

 

I would just add that for some it actually hasn't seemed to work at all.  This is really in its infancy.  I suspect that there really is such a wide range of methods and philosophies coupled with such a wide range of differences between children that may even have the same diagnosis that it is really difficult to determine what is a good VT program and what is a bad VT program and what issues just won't do well with VT and what issues might do well with VT if other issues were addressed first, etc.

 

This means that doing VT, if a qualified COVD says VT is necessary, MIGHT help and it MIGHT not, but never doing it means the problem will almost certainly never get better.  At least with VT you are giving your child a fighting chance to make the situation better.

 

 

Just saw the other post and would like to add that my family ophthalmologist told me flat out that dyslexia, dysgraphia and AD/HD do not exist.  I no longer think my family's ophthalmologist has a clue.  And he absolutely completely missed my son's heterophoria.  And was no help at all with my unusual fragmenting eye sight problems.   But the developmental optometrist knew exactly what was happening.

 

In doing further research, just like when dyslexia was first being studied and was frequently rejected as even existing (and apparently still is in some circles), I believe that most of the opthalmologists are sticking their head in the sand and refusing to see that there may be a LOT more to vision than they have been willing to admit and to study.  This is just my personal opinion based on some basic research and personal experience, but there you go.  There are MANY people on this board alone that have had great success with VT for learning challenges.  And I do not believe that everyone who says they have had success with VT are delusional.

[PeterPan]

I'll go one step beyond OneStep (haha) and be less polite.  I think there are some scheister and idiot docs out there who read a book, take a workshop, and put up a shingle saying they do VT.  There are some docs out there who photocopied a book and put together a bunch of paper exercises without ever learning how the brain and body connect, meaning they can never dig into the hardest cases.  I think there are some doctors out there who get kicks out of promising people the moon and think that because it did give the moon to one kid that it's going to for all the others.

 

I also think hard cases make bad law, as my dh says.  

 

So there are reasons it doesn't work for all kids, and they aren't pretty reasons.  In any ideal world every doc is reputable, stays up on the newest things, researches as hard as we do, and doesn't make grandiose, impossible claims.  Like my doc saying that from their perspective dyslexia is a visual processing problem, fine say that, but that doesn't answer the RAN/RAS scores.  Or are they specifically targeting rapid naming in the therapy?  And it doesn't explain the people who did the therapy and DIDN'T get a shift.

 

VT is widely regarded as effective for convergence issues.  That's a physical, distinct problem and it responds well to therapy.  But once you get into the brain and visual processing and dyslexia and reading problems, that is SO complex.  But again, hard cases don't make good law.  Just because I know someone who was totally cross-wired for sensory who didn't respond to VT until she got a world class doc doesn't mean NO ONE will benefit from VT or that everyone is such a hard case.  

 

Use your head, that's what I say.  Make them demonstrate physical problems and make sure they're using objective measures to demonstrate progress.  You should see some kind of progress within a month.  You should never pay large sums ahead or get locked in.  You should feel very confident that you are in control, that progress is being made, and you should stop if that's not the case.

[PeterPan]

PS. If you really want to dig into the weeds, I got a book to make some effort on visual processing with my ds.  I don't *know* if I can get things to change.  I know he *seems* to be dyslexic.  If some things can change, I'm happy for that.  If they don't, they don't.  I'm taking the conservative route of trying what might work and not investing so much that I'm irate if it doesn't.  But that's for the more controversial thing of visual processing and possible dyslexia.  And it's really a coin toss there, with some cases making improvement and others not, which I again think goes back to the brain and is not a monolithic answer for all kids.  Just depends on what is going on in their brain.  

 

But when you say dysgraphia, you could have very easy to identify issues with convergence, focusing, tracking.  I mean, literally you could be dealing with the most straightforward of situations there.  My dd's handwriting definitely improved with VT.  It didn't improve her motor control, but getting rid of the selective focus, blurring, etc. because of the convergence issues allowed her to do basic things like close up an O, something she couldn't do before VT.  

 

So it just really depends on the situation and what's going on.  VT is very effective for physical vision problems, especially if you deal with OT issues (retained primitive reflexes, etc.).  Just use your head.

