Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Sally44

Specialist Optician

Recommended Posts

I've wanted to go and see this gentleman for quite a while.

My son having lost his Irlen glasses is the final push.

Ian Jordan uses different and further testing, which I want my son to have as he did/does have visual problems.

It is going to be a long train journey (5 hours to get there).

But we've found a lovely hotel with an inside swimming pool.

I am hoping that we find something to explain his difficulties with reading/writing. And that there is something that can be done to help him.

I've been to a couple of sensory seminars that have both said that ensuring that the visual system is as good as can be is most important as the visual system accounts for something like 80% of sensory input (not sure if thats a fact).

I'll let you know how we get on.

My son is very excited about the train journey. Not sure how he'll feel a few hours into the journey.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so happens that while waiting for my wife have her eyes tested at S------ers I read in their magazine about having young children's eyes tested and learning difficulties, they recommend that all children should have their first eye test at about three years old. And if they do need glasses they have a wide rang of glasses that are free under the NHS.

Just put that bit in because I know there are some people out there that dont know that under16 dont have to pay for glasses.

 

By the way she has getting a nice new pair of glasses all for free with the white NHS card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ian Jordan is the only NHS practitioner I have found that has experience in ASD, dyslexia and visual processing problems. Both my son and I will not have to pay for our glasses.

 

My son was seen at 3 years old by the community optician. He could not respond to the questions of the practitioner.

 

He finally went on to be diagnosied as not having binocular vision at age 6 (although I had repeatedly raised concerns about how his eyes looked and responded). But it was only when he was 6 that he was able to say "I can see two".

 

Most practitioners simply do not assess for common problems that children on the spectrum or with SPLD have. Or they don't ask questions in a way the child can understand, or they assume 'no response' from the child means no problem.

 

I've today found that my son has an additional difficulty in reading and tracking moving objects. This will impact on his learning in the classroom. He is now 9. It would be so much better if these difficulties had been picked up when he was younger.

 

I'm hopeful that when the glasses arrive they will have a positive benefit for both of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why it is important to go to an optician who has all the most up to date equipment and uses the right techniques relevant to the person being tested. They use an instrument called a retinoscope which enables them to test a persons eyes without them having to answer any questions. In fact at the optician we use everyone is first tested with this. My wife's examination took 45 minuets in total. And then another 15 to chose the frames.

 

Sally, I am surprised that your sons tracking problems where not picked up sooner. We always know that our son had this problem, It was officially documented by the occupational therapist involved in his diagnosis. That was when he was about 6/7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally, I am surprised that your sons tracking problems where not picked up sooner. We always know that our son had this problem, It was officially documented by the occupational therapist involved in his diagnosis. That was when he was about 6/7.

 

I think you were lucky Chris, I think the care we all get is mostly down to where you live. All my area seems concerned with is a diagnosis (if you push for it and getting someone to talk to you is like speeking on a telephone AFTER its been disconnected!) and to be put on meds then discharged. This is what has happened with us, the CHAMS O/T has now discharged DS which I only found out about when I phoned her the other week for advise, her only aim was to help with the initial diagniosis and make sure he was no longer throwing chairs in school so once he was medicated and so easier to deal with her job was done - period!

 

My freind in Cornwall has a boy of 18 months who we all have concerns about and a SENCO attatched to his nursery is referring him to a pead for assement with a view to looking into Autism. All this has happened within less than 2 months! It took 9 YEARS to get help for my son who she says was worse than her boy by a long way and I live in Devon - the county next to her - it really is a post code lottery!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you were lucky Chris,

 

Not sure about that. What I said is that WE knew he had a problem with eye tracking, not that there was anything being done about it by professionals, not sure there is anything other than physio that helps and that is something you do at home with out even realising it, isnt it?

 

I know at other times when we have seen professionals, their advise have usually been carry on with what your doing.

 

In the area where we lived at the time CHAMS are not involved with the diagnosis system of children.Our son was diagnosed with ASD/AS at the age of 7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My Daughter had eye tracking problem's it was picked up by a OT she was seeing at the time, and was sent to a

Behavioural Optometrist Eurfron Nyhan FBABO, in Cardiff, she was very good. She give T at the time what looked like

a large magnifing glass, i remember she had to cover one eye and do eye exercies with it. T carried on seeing her for many year's until we left that area. have website if anyone would like it.

