Visionix

First-Born Children Have Better Vision, Research Shows

ODwire.org NewsBot

ODwire.org NewsBot

NewsBot
Staff member
Jul 30, 2007
8,253
56
0
School/Org
Newsbot U
City
Barre
State
VT
CHICAGO, Nov. 18, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Birth order is thought to affect everything from a child's personality to IQ. Now researchers at the Illinois College of Optometry have concluded that birth order can also affect vision. In the first known study of its kind, researchers have concluded that first-born children tend to have better eye movement skills, which suggest a higher reading ...

Continue reading...
 
ODwire.org NewsBot said:
CHICAGO, Nov. 18, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Birth order is thought to affect everything from a child's personality to IQ. Now researchers at the Illinois College of Optometry have concluded that birth order can also affect vision. In the first known study of its kind, researchers have concluded that first-born children tend to have better eye movement skills, which suggest a higher reading ...

Continue reading...
Click to expand...
It's first born Or ONLY children, the latter will receive more attention than a kid with several young siblings. Which explains the difference. Many studies have a sample size too low to jump to conclusions.
 
I would be interested to read the actual paper to see if this article is blowing things out of proportion and distorting the findings.

But I will say that I used to have about 1 hour of book time with my oldest child when she was a toddler morning and night. I look back and laugh. I haven't really done books with any of the others, ha! (four others for anyone who hasn't caught the fact that I have 5) They all like looking at books on their own though.

As it turns out, I am against early formal literacy anyway. I believe it is more beneficial for young children to hear stories told to them instead of having books read to them. That is what I pay Steiner school fees to do. :D

At any rate, my oldest has become quite a book worm. The year she was 8 was when she started reading and 2 yrs later she was reading Jane Eyre. My next is 8 now so in the future I will get to compare how the others do without the benefit of "book time" as a toddler lifestyle. :D
 
Kristin Bartlett said:
I would be interested to read the actual paper to see if this article is blowing things out of proportion and distorting the findings.

But I will say that I used to have about 1 hour of book time with my oldest child when she was a toddler morning and night. I look back and laugh. I haven't really done books with any of the others, ha! (four others for anyone who hasn't caught the fact that I have 5) They all like looking at books on their own though.

As it turns out, I am against early formal literacy anyway. I believe it is more beneficial for young children to hear stories told to them instead of having books read to them. That is what I pay Steiner school fees to do. :D

At any rate, my oldest has become quite a book worm. The year she was 8 was when she started reading and 2 yrs later she was reading Jane Eyre. My next is 8 now so in the future I will get to compare how the others do without the benefit of "book time" as a toddler lifestyle. :D
Click to expand...
Can't agree with not reading with the young ones. We read to our 2, and I think that's part of the reason for their success. My 9 yr. old daughter just beat all the 10 and most 11 yr. old kids in her school spelling bee. More importantly she reads at high school level already, does well in everything, sings and loves dance. Forgive me for bragging. Can't help it.
 
Michael Molamphy said:
Can't agree with not reading with the young ones. We read to our 2, and I think that's part of the reason for their success. My 9 yr. old daughter just beat all the 10 and most 11 yr. old kids in her school spelling bee. More importantly she reads at high school level already, does well in everything, sings and loves dance. Forgive me for bragging. Can't help it.
Click to expand...
I agree with her to some extent. The expectation schools in this area is that children are reading before they can start first grade, so they have to learn to read in kindergarten. This is too young for some children to have the maturity to sit and read. Rather than worrying about words on a page, they should be learning how to visualize a story at this age.

On the other hand, I think it varies by the child. I don't ever remember formal reading instruction. According to my parents, I taught myself to read before I was in kindergarten and was reading at a sixth grade level by the end of first grade. I certainly wouldn't discourage children from reading on their own if that is what they want to do.
 
On the other hand, if they did a study, they would probably find that first and only children toilet train later than subsequent born. That is part of school readiness too, isn't it?

My 20 month old uses the toilet half of the time and at this rate will be out of diapers before age 2. My first wasn't out of diapers until after turning 3. Advantages and disadvantages to each place in the birth order!

It is all the same when they are 10 yr olds though whether they were early or late to be toilet trained. That is, unless you impose that all should be out of diapers at age 2, just because some of them can be by then.

That is what they are doing with regards to reading in my opinion. Not to mention, research has shown play based kindergarten programs much more beneficial than academic based kindergarten.
 