[PeterPan]

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/124/2/837.full

Bingo, that's my concern. I'm willing to try some stuff to see if there is anything physically going on that can be moved, but I'm not going to be shocked if it can't and I'm not going into debt thousands over it.  My dd, on the other hand, had clear physical problems (convergence, tracking, etc.) and she got amazing changes.  

 

I think what *might* happen is we get some splinter skills, where you get some things to improve but don't actually change the deeper issue.  For $30, I'm willing to try.

[OneStepAtATime]

Dyslexia can be misdiagnosed as a vision problem.  But there are vision problems that can mimic the signs of dyslexia.  My daughter has difficulty with phonological processing.  She has been diagnosed with dyslexia.  She does not have a vision problem.  VT would not help her.  She needed an Orton-Gillingham based program to help her finally learn to read and spell efficiently.  

 

My son also has difficulty in this area, just like his sister.  He also has better eye sight than his sister.  He has 20/15 vision.  But he also has heterophoria.  His left eye tracks out of alignment, making reading a challenge.  Not one opthalmologist caught it.  They were not trained to look for it or to understand it.  Only the developmental optometrist had a clue.  VT has been helping with the heterophoria.  It does not help with phonological processing issues.  We use an OG based system for that.

[PeterPan]

Dyslexia can be misdiagnosed as a vision problem.  But there are vision problems that can mimic the signs of dyslexia.  My daughter has difficulty with phonological processing.  She has been diagnosed with dyslexia.  She does not have a vision problem.  VT would not help her.  She needed an Orton-Gillingham based program to help her finally learn to read and spell efficiently.  

 

My son also has difficulty in this area, just like his sister.  He also has better eye sight than his sister.  He has 20/15 vision.  But he also has heterophoria.  His left eye tracks out of alignment, making reading a challenge.  Not one opthalmologist caught it.  They were not trained to look for it or to understand it.  Only the developmental optometrist had a clue.  VT has been helping with the heterophoria.  It does not help with phonological processing issues.  We use an OG based system for that.

So here's what our doc was seeing, and you see what you think.  With ds, I went in concerned that he has a lot of reversals and that he seemed not to know his letters after quite a bit of work on them.  What they found is that when they made the font larger, he knew the letters.  Their conclusion was that his visual processing is weak and that the strain to do that was glitching up the learning. So they put him in glasses for his astigmatism (only needs the glasses for up close work) and said we could give it a while to see what changes.  I'm TRYING to convince him he wants to wear the glasses for up close work like legos, etc

 

What I find is that with the glasses the legos are easier, no shock.  What I also find is he has persistent spatial issues.  He's doing a lego technic kit aimed at 10+, and he can actually do it.  It's just that he'll assemble a section and when he goes to attach it have it totally reversed.  And then he struggles to get that turned spatially to get it attached.  We slow down, talk through it, and I've taught him to match the thing physically.  I'm working on getting him some things like cube activities where you work on it.

 

So that kind of stuff *is* visual processing, by definition, and it's glitchy enough that it begs the question of whether the oddities in other things are due to visual processing as well.  So he COULD end up one of those who isn't dyslexic but actually just has really whack visual processing.  Or he could be dyslexic with visual processing problems.  I have no clue.  That's why I'm paying for evals, whew!

 

But that's why I'm going to do some visual processing work.  It's not some out there in left field theory about whether doing cubes and tangrams will help him learn to read.  I'm actually trying to work on the specific problems I'm seeing (visual memory, spatial, etc.).

[OneStepAtATime]

My kid learned to read while virtually blind in one eye.  Kids use the good eye and ignore the bad eye.  That's how the brain works.

I respect your opinion but I believe that you are not seeing the whole picture.  Virtually blind in one eye so the other eye takes over is very different from both eyes working very well, but not working together.  DS was getting tremendous eye strain since one eye was looking at a different thing than the other eye.  It made it hard to track across the page, line up letters when he was writing, etc.  VT is bringing the eyes back into alignment, forcing them to work together the way they are supposed to.  It is not fixing the phonological processing issues or the auditory processing problems that were also causing some issues with learning, but it IS helping with getting his eyes to work together again.

[Momling]

I wouldn't say vision therapy is in its infancy. My parents bought into the idea of vision therapy for my brother and me over 30 years ago. I didn't mind it -- there were interesting activities and lots of pseudo-scientific jargon, but it didn't solve my brother's dyslexia and I don't have any vision problems except nearsightedness, which is easily correctable with lenses. Regrettably, my parents paid a lot of money for it. I think the developmental optometrists preyed on worried parents... Basically selling them on an interesting placebo.