 

Teresa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There are a number of techniques for improving eye movement - it's complex and may be expensive as it may not be covered by the NHS. It should be covered - but often isn't!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've wanted to go and see this gentleman for quite a while.

My son having lost his Irlen glasses is the final push.

Ian Jordan uses different and further testing, which I want my son to have as he did/does have visual problems.

It is going to be a long train journey (5 hours to get there).

But we've found a lovely hotel with an inside swimming pool.

I am hoping that we find something to explain his difficulties with reading/writing. And that there is something that can be done to help him.

I've been to a couple of sensory seminars that have both said that ensuring that the visual system is as good as can be is most important as the visual system accounts for something like 80% of sensory input (not sure if thats a fact).

I'll let you know how we get on.

My son is very excited about the train journey. Not sure how he'll feel a few hours into the journey.

 

Hi Sally

 

We went to see Ian last week, if I could recommend anyone does anything when they have a child diagnosed it's to go to see Ian, completely 'eye opening' experience. I hope you also have a lovely time. We would have loved to stay up there but had to go midweek. There is a wondeful play area on the sea front in Ayr, some great equipment if you can brave the cold.

 

Good luck x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My Dd2 had tracking problems which caused huge problems when copying at school. We saw a chap called Zeidan in the midlands who has done alot of work with dyslexic children. My daughter had coloured lenses and loads of exercises which were actually games on the computer where the answers to questions moved around on the screen. Not on the NHS unfortunatly but it worked for her and her writing and school work have improved imeasurably. He is a nice chap to and very good with the kids, he has seen Dd3 twice recently but not picked up any problems with her. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to make it clear that we do NOT use the Chromagen system (as used by optician in previous post) and do not intend to use it in the future.

There are BIG differnces in what can be achieved with optimum instruments and lenses - particularly in ASD.

 

 

Edited by Ian Jordan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would like to make it clear that we do NOT use the Chromagen system (as used by optician in previous post) and do not intend to use it in the future.

There are BIG differnces in what can be achieved with optimum instruments and lenses - particularly in ASD.

 

Hi Ian -

 

Not wishing to be confrontational, but just for the sake of balance perhaps you could add an 'In my opinion as an interested professional' or something there? I know how strongly you feel that your own research is 'right', but it is your research, and - unless there have been some major changes in the past year or so they have not been widely replicated elsewhere or generally accepted professionally(?).

As I say, not confrontational, just highlighting that you are a professional with a vested interest in promoting your own work/research.

 

L&P

 

BD :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No its not opinion - it is verifiable mathematically - very simply look at the colour gamut of the Chromagen system in comparison with the Orthoscopics system. There is a massive difference and it worries me if people think that all methods are the same.

The Chromagen system is very simplistic - and when we got UK government funding for testing development we cited it as essentially obsolete (and that was 10 years ago!).

 

The methods we use are the ONLY accurate methods available in the UK at present, have over double the range of the next best system and can achieve so much more eg we can treat prosopagnosia / metamorphopsia - so important in ASD - every child on the spectrum should be assessed - sadly they continue to suffer.

I want to make it clear that I would not use the methods advocated, and that I would not wish to be associated with them - and as someone had put a on a thread with my name on - I think I have a right to distance myself from a technique which I would not under any circumstances use.

 

As for what is being done in research - I am VERY excited at what we are achieving - but we will not be publishing for a while - for commercial reasons.

Some of it will be world news - but not in ASD!

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Ian -

 

Not wishing to be confrontational, but just for the sake of balance perhaps you could add an 'In my opinion as an interested professional' or something there? I know how strongly you feel that your own research is 'right', but it is your research, and - unless there have been some major changes in the past year or so they have not been widely replicated elsewhere or generally accepted professionally(?).

As I say, not confrontational, just highlighting that you are a professional with a vested interest in promoting your own work/research.

 

L&P

 

BD :D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would like to make it clear that we do NOT use the Chromagen system (as used by optician in previous post) and do not intend to use it in the future.

There are BIG differnces in what can be achieved with optimum instruments and lenses - particularly in ASD.

 

Wow, no love lost there then.

As poster had been talking about eye tracking problems , which can i am sure occur with or without ASD. I decided to share a very positive experience regarding my Dd2 who is quite definately NT but who could barely read before her tracking problems were identified and corrected. She is now a capable reader who is about to embark on 8 GCSE courses somethig which would not be possible if she were still struggling with her reading.