Jeff Berger OD said:
I agree with her to some extent. The expectation schools in this area is that children are reading before they can start first grade, so they have to learn to read in kindergarten. This is too young for some children to have the maturity to sit and read. Rather than worrying about words on a page, they should be learning how to visualize a story at this age.

On the other hand, I think it varies by the child. I don't ever remember formal reading instruction. According to my parents, I taught myself to read before I was in kindergarten and was reading at a sixth grade level by the end of first grade. I certainly wouldn't discourage children from reading on their own if that is what they want to do.
Click to expand...
We were reading and many other activities with our 2 by age 1, and it's about a lot more than the child learning to read very young. A lot of personal attention, time together, and just fun. My granddaughter at age 1 would patiently pay attention as I read her 3 or 4 books. My younger daughter was more antsy, and grabbed the book, liked to take control. I think she will be a good boss someday.
Now she is 9; we played basketball today ( I lost 20 to 4), baseball and football. I realize how precious time with the kids is, when they are young. How soon they grow up .
 
Michael Molamphy said:
We were reading and many other activities with our 2 by age 1, and it's about a lot more than the child learning to read very young. A lot of personal attention, time together, and just fun. My granddaughter at age 1 would patiently pay attention as I read her 3 or 4 books. My younger daughter was more antsy, and grabbed the book, liked to take control. I think she will be a good boss someday.
Now she is 9; we played basketball today ( I lost 20 to 4), baseball and football. I realize how precious time with the kids is, when they are young. How soon they grow up .
Click to expand...
She is also the youngest of my 4 kids, only one not myopic, and super reading skills. The study is totally disproved.
 
I am the oldest, I don't know about the smartest. :). When I was four Santa brought me "The Undersea world of Jacques Cousteau"!!! (Yes I still remember!)

I am -2.50

Middle child (brother) +0.50

Youngest (sister) -9.00

We confound most studies :)


Fred
 
I was the youngest of 7 boys. Every odd numbered one needed glasses. The evens did not need them until later in life.
My oldest brother was the worst, but had LASIK before I was in OD school and I don't what his Rx was.
The third was mildly astigmatic and wore glasses infrequently prior to having LASIK.
The fifth is -4.00 and is still in contacts.
I did not wear glasses until after high school. I ended up about -1.50 -1.25 in each eye prior to having LASIK.
Again, the study is disproved.
 
Frederick Frost said:
I am the oldest, I don't know about the smartest. :). When I was four Santa brought me "The Undersea world of Jacques Cousteau"!!! (Yes I still remember!)

I am -2.50

Middle child (brother) +0.50

Youngest (sister) -9.00

We confound most studies :)


Fred
Click to expand...
My younger sis was low -, older sis -8 and myopic degen. My bro and I -6.
My 4 kids all myopic except the youngest. Study is absolutely bogus.
 
I hate to even bring this up, but you guys could easily do a real study just by data-mining your Rx records and doing a comparison -- you'd have a gigantic sample size, no?

Think I can get a research grant from the gov't to rifle through your practice's data? :)
 
AdminWolf said:
I hate to even bring this up, but you guys could easily do a real study just by data-mining your Rx records and doing a comparison -- you'd have a gigantic sample size, no?

Think I can get a research grant from the gov't to rifle through your practice's data? :)
Click to expand...

I think a problem would be that siblings or lack thereof are usually not a part of the patient history.
 
Kristin Bartlett said:
I think a problem would be that siblings or lack thereof are usually not a part of the patient history.
Click to expand...

interesting -- no EHR collects sibling and parent-child relationships?
 
Ours will link families if they are all patients. However, I can think of a couple families off the top of my head that, despite my recommendations, bring in the children that are near sighted and not those that aren't. So it is very likely that you would get an incomplete data set.
 
Jeff Berger OD said:
Ours will link families if they are all patients. However, I can think of a couple families off the top of my head that, despite my recommendations, bring in the children that are near sighted and not those that aren't. So it is very likely that you would get an incomplete data set.
Click to expand...
Interesting -- if I ran an EHR I would probably include an extra field for additional sibs who aren't patients (yet) and their approximate ages.

I know on most history forms, patients are asked for their entire immediate family's info, so this info at some level probably exists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
New Sight Capital
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Webinars
CEwire 2024
Menu