[displace]

Thanks for all the replies and experiences so far.  I'm not able to respond individually right now but I am reading them.

[LaughingCat]

The words huckster and quackery seem to me to be very unscientific  :leaving: 

 

I just did a super quick google for research (result's listed below - I have found more detailed research papers on previous searches but no time for that now) -- It's interesting that the pro-VT group often have long lists of research proving VT works - and the anti-VT sites often just say "research proves it doesn't work" without listing any of the research  (which doesn't prove anything one way or the other - but does make you go "hmm").  When I have read the anti-research before - much of it  doesn't seem so 'proof positive' as claimed - more like 'lump a bunch of struggling readers together and try this' - with nothing to discriminate if the struggling reader actually fit into the 'needs this' category, and no apparent analysis to see if it helped any sub-group of the kids (for example - if only 5% of kids got improvement from it - then it would be worth it -- for those 5% -- you would just need a way to find those 5% and send them off to VT).

 

For myself, did it twice with DD - and her reading did speed up both times.  Other than that -- eh!   My VT office followed the 'proven' protocols for convergence insuffieciency - and the rest seemed, well, kind of made up on the fly.  Thankfully both times the improvement happened relatively fast (within 6-8 weeks @ 1x/week).  I think there is something to VT but it just hasn't been isolated enough research wise to say what the actual somethign is or how many/who are the people it would help.

 

VT PROS

Lists of reseach pro VT:

http://www.covd.org/?page=Research

 

http://www.visiontherapy.org/vision-therapy/vision-therapy-studies.html

 

http://www.cookvisiontherapy.com/scientific_research.html

 

http://www.add-adhd.org/vision_therapy_studies.html

 

abstract pro VT

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21309805

 

study showing improvement for convergence insufficiency

http://www.convergenceinsufficiency.net/uploads/CITT_Adult_Pilot_Study_Manuscript_OVS_82_583-593.pdf

 

 

VT CONS

lists of research con VT (combined with other fringe techniques such as irlen)

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/eyequack.html

 

statement against which lists some papers

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/124/2/837.full

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[OneStepAtATime]

What LaughingCat said.

 

And I agree that just as with the early "cures" for dyslexia, and many other early forms of "medical" intervention for many issues across the board early "vision therapy" frequently was propagated with pseudo-science.  Now that technology and brain scans are far more detailed and can be done in real time, and a lot more mainstream scientists are studying dyslexia, vision therapy, ADHD, etc.  more and more doctors are able to use scientifically based findings to come up with better and more efficient ways of tweaking out and addressing learning issues, vision issues, auditory issues, etc. 

 

 I am sorry that some here have had bad or ineffective experiences with various medical practices. I, too, have run into MANY quacks and uninformed doctors in my lifetime.  That does not mean that ALL vision therapy is based on garbage.  Just like it doesn't mean that while some of the early attempts tutors and doctors made to help me help my children to read were actually absolutely ineffective and based on very old scientific and educational studies, that ALL programs designed to help dyslexics are garbage and based on nothing but pseudo-science.  

 

And yes, real vision therapy is in it's infancy, just as research into dyscalculia, dysgraphia, etc.  Human beings have been around a while now but real scientifically based vision therapy has only begun to be truly researched and studied.  We have a long way to go but answers are starting to come, and not just for VT but for all the things that used to be lumped together under a general diagnosis of "dyslexia".  

 

The assessor for my daughter told me how badly she felt for the several decades of remediation she had done with students labeled as dyslexic that were based on incomplete information and how amazing the last decade has been with regard to real time brain scans and long term studies of dyslexia.  SOME kids have Irlen Syndrome and for them the colored overlays can help.   SOME kids have phonological processing issues and an OG based system can help.  SOME kids have normal vision issues and glasses can help.  SOME kids have developmental vision issues and sometimes VT can help.  etc. etc.  