I care not a jot who helped her and what methods they used, only that they did help and she was spared the agony of continuing to struggle at school. B)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I want to make it clear that I would not use the methods advocated, and that I would not wish to be associated with them - and as someone had put a on a thread with my name on - I think I have a right to distance myself from a technique which I would not under any circumstances use.

You're entitled to make your own position clear, Ian, however, got the tshirt is also entitled to post about her(?) own experience of another professional using a different technique with which she is clearly satisfied:

but it worked for her and her writing and school work have improved imeasurably.

 

As we've said to you many times before, the forum does not exist to promote your particular research and techniques, or those of any other professional, for that matter. People should hear about all the alternatives available, hear what has worked for others, and make up their own minds - that's what the forum is for. :)

 

K x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No its not opinion - it is verifiable mathematically - very simply look at the colour gamut of the Chromagen system in comparison with the Orthoscopics system. There is a massive difference and it worries me if people think that all methods are the same.

The Chromagen system is very simplistic - and when we got UK government funding for testing development we cited it as essentially obsolete (and that was 10 years ago!).

 

The methods we use are the ONLY accurate methods available in the UK at present, have over double the range of the next best system and can achieve so much more eg we can treat prosopagnosia / metamorphopsia - so important in ASD - every child on the spectrum should be assessed - sadly they continue to suffer.

I want to make it clear that I would not use the methods advocated, and that I would not wish to be associated with them - and as someone had put a on a thread with my name on - I think I have a right to distance myself from a technique which I would not under any circumstances use.

 

As for what is being done in research - I am VERY excited at what we are achieving - but we will not be publishing for a while - for commercial reasons.

Some of it will be world news - but not in ASD!

 

I'm really sorry Ian and again I'm not 'disputing' anything you say: but I'm not a qualified optician and you quoting your technobabble at me is no more convincing (or no less convincing) than any other optician or specialist in any other field...

I thought a chromagen was a type of caveman! :whistle: And if i did get the opportunity to look at the colour gamut of the cromagnon system and compare it to that of the orthoscopics system it would mean nothing to me because i wouldn't have a clue about what I was looking at...

So really it comes back to what I said; you have your own very strong opinions about your own research, but - quite evidently, given that as part of that research you pronounced the 'old' system obsolete 10 years ago but are still to date 'out on a limb' as far as getting that view more widely endorsed by peer review - there are equally valid alternative professional opinions that should also be considered.

 

L&P

 

BD :D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The system we use has been peer reviewed (and the methods we use were considered to be a significant improvement on all other systems - by government scientists)- and is accepted (but relatively few have the equipment - many more want it) - to quote UK professor of optometry appearing on television "it is the best method currently available"

Unfortunately it is also much more expensive and requires a much higher knowledge level - we don't just look at reading speed (an awful assessment method) - and it can do everything that other methods can achieve - and then a lot more. So, if you are prepared to accept poor assessment methods then that is your choice. I would not however accept being associated with them and therefore I have disassociated myself in my post.

 

The system we use is being used in clinical areas (asd is just a side effect) - and opinion exists only where mathematics doesn't. The mathematics is clear - so suggesting that it is my opinion instead of fact is incorrect.

 

Your opinion is uninformed - and potentially damaging to those that presume all systems are the same. They are not - and the difference is often massive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, if you are prepared to accept poor assessment methods then that is your choice.

 

Ian that's really unfair on parents who are just doing the best for their children with what is available in the real world - they don't have the choice. Neither do they have the technical expertise to weigh up the efficacy of different methods. As one parent has posted, a successful outcome is possible using methods you disagree with and you have completely ignored that.

 

All you are doing is undermining people's confidence in what's available, without offering any realistic alternatives.

 

K x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your opinion is uninformed

 

I totally accept that. I hope you will accept that as a professional with a vested interest in the promotion of one specific research area and a vested interest in undermining the efficacy of other research and systems that you are not the most unbiased source to inform me.

I apply that same logic to people who have a vested interest in the promotion of other interventions - regardless of whether the benefits they promote are coincidental (as you describe) or autism-specific.

Again, I'm not 'knocking' your work or claiming any sort of authority about what you do or other opticians do. and, yes, you are perfectly free to disassociate yourself from the work of other professionals in the field just as I and others are free to point out, in the interests of 'balance', your personal/professional interest.

 

L&P

 

BD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ian that's really unfair on parents who are just doing the best for their children with what is available in the real world - they don't have the choice. Neither do they have the technical expertise to weigh up the efficacy of different methods. As one parent has posted, a successful outcome is possible using methods you disagree with and you have completely ignored that.

