Self-Reported Visual Clarity and Its Association with Refractive Error and Visual Acuity among Schoolchildren in Kuala Lumpur
Abstract
Objective: To determine the pattern of self-reported visual clarity across refractive error groups and examine its association with visual acuity among primary schoolchildren in Kuala Lumpur.
Material and Methods: This retrospective cross-sectional study analysed the vision screening data from 10 primary schools in Kuala Lumpur. A total of 930 children aged 7–9 years with complete records were included. Extracted variables comprised self-reported visual clarity, monocular distance visual acuity, and subjective refraction findings. Refractive errors were classified as myopia, hyperopia, mixed astigmatism, or antimetropia, while children without refractive error were categorised as emmetropic. Associations between self-reported visual clarity, refractive error type, and visual acuity were examined using chi-square tests.
Results: Myopia was the most prevalent refractive error (39.6%), followed by hyperopia (25.9%), mixed astigmatism (7.4%), and antimetropia (7.0%); 20.1% were emmetropic. Although 56.3% of children demonstrated suboptimal visual acuity, 71.6% reported clear vision. Self-reported visual clarity was significantly associated with refractive error overall (p-value=0.018), with a significant association observed for myopia (p-value<0.001). No significant associations were identified for hyperopia, mixed astigmatism, or antimetropia. Visual clarity was also significantly associated with visual acuity in both eyes (p-value<0.001), despite many children with reduced acuity reporting clear vision.
Conclusion: A discrepancy exists between subjective visual clarity and objective visual acuity among schoolchildren, particularly those with myopia. Reliance on self-reported measures alone may contribute to under-detection of visual impairment. Incorporating objective visual assessments into school screening programmes is important for improving the early identification and management of refractive errors at the primary school level.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Resnikoff S, Pascolini D, Mariotti SP, Pokharel GP. Global magnitude of visual impairment caused by uncorrected refractive errors in 2004. Bull World Health Organ 2008;86:63–70. doi: 10.2471/BLT.07.041210.
Alghamdi W. Prevalence of refractive errors among children in Saudi Arabia: a ystematic review. Open Ophthalmol J 2021. doi: 10.2174/1874364102115010089.
Santiago HC, Rullán M, Ortiz K, Rivera A, Nieves M, Piña J, et al. Prevalence of refractive errors in children of Puerto Rico. Int J Ophthalmol 2023;16:434–41. doi: 10.18240/ijo.2023.03.15.
Tajbakhsh Z, Talebnejad MR, Khalili MR, Masoumpour MS, Mahdaviazad H, Mohammadi E, et al. The prevalence of refractive error in schoolchildren. Clin Exp Optom 2022;105:860–4. doi: 10.1080/08164622.2021.2003687.
Goh P, Abqariyah Y, Pokharel G, Ellwein L. Refractive error and visual impairment in school-age children in Gombak district, Malaysia. Ophthalmology 2005;112:678–85. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2004.10.048.
Ismail LA, Sukumaran S. Prevalence of refractive errors among school children in Wangsa Maju, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Med Hypothesis Discov Innov Optom 2022;3:106–12. doi:10.51329/mehdioptometry158.
Wardati HJ, Karimmah W, Khadijah M, Ahmad-Sharmizi M, Wan-Julyatee WY, Ain-Nasyrah AS, et al. Refractive error and amblyopia among primary school children in remote islands of East Coast of Peninsular Malaysia. Med J Malaysia 2024;79:499–506.
Amiebenomo OMA, Isong EM, Edosa ME, Woodhouse JM. Habitual visual acuity and visual acuity threshold demands in Nigerian school classrooms. Sci Rep 2022;12:17816. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-21048-z.
Foreman J, Xie J, Keel S, van Wijngaarden P, Taylor HR, Dirani M. The validity of self-report of eye diseases in participants with vision loss in the National Eye Health Survey. Sci Rep 2017;7:8757. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-09421-9.
El-Gasim M, Munoz B, West SK, Scott AW. Associations between self-rated vision score, vision tests, and self-reported visual function in the salisbury eye evaluation study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2013;54:6439–45. doi: 10.1167/iovs.12-11461.
Cumberland PM, Chianca A, Rahi JS, for the UK Biobank Eye and Vision Consortium. Accuracy and utility of self-report of refractive error. JAMA Ophthalmol 2016;134:794–801. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2016.1275.