 

One of the problems has been that the various disciplines have not been working together and when one group finds something that sort of works for someone they jump up and down and say "This is the cure!" without actually doing a study involving many subjects with many disciplines involved to find out if it really helps or maybe only helps some or other undiagnosed issues were affecting the outcome, etc..  It has taken many years to start to tweak out the details and find all the various possible issues and how to address them.  It is all still in its infancy.  And doctors and frequently scientists get set in their beliefs and are unwilling to keep up with the latest research.  We are only now starting to get some solid answers.  Looking forward I expect understanding to increase exponentially as more mainstream scientists put in time and effort to studying how it all works.

[prairiewindmomma]

I'm wondering a few things. 

1) Is there good evidence on the effectiveness of it? There are well done studies showing efficacy with specific issues, such as convergence insufficiency. There have been other studies done showing little efficacy in resolving learning issues such as dyslexia, etc. 

2) Any personal experiences with good/bad/neutral thoughts? My son with convergence insufficiency had his double vision resolve and gained enough functional vision to learn to read and do many things. He still has some issues, and would benefit from more therapy.

3) How long does therapy last?  A website for a vision therapist "near" me seems to require 3 hours of therapy per week, in 3-5 "phases".  The best I can guess is each phase is about 5-6 weeks? This is really a case by case thing. My therapist typically does 12 weeks of two one hour sessions  a week with daily work at home. Some kids are in for longer.

4) How super expensive is it? $143/hr

5) Could I get a comprehensive exam, and if anything is found then do some treatments at home? Our therapist gave us equipment to do more at home and only come in 1x/week because that was all we could afford.

 

LIke with any professional, there are good and bad practitioners out there. I recommend talking to lots of people IRL who have gone there, and asking a number of questions about evaluation, therapy, and how success is measured. We came out with a lot of data, and his regular ped opthamologist (who did not know we were doing vision therapy) was able to measure how much his convergence insufficiency had improved.

 

For my child with convergence insufficiency, it was very helpful.

[OneStepAtATime]

FWIW, I have not yet met an ophthalmologist down here that is receptive to new information or that has kept up in any depth with the latest information on dyslexia, Irlen Syndrome, developmental vision issues, etc.  

 

My pediatrician was completely ignorant of the latest information as well.  She has now borrowed many books from me and talked directly with the woman who assessed my children and is doing additional research on her own to try and be more effective at helping patients who present with issues that might or might not be dyslexia related.

 

The first optometrist I went to told me he could "cure" dyslexia with colored overlays.  I gave him information on Irlen Syndrome and why colored overlays can help SOME people but not the majority and I also gave him current research on dyslexia and how it is a neurological difference not a vision issue, although certain vision issues can also cause problems and be misdiagnosed as dyslexia.  I explained that absolutely my daughter did not seem to have Irlen Syndrome or vision issues but that my son MIGHT.  Both struggle with reading but underlying issues seemed to be different.  Unlike the ophthalmologists he was receptive and willing to study the latest findings.  Hopefully, he will stop making "cure' statements based on the success of a few patients.

[AMJ]

No reputable pediatric ophthalmologist would recommend it for learning challenges. Only in very VERY few circumstances is it legitimately scientifically proven. People think it works bc when you pay that much money for something you want to believe it is doing something. By and large it is quackery, which is likely what you have read at reputable sites like any real eye dr (ophthalmologist) association web site and etc.

I disagree strongly, and take exception to the "quackery" comment.

 

Part of the issue with kids the age of the OP's is that many symptoms are so generic. The same general set of symptoms could be caused by food allergies, by ADHD, by sensory integration issues, by vision function problems, or could even just be due to the young age. Most often there is more than one underlying problem.

 

Vision FUNCTION problems are in the brain, not the eyeballs. They are many and varied, and are often mistaken for other problems, or masked by them. They can seriously affect a child's (or even adult's) ability to function at all, and especially in an academic setting. Vision Function issues can be caused by injury or trauma, or a child can be born with them.

 

I know this because we have dealt with it. My eldest had vision function problems. She had sensory integration issues. She didn't have food allergies, but is allergic to so many other things it's amazing she is able to function at all some days. These all were diagnosed early on and treated. The allergy problems are on-going, but the SI and VF issues have been fixed through therapy. Despite her current battles with other LDs she does so much better since her therapy.

 

These problems are very real. A properly trained professional knows how to check for them. Getting an exam from such a trained professional will not be overly costly or time-consuming, and will help determine whether the lengthy and costly full evaluation is even necessary.

 

I suggest you do more homework before dismissing this as "quackery".