 

All you are doing is undermining people's confidence in what's available, without offering any realistic alternatives.

 

K x

 

I appreciate that Ian might have a vested interest in promoting his own assessment system, but would defend his right to state his opinion about the alternatives, particularly if there is evidence involved. We had some bad experiences with opticians and the reason we went to see Ian was because he was the only specialist optician we found who had published a detailed account of the theory behind the methods he was using - theory which you can check up on. We did not get that level of explanation with our hospital orthoptist, for example, who decided which coloured lenses children needed according to what made them 'feel better'. She is right to an extent: there is a body of work showing that coloured light affects mood and showing how it does it, but she didn't seem to know much about that. There was a paper at the AWARES conference a couple of years ago about this very issue - autistic children choosing coloured lenses because they 'liked' them, and those lenses not being the colour that helped them see better.

 

I'm not suggesting that alternative methods of assessing colour needs are ineffective - our son's hospital-prescribed lenses have improved his gait - just that if someone thinks another practitioner has got it wrong, they should be entitled to say so.

 

cb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not suggesting that alternative methods of assessing colour needs are ineffective - our son's hospital-prescribed lenses have improved his gait - just that if someone thinks another practitioner has got it wrong, they should be entitled to say so.

 

cb

I agree with you and in my last post but one I also supported Ian's right to state his position.

 

Ian is the only professional in this field on the forum, as far as I know so none of us are really in a position to engage him in debate. (There was another optician who disagreed with him on several issues and who unfortunately has now left so we don't have an alternative professional perspective). In the absence of that, I see no harm in making the point occasionally, in the interests of balance, that there are other views out there and other people who are helping children with ASD. And got the tshirt is very clear that her daughter has been helped.

 

K x

Edited by Kathryn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Hi Ian,

 

Are there other opticions you have trained up using the orthoscopics system. I was reading about an opticion in Gloucester who said they were trained by you and using this system.

 

Lynne

Edited by lynne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My Daughter had eye tracking problem's it was picked up by a OT she was seeing at the time, and was sent to a

Behavioural Optometrist Eurfron Nyhan FBABO, in Cardiff, she was very good. She give T at the time what looked like

a large magnifing glass, i remember she had to cover one eye and do eye exercies with it. T carried on seeing her for many year's until we left that area. have website if anyone would like it.

 

Teresa

 

 

There are a number of techniques for improving eye movement - it's complex and may be expensive as it may not be covered by the NHS. It should be covered - but often isn't!

 

 

All treatment's was on the NHS only cost for us was paying to wards thinner lenses.

 

Teresa :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There are a number of opticians using advanced assessment techniques - Jo ONeill at Norvilles opticians in Gloucester is excellent and I would recommend her without reservation.

I think she may spend some time at Cirencester too.

 

I do appreciate that parents can have some difficulty who to go to. The differnce between knowledgeable people varies and it virtually impossible for parents to tell the differences.

 

So,

here are what you need to ask and what you need to get as answers - you don't need to know what the questions mean -but they are all vital in ASD visual assessments and all should be answered

 

How much colour space is covered - they have to know the answer (anything else is unacceptable) - 0ver 60% is OK (we address about 75%) - some systems address less than 25%! - and the effects are relatively poor in comparison - and children with ASD often need more complex assessments

 

Can they address prosopagnosia and metamorphopsia (essentail in ASD) - yes

facial recognition problems are critical in ASD

 

Do they address synesthesia - yes

Visual systems affect every sensory system - and are affected by every system too. Cross sensory tests are essential

 

Do they address the Pulfrich effect - yes

major effects in shop / school meltdowns due to mid line effects

 

Do they address the McGurk effect - yes

causes massive communication problems in ASD

 

Do they address dorsal stream problems - yes

Dyspraxia / hand eye coordination / movement / gait are affected

 

Do you see the effects during the test - yes

 

Can the practice test non verbal / non cooperative sensory processing by objective methods - yes

 

 

 

If a practice can answer these questions - then go to them. If they don't.... caveat emptor

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are a number of opticians using advanced assessment techniques - Jo ONeill at Norvilles opticians in Gloucester is excellent and I would recommend her without reservation.

I think she may spend some time at Cirencester too.

 

I do appreciate that parents can have some difficulty who to go to. The differnce between knowledgeable people varies and it virtually impossible for parents to tell the differences.