Coyle CE, Steinman BA, Chen J. Visual acuity and self-reported vision status: their associations with social isolation in older adults. J Aging Health 2017;29:128–48. doi: 10.1177/0898264315624909.
Leone JF, Mitchell P, Morgan IG, Kifley A, Rose KA. Use of visual acuity to screen for significant refractive errors in adolescents: is it reliable? Arch Ophthalmol 2010;128:894–9. doi: 10.1001/archophthalmol.2010.134.
van der Zee C, Muijzer MB, Claessens JLJ, Wisse RPL. Determining the variability associated with visual acuity and refractive error measurements: a systematic review. Ophthalmology 2025;132:1020–32. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2025.04.021.
Doustkouhi SM, Turnbull PRK, Dakin SC. The effect of refractive error on optokinetic nystagmus. Sci Rep 2020;1:20062. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-76865-x.
Palermo L, Nori R, Piccardi L, Zeri F, Babino A, Giusberti F, et al. Refractive errors affect the vividness of visual mental images. PLOS ONE 2013;8:e65161. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0065161.
Azizan IA, Qi EY, Kaur S, Narayanasamy S. Visual acuity demands of different language mediums in modern primary school classrooms in Malaysia [monograph on the Internet]. F1000Research; 2019 [cited 2026 Jun 6]. Available from: https://f1000research.com/articles/8-2143 doi: 10.12688/f1000research.20699.1.
Buari NH, A. Rahman NES. An Analysis of visual outcomes in the community-based vision screening programs. Malays J Med Health Sci 2022;18:245–51. doi: 10.47836/mjmhs.18.s15.34.
Galvis V, Tello A, Camacho PA, Gómez LM, Rey JJ, Serrano AA. Definition of refractive errors for research studies: Spherical equivalent could not be enough. J Optom 2021;14:224–5. doi: 10.1016/j.optom.2020.10.003.
Horwood AM. When does blur matter? A narrative review and commentary. J Binocul Vis Ocul Motil 2022;72:57–68. doi: 10.1080/2576117X.2022.2033588.
Holden BA, Fricke TR, Wilson DA, Jong M, Naidoo KS, Sankaridurg P, et al. Global prevalence of myopia and high myopia and temporal trends from 2000 through 2050. Ophthalmology 2016;123:1036–42. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.01.006.
Surico PL, Parmar UPS, Singh RB, Farsi Y, Musa M, Maniaci A, et al. Myopia in children: epidemiology, genetics, and emerging therapies for treatment and prevention. Children 2024;11:1446. doi: 10.3390/children11121446.
Holden BA, Fricke TR, Wilson DA, Jong M, Naidoo KS, Sankaridurg P, et al. Global prevalence of myopia and high myopia and temporal trends from 2000 through 2050. Ophthalmology 2016;123:1036–42. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.01.006.
Bao WW, Zhao Y, Dadvand P, Jiang N, Chen G, Yang B, et al. Urban greenspace and visual acuity in schoolchildren: a large prospective cohort study in China. Environ Int 2024;184:108423. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2024.108423.
Noi S, Shikano A, Imai N, Tamura F, Tanaka R, Kidokoro T, et al. The changes in visual acuity values of Japanese school children during the COVID-19 pandemic. Children 2022;9:342. doi: 10.3390/children9030342.
Hopkins S, Read SA, Cox RA, Oduro BA, Strang N, Wood JM. Hyperopia in schoolchildren: Investigating the impact on vision and determining appropriate methods for screening. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2024;44:42–51. doi: 10.1111/opo.13236.
Kulp MT, Ciner EB, Candy TR, Ying G shuang, Hall C, Quinn G, et al. Impact of uncorrected hyperopia on visual function and academic performance in preschool and school-age children. Optom Vis Sci 2026;103:e70018. doi: 10.1002/ovs2.70018.
Lin J, An D, Zhu J, Yan D. Comparison of ocular residual astigmatism between children with clinically significant and non-significant astigmatism. BMC Ophthalmol 2025;26:2. doi: 10.1186/s12886-025-04533-7.
Zhuang M, Xie H, Zhang Y, Li S, Xiao P, Jiang Y, et al. Prevalence and influence factors for myopia and high myopia in schoolchildren in Shandong, China. Cent Eur J Public Health 2022;30:190–5. doi: 10.21101/cejph.a7158.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.