[OneStepAtATime]

And no one is saying that VT just automatically cures all learning issues either.  If you actually read and are open minded enough to absorb what we are saying in our posts, you will see that we are not saying that at all.  

[PeterPan]

OneStep, you're a woman on a mission!  Way to go bringing light with you into the darkness of curmudgeon practitioners!  :D

[Heathermomster]

I used to think VT was all voodoo and chicken feet; however, it has worked for many. 

 

If you are interested in VT, go to the COVD.org website and interview a tester in your area.  Request a VT screening and go from there.  You are free to come and go as you like.  If you find quackery, move on and forget about it.   :D

 

 

[Heathermomster]

Why would you ask someone who is selling something if their product works and expect a fair answer?

Good question.  Call my son's VT and ask her yourself.  DS was tested and we were sent to an OT in no way connected with her practice.  DS did not receive VT because he didn't need it.

[OneStepAtATime]

Why would you ask someone who is selling something if their product works and expect a fair answer?

 

Respectfully, I must admit I am puzzled and a bit saddened that you seem to genuinely believe that the women on the LC board are all delusional and/or easily hoodwinked.  If you read past posts you will find that MANY of the women on this board are highly educated, many are also gifted, and have done extensive research, talked with many doctors, etc.  

 

Does VT work for every situation and for every child?  No.  Does every doctor who pushes VT know what they are doing?  No.  Is all VT well thought out scientifically?  No.  (though I could say that about quite a few medical practices)  

 

But if you genuinely dig into the data with an open mind, and read the past posts of those who have used VT with an open mind, I would hope you would be willing to consider the possibility that the women who have found VT to truly help are not ignorant, hoodwinked or idiots.  

 

Best wishes.

[prairiewindmomma]

I have a few minutes and I thought I'd answer some questions you didn't ask but think you might want to ask:

1. Functional vision is different than acuity vision in that sometimes our eyes can see well without glasses (acuity) but still not work well together to send a single image to the brain. The eyes and brain actually use a couple of different pathways in sending information to each other. Often the defect in kids who have *fixable* issues is in the magnocellular pathway (as opposed to the parvocellular pathway). For the kids who benefit from using color overlays, it's the magnocellular pathway that is being helped.

2. There are tests to check a number of measurable vision function issues--saccade fixation time, visual pursuit, visual convergence, flexibility in pursuit, visual motor integration, etc. that go beyond the typical ped opthamology exam.

3. Many ped opthamologists are coming around to vision therapy. Medicine isn't a fixed science. "Orthoptics" is the phrase you might read more about in various studies. The National Eye Institute at the National Institutes of Health has been trying to develop some clinical trials on non-invasive orthoptics to have better data coming from a larger sample size with standard selection criteria. It's not like the NEI, AAO, and AAP have dismissed the field altogether. The United Healthcare position page lists some more recent studies. Read the conclusions carefully....https://www.unitedhealthcareonline.com/ccmcontent/ProviderII/UHC/en-US/Assets/ProviderStaticFiles/ProviderStaticFilesPdf/Tools%20and%20Resources/Policies%20and%20Protocols/Medical%20Policies/Medical%20Policies/Visual_Info_Process_Eval_Orthoptic_Vision_Therapy.pdf

4. Vision therapy is often just part of the picture. Think of it as an analogy re: hearing loss. Hearing aids will help a kid hear better, but they aren't going to solve his fine motor issues or help him learn to read aside from being able to hear phonograms/words better.

[displace]

I appreciate all the opinions and experiences.  This thread has generated so many responses in such a short time!  I'm following links to read more about it, and may consider testing and then decide what to do.  I think a trial evaluation would not necessarily be harmful if I don't get my hopes up and assume VT could cure all.   

[displace]

No reputable pediatric ophthalmologist would recommend it for learning challenges.  Only in very VERY few circumstances is it legitimately scientifically proven.  People think it works bc when you pay that much money for something you want to believe it is doing something.  By and large it is quackery, which is likely what you have read at reputable sites like any real eye dr (ophthalmologist) association web site and etc.

 

This is what confuses me, because if there are circumstances where it could work, and some of the research just states it's not proven, is it possible there may be a certain instance where it does work?  And if there is a lot of evidence against VT, is it because a lot of it is just lumped together for testing or treatments? 