 

So,

here are what you need to ask and what you need to get as answers - you don't need to know what the questions mean -but they are all vital in ASD visual assessments and all should be answered

 

How much colour space is covered - they have to know the answer (anything else is unacceptable) - 0ver 60% is OK (we address about 75%) - some systems address less than 25%! - and the effects are relatively poor in comparison - and children with ASD often need more complex assessments

 

Can they address prosopagnosia and metamorphopsia (essentail in ASD) - yes

facial recognition problems are critical in ASD

 

Do they address synesthesia - yes

Visual systems affect every sensory system - and are affected by every system too. Cross sensory tests are essential

 

Do they address the Pulfrich effect - yes

major effects in shop / school meltdowns due to mid line effects

 

Do they address the McGurk effect - yes

causes massive communication problems in ASD

 

Do they address dorsal stream problems - yes

Dyspraxia / hand eye coordination / movement / gait are affected

 

Do you see the effects during the test - yes

 

Can the practice test non verbal / non cooperative sensory processing by objective methods - yes

 

 

 

If a practice can answer these questions - then go to them. If they don't.... caveat emptor

 

Sorry Ian, but you're doing it again! You're telling people what they should be asking and implying that the answers they receive are fundamental for identifying a reliable optician! But would your peers agree with your conclusions - and if not doesn't that suggest a 'difference of opinion' professionally rather than conclusive evidence that the information you are giving is more valid?

If a psychologist posted on this forum and said 'I do these tests which I personally have designed and any psychologist that doesn't do these tests is unqualified to give an opinion on your child' people would - quite rightly - question the validity of that psychologists opinion. You, for whatever reason, seem to take any such observation as some sort of personal or professional slur...

In your earlier post you mentioned that despite over ten years of using your system and a similar period of professional acclaim/endorsement it is still too cost prohibitive to be adopted more widely, and with the best will in the world that just doesn't make sense to me. These days you can fit more computing power into a flash card no bigger than a fingernail than was available for either of the moon landings, and electronics/components etc have never been as advanced or cheaply available... just how cost prohibitive is this equipment, and if you don't mind me asking how did you amass the personal wealth to design and build it in the first place? If the benefits of your system were as great as you say and that was widely recognised within your profession wouldn't at least some of the major players in the highstreet be investing in specialised clinics in prime locations? Wouldn't they be willing to invest to take that quantum leap forward and leave all of their competitors in the dark ages?

Again, you'll probably feel there is some sort of personal slur or 'attack' in the above. There's not. I do think, though, that if you are going to use the forum to express your views about the efficacy of the methods used by the vast majority of your peers it is entirely reasonable for members to ask some questions occassionally. And it is entirely unhelpful to them if they do ask to be given lists of scientific jargon that they don't understand (and that you as a professional should know they are unlikely to understand) in reply.

 

 

L&P

 

BD :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry Ian, but you're doing it again! You're telling people what they should be asking and implying that the answers they receive are fundamental for identifying a reliable optician! But would your peers agree with your conclusions - and if not doesn't that suggest a 'difference of opinion' professionally rather than conclusive evidence that the information you are giving is more valid?

 

Sorry baddad, but I think you are assuming that all practitioners are equally well informed, and that any difference in treatment is a difference of opinion only. Unfortunately, this isn't always the case. In the instance I cited, the hospital orthoptist we were referred to assessed my son very unprofessionally, wasn't aware of a chunk of the literature on the effects of blue light on the retina, and missed my son's deteriorating visual acuity - which was only picked up because the optometrist we went to buy frames from pointed out that they would be free if he did an eye test. My daughter has visual problems too, and was recently referred to a consultant - who had completely misread the referral notes and had no medical history available. We thought he said some odd things when we saw him, but it wasn't until we read his report we realised what had happened. We asked for a re-referral and he admitted he'd misunderstood the situation.

 

I have no problem with professionals having a difference of opinion - but if that difference is based on lack of knowledge or sloppy practice, it's not one of opinion only. I'm not suggesting that all practitioners who disagree with Ian are ignorant or sloppy, or that he has a monopoly on the truth, but unfortunately poor practice is rife in the medical world for a variety of reasons, and I for one would like to be alerted to this.

 

If a psychologist posted on this forum and said 'I do these tests which I personally have designed and any psychologist that doesn't do these tests is unqualified to give an opinion on your child' people would - quite rightly - question the validity of that psychologists opinion. You, for whatever reason, seem to take any such observation as some sort of personal or professional slur...

 

I don't think that's what Ian is saying. It's certainly true that he has developed a number of tests, but the theory behind the tests is out there in the literature, and, in the case of a number of factors Ian referred to, has been public domain knowledge for many years. I know for a fact (because they have told me) that some other practitioners are not even aware of some of these factors.

 

In your earlier post you mentioned that despite over ten years of using your system and a similar period of professional acclaim/endorsement it is still too cost prohibitive to be adopted more widely, and with the best will in the world that just doesn't make sense to me. These days you can fit more computing power into a flash card no bigger than a fingernail than was available for either of the moon landings, and electronics/components etc have never been as advanced or cheaply available... just how cost prohibitive is this equipment, and if you don't mind me asking how did you amass the personal wealth to design and build it in the first place? If the benefits of your system were as great as you say and that was widely recognised within your profession wouldn't at least some of the major players in the highstreet be investing in specialised clinics in prime locations? Wouldn't they be willing to invest to take that quantum leap forward and leave all of their competitors in the dark ages?

 

No they wouldn't. The kit optometrists use is big, high spec, and has a small market, so it's expensive. Many optometrists are self-employed and I would be surprised if some of them can keep up with investment in standard equipment, let alone what they need to branch out into new, specialist areas. I asked our local independent optometrist why he didn't do colour testing on children with learning difficulties - even though he recognised its validity. He said 'because I would have to charge the parents £50 and in this area they can get a referral to an orthoptist. It's not worth me investing in it.' The high street players make their money from standard eye testing and treatment, and until awareness of the effects of coloured light seeps through into training, and is widely accepted, they aren't likely to branch out into it either.

 

Again, you'll probably feel there is some sort of personal slur or 'attack' in the above. There's not. I do think, though, that if you are going to use the forum to express your views about the efficacy of the methods used by the vast majority of your peers it is entirely reasonable for members to ask some questions occassionally. And it is entirely unhelpful to them if they do ask to be given lists of scientific jargon that they don't understand (and that you as a professional should know they are unlikely to understand) in reply.

 

This isn't intended as a personal slur either, but although I agree with you about forum members being entitled to ask questions, I also think it's unreasonable to expect Ian to unpack the biochemistry and physiology behind the jargon for the benefit of people who might not understand his terminology. Most people don't have a problem with taking on trust what their doctor tells them about their ailments even if they don't understand it. This stuff is out there on the internet and readily accessible if people are interested. I've had to do a lot of homework on how the visual and auditory systems work in order to understand my son's visual, auditory and vestibular problems. There are some excellent tutorials available, because it's information needed for A level and undergraduate courses.

 

Hope this helps.

 

cb

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi cool blue -

 

Sorry baddad, but I think you are assuming that all practitioners are equally well informed, and that any difference in treatment is a difference of opinion only.

No I'm not. I'm saying that the views of one professional, just because he happens to post on this forum, should not be accorded validity over others purely on the strength of that professionals own opinion, especially when those opinions refer to their own research. If you don't see the inherent 'bias' in that, that's fine - we'll agree to differ...

Additionally, whatever problems you might have encountered with one specific optician that should not be generalised to include all opticians except for Ian or the small number of opticians he feels are qualified to his standard. If you don't see the inherent flaw in such a generalisation that's fine - we will agree to differ...

 

I have no problem with professionals having a difference of opinion - but if that difference is based on lack of knowledge or sloppy practice, it's not one of opinion only. I'm not suggesting that all practitioners who disagree with Ian are ignorant or sloppy, or that he has a monopoly on the truth, but unfortunately poor practice is rife in the medical world for a variety of reasons, and I for one would like to be alerted to this.

Well it's reassuring, but again I will reiterate that if sloppy practice does exist then Ian isn't the best person to alert us to this because he has a vested professional interest in so doing. That's not to say that Ian shouldn't post his opinions; but likewise he and others who support his work should not feel 'challenged' when that personal/professional vested interest is highlighted for the sake of 'balance'.

 

I don't think that's what Ian is saying. It's certainly true that he has developed a number of tests, but the theory behind the tests is out there in the literature, and, in the case of a number of factors Ian referred to, has been public domain knowledge for many years. I know for a fact (because they have told me) that some other practitioners are not even aware of some of these factors.