 

I think it's that instance where it is proven, or could be helpful, that is confusing for the whole topic from a naysayer perspective. 

 

I still have more research to do, that's for sure!

[displace]

http://www.aapos.org/terms/conditions/108

 

So I guess an ophthalmologist could test for convergence insufficiency as well?  That may be a good compromise.

[displace]

Why would you ask someone who is selling something if their product works and expect a fair answer?

 

I think this is a good point and kind of why I thought to ask these questions anyway.  Because I certainly don't know enough about whatever they're claiming to diagnose or treat to say if that's true or not.  Not even that someone is outright lying, but maybe they really believe in a thing but later find out it was placebo or something else? 

 

But, if some have found results for a specific problem, could that be used as a starting point for consideration?  And what if there are definite changes after going through VT that a parent can "objectively" see?  For instance, if DS feels more comfortable doing X or Y, isn't that a success? 

 

It's hard to say because everything has a million variables, so I don't know the right answer.  Which is why I like to consider and read why there is a strong pro-VT and also research based anti-VT information.  And if DS has X problem that is shown that VT could be helpful, would it be worth it?  Would it be worth it for a problem that VT is not shown to be helpful too? 

 

Sorry I bet this post was confusing.  I'm up in the middle of the night.  :)

[OneStepAtATime]

displace, I know you are not in an easy situation.  Most of us have been where you are, and many, if not all of us, are still there in some form or fashion, seeking answers for various things.  Whatever you decide, I wish you the very best.  

 

My additional suggestion, if you haven't done so already, would be to read books like The Mislabeled Child and others mentioned here and on other threads.  Spread out beyond the internet for research and don't just focus on VT since so many things can cause issues and there may be many possible solutions.  It took reading voraciously, studying lots of scientific research, talking to MANY doctors and educators and other parents, to realized that much of what many people were telling me was not based on actual current scientific research for ANY of the issue the kids were having.  I had to be the advocate, I had to be the one with the knowledge because I realized that I could not trust the medical or educational community to look outside their own backyard and realize their data was faulty, old and/or full of assumptions based on nothing but rumor and hearsay.  

 

Read everything with a healthy dose of skepticism, but not a closed mind, if that makes any sense....be open to possibilities.  I wish I had not blindly followed for so long, and I also wish I had done a lot more research a lot sooner, and I wish I had listened to Mommy instincts much sooner and more than anything I wish I had branched out and found more outside the same tired old box solutions much, much sooner.  We wasted years, spun our wheels for years, demoralized our kids for years because we let local doctors/educators who actually knew no more than I did tell me what to do, even though I knew what they were telling me wasn't working.

 

Good luck and best wishes.  You are doing the right thing.  Keep asking.  Keep seeking.

:grouphug:

[Hottater]

I would do some testing on your own first. This is what I did: Check your kid's own vision-- does your kid have "lazy eye"? Do they have dyslexia? Do they have Irlen Syndrome? Ask and research first. Look up links you can use my thread as an example of things to test: Do Sunglasses or colored filters help stabilize words on the page? Many symptoms seem similar across eye issues.. Look at all the descriptions and ask : does xyz happen when.... What specific things does the kid experience more problems with? Math (dyscalcula), reading, both? Read my thread -- http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/515198-no-more-patienceam-i-teaching-challenged/page-5?do=findComment&comment=5851028 use some of the videos - and ask, does your kid experience xyz?  Same with what One Step at a time said. Be encouraged! you're not alone!!!

[PeterPan]

So I guess an ophthalmologist could test for convergence insufficiency as well?  That may be a good compromise.

There's an ophthalmologist near us who does VT, but she's not as good as the COVD doc.  I suggest you go with a Fellow from COVD.  That way you know you have someone who has the proper training, not someone who picked up a book and put out a shingle.

 

So yes, even ophthalmologists are now realizing the need for proper diagnosis and VT, but it's not their area.  Go to a developmental optometrist.

[PeterPan]

Remember, no matter what, we encouraged you to start with a simple regular visit to the developmental optometrist.  Around here that's about $60, and when you ask they'll screen for the developmental stuff.  So you'll know whether you like the doc, whether they're good with your kid, whether you need the longer eval or not, etc., AND get your annual vision exam.  It's a great deal.