How do you know this? Are you a qualified optician? How widely have you read up on this and how did you access the material. I know that Ian has published many papers on these kinds of queries and has distributed them widely on the internet and through his lectures etc, but by definition there is an inherent problem regarding the source, if that is the source. Other practioners may not be aware of these factors because - in their view- they are irrelevant or possibly wrong. I'm not saying that is the case, but what I am saying is that Ian isn't an unbiased party so any material he directs you to or self publishes is unlikely to be entirely balanced. Morever, when accessing independent research there is undoubtedy a problem of interpretation, especially if the reader does not fully understand what they are reading. Pointing that out shouldn't be a problem for ian or anyone else, but if it is for you then I hope we can agree to differ...

 

No they wouldn't. The kit optometrists use is big, high spec, and has a small market, so it's expensive. Many optometrists are self-employed and I would be surprised if some of them can keep up with investment in standard equipment, let alone what they need to branch out into new, specialist areas. I asked our local independent optometrist why he didn't do colour testing on children with learning difficulties - even though he recognised its validity. He said 'because I would have to charge the parents £50 and in this area they can get a referral to an orthoptist. It's not worth me investing in it.' The high street players make their money from standard eye testing and treatment, and until awareness of the effects of coloured light seeps through into training, and is widely accepted, they aren't likely to branch out into it either.

 

I'm sorry, I think this is wrong. If there was a recognised market for colour lens testing and the benefits were as huge as Ian suggests then the large high street chains would be all over it. It makes no sense, commercially, for them not to be. I'm not suggesting it would be available in every branch of every (i.e.) Dolland & Aitcheson or Boots but they would at least invest in regional centres etc. Awareness of the effects of coloured lenses is out there, but the perceived benefits have been widely disputed. What you are effectively saying is 'until the wider body of professional's accept the findings of Ian and those who agree with him' but that argument negates the possible validity of all those professionals who are unconvinced by Ian's research and claims. Further, in the case you highlight, the optician has a specific reason for non-investment - there are resources available locally to whom they can be referred. But that's not always the case, and in any event Ian would argue that the people who do 'standard' orthoptic testing are not informed enough to do so properly because they don't do it his way...

 

This isn't intended as a personal slur either, but although I agree with you about forum members being entitled to ask questions, I also think it's unreasonable to expect Ian to unpack the biochemistry and physiology behind the jargon for the benefit of people who might not understand his terminology. Most people don't have a problem with taking on trust what their doctor tells them about their ailments even if they don't understand it. This stuff is out there on the internet and readily accessible if people are interested. I've had to do a lot of homework on how the visual and auditory systems work in order to understand my son's visual, auditory and vestibular problems. There are some excellent tutorials available, because it's information needed for A level and undergraduate courses

 

No slur taken... I'm not asking Ian to unpack anything. i'm just highlighting the inherent danger of people asking questions they do not understand to professionals and then basing their assessment of the professional on the answers predicted by another professional...

I'm not a professional anything, but if I was and I told people that they could tell if other professionals were up to the job by asking them 'do you use the googlehammer method of bonuncular spondiddling?' I'd be on to a winner every time. I don't think 'catchy outy' is a particularly reliable method of evaluating anyone's professionalism, but certainly - if it is going to be used - then the person asking the questions should at least know what they are asking...

Ian, quite obviously, doesn't think that's important:

here are what you need to ask and what you need to get as answers - you don't need to know what the questions mean -but they are all vital in ASD visual assessments and all should be answered

and his view that they are 'vital to ASD visual assessment' is a very subjective one.

 

As I said, not singling out Ian - I would point out the potential bias in this kind of equation regardless of the 'discipline' being discussed... there are all sorts of people out there saying that this can help or that can help or the other can help our kids, and if they appeared on our boards offering advice or evidence to promote their own interests then someone pointing out that interest would seem to me perfectly reasonable. Again, if you do not agree with that that's fine - we'll agree to differ.

 

L&P

 

BD :D

Edited by baddad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

This is going way above my head. I really wish 'professionals' could communicate to parents in a fashion which can be easily understood (we don't all have specific specialist training), instead of adding further confusion. Basic communication, that's all.

 

Caroline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies for format - couldn't get quotes to work.

 

Baddad said:

"Hi cool blue -

 

No I'm not. I'm saying that the views of one professional, just because he happens to post on this forum, should not be accorded validity over others purely on the strength of that professionals own opinion, especially when those opinions refer to their own research. If you don't see the inherent 'bias' in that, that's fine - we'll agree to differ..."