[PeterPan]

I really strongly encourage a visit with a competent pediatric ophthalmologist who will discourage the use of this unproven and expensive "therapy".

 

Ophthalmologists work with eye disorders like amblyopia or lazy eyes. Always have.

Which wouldn't have done any good for my dd, as she had neither.  I missed it, does the op suspect those?

 

Even the treatments for amblyopia and lazy eye are controversial.  I'm not up on everything, but I know the lead doc at our place was frustrated by kids getting unnecessary surgery for things that could have been corrected easily with VT.  Also, I've known kids to improve with chiropractic.  It really depends what's going on.

[Hottater]

Trust yourself. You can do it. But don't dismiss your kid. Keep on asking questions- process of elimination type. I agree whole heartedly with OneStep and PrairieWindMomma and HeatherMomster. You have to keep an open mind. Research stuff for yourself. Only you know how your kid truly responds.

 

I agree -the initial COVD optometrist visit was the better visit. All the other doctors dismissed the problems, and made me sound like my kid and I were lying about his issues. Be careful with surgery for a kid. They are also developing. I wouldn't suggest any type of surgery until you tested a non invasive procedure first to weed out issues.

 

The COVD optometrist was at least not trying to hide the fact that Irlen could be a possible resolution for us . All the other doctors dismissed the problems. I am all for healthy skepticism because regular medical, neural ophthalmologists and optometrists don't know it all.  Oh and make sure you watch the saccade movements of your kid's eyes, like a hawk. How they move can help you understand how your kid sees. Check to see if it's monocular vs binocular vision issues, it helps with the process of elimination. 

 

 

[OneStepAtATime]

Treatment for amblyopia isn't in the least bit controversial. It's well studied and proven effective to penalize one eye for the benefit of the other. That's vision therapy that works.

 

 

Over and over this topic comes up and people swear VT and COVD work great. That's fine. But medical science doesn't back these assertions up. And VT is very expensive. Prohibitive sometimes. I think on a board built around rigor we would want to at least acknowledge that the academic assessment of VT is that it is not what kids with dyslexia need. In fact only one kind of VT is proven effective. (See links).

Ok, once again, as mentioned in many previous posts, VT does not fix dyslexia.  Yes.  You are right.  VT has helped some that have developmental vision issues.  The developmental vision issues can make reading/writing/spelling more difficult.  And if someone has undiagnosed dyslexia and an undiagnosed developmental vision issue, which is different than a visual acuity issue, it makes it harder to determine how to help unless both issues are discovered and addressed or at least determined to exist.  Not one person here that I can see has told the OP that her child has dyslexia and therefore must do VT to cure it.  And to be honest I have not seen the OP stating that her child has dyslexia.  She just asked about VT.  

 

Respectfully, are you actually reading any of these posts?  Have you read carefully through the links that LaughingCat posted?

[kbutton]

My story...my son has issues with eye teaming. The optometrist noticed and told us it was no big deal. I do some internet research. Yeah, it does create problems for him--he can't catch a ball without turning his head and doing weird stuff. He can't hit a ball without the same little maneuvers. He can't cross his eyes--he cannot make one of his eyes work at all this way. It's not bothering school (yet). We see the COVD doc. She said he's asymptomatic, but as he reads crowded pages and small print, he's going to see double or have other problems. Fast forward a few months--this is exactly what happens. He is on week 8 of therapy, and he's not going to need much more. This is his one and only vision problem, so they are targeting the therapy specifically to this need. It's helped tremendously.

 

My mother also has similar vision issues diagnosed by an ophthalmologist. He's a really good one. Guess what his treatment was? Eye exercises very similar (but less intensive) than what my son is doing.

 

To the OP, our COVD offers a % discount for cash (including HSA money), or you can bill to insurance--some pay, some do not. It's about $75 per session, I think. We do homework about 5 days per week (and can see it work over several days time). We are going to do a total of 12 weeks, but my son is progressing rapidly because his issues were not severe, and he does his homework diligently. Other kids who started at the same time are following a variety of trajectories, mostly influenced by how severe their issues are and how much homework time they put into it.

 

If you go for it, we've noticed that the level of frustration at the work peaked at about day three and then got dramatically better. Just in case that helps, lol! Don't give up in the middle of the week. At this point in the process, we have no issues getting him to do the work--he can see it get easier and easier.