 

I don't think he was 'accorded validity'. I was just pointing out that he's entitled to voice his opinion and that I find the opinions of professionals, vested interest or no, helpful.

"Additionally, whatever problems you might have encountered with one specific optician that should not be generalised to include all opticians except for Ian or the small number of opticians he feels are qualified to his standard. If you don't see the inherent flaw in such a generalisation that's fine - we will agree to differ..."

 

It wasn't with just one; my son's visual anomalies had been missed by four different opticians. I can tell you the long and detailed story if you like :-). And I've discussed this with several and with our OTs and with the SALTs, who are well aware that there are visual issues not being addressed by optometrists.

 

"Well it's reassuring, but again I will reiterate that if sloppy practice does exist then Ian isn't the best person to alert us to this because he has a vested professional interest in so doing. That's not to say that Ian shouldn't post his opinions; but likewise he and others who support his work should not feel 'challenged' when that personal/professional vested interest is highlighted for the sake of 'balance'. "

 

This isn't an issue of 'challenge' nor of 'balance'. The guy said what he thought. The point I was trying to make was that it might not be his vested interest that has formed his opinions. He might have a vested interest because he's developed treatments based on sound theory. I cited the case of the orthoptist we saw who didn't seem to have much theory to speak of. I think it's the duty of professionals to speak up if they have reservations about an alternative treatment.

 

"How do you know this? Are you a qualified optician? How widely have you read up on this and how did you access the material."

 

I'm not a qualified optician but I have read very widely. Before I came across Ian's work I could find very little information about the possible causes of my son's visual problems because I was working from the sensory integration perspective. After reading Ian's papers, I worked through endless med. school lecture notes, physiology sites, and probably hundreds of papers via Google scholar. It was a new field for me, but because I'm a biologist by training, I didn't find it too difficult to check out what Ian was saying. Just time consuming. As it happens, I don't agree with everything he says either.

 

"I know that Ian has published many papers on these kinds of queries and has distributed them widely on the internet and through his lectures etc, but by definition there is an inherent problem regarding the source, if that is the source. Other practioners may not be aware of these factors because - in their view- they are irrelevant or possibly wrong. I'm not saying that is the case, but what I am saying is that Ian isn't an unbiased party so any material he directs you to or self publishes is unlikely to be entirely balanced. Morever, when accessing independent research there is undoubtedy a problem of interpretation, especially if the reader does not fully understand what they are reading. Pointing that out shouldn't be a problem for ian or anyone else, but if it is for you then I hope we can agree to differ... "

 

I completely agree with you about self-publication. But self-publication can be cross-checked with peer-reviewed material. There is disagreement about some of Ian's ideas, but the underpinning theory for his model is well-established. I have no problem with practitioners disagreeing for good reason - it's when they disagree because they aren't aware of some of the peer-reviewed research that I start to feel nervous.

 

"I'm sorry, I think this is wrong. If there was a recognised market for colour lens testing and the benefits were as huge as Ian suggests then the large high street chains would be all over it. It makes no sense, commercially, for them not to be. I'm not suggesting it would be available in every branch of every (i.e.) Dolland & Aitcheson or Boots but they would at least invest in regional centres etc. Awareness of the effects of coloured lenses is out there, but the perceived benefits have been widely disputed. What you are effectively saying is 'until the wider body of professional's accept the findings of Ian and those who agree with him' but that argument negates the possible validity of all those professionals who are unconvinced by Ian's research and claims... "

 

As you say, awareness of the effects of coloured lenses is out there, but the perceived benefits have been widely disputed. The reason for the disputation is largely, in my view, because the research methodology in many studies has been inadequate. There's evidence that people with face-blindness and dyslexia have been helped by coloured lenses, or coloured light, but most of the studies have assumed that all people with face-blindness share the same cause for their problem, and that people with persistent reading difficulties share the same cause for theirs. This is not a valid assumption. The fine-grained visual discrimination involved in face-recognition and reading can be disrupted by a number of causes. In other words, different people might have different causes for similar symptoms. If they are all lumped together under 'prosopagnosia' or 'dyslexia', respectively, but actually have different underlying conditions from each other, you will inevitably find that research into different interventions is 'inconclusive'. One 'inconclusive' study can scupper a line of research for years. The history of science is littered with unfounded assumptions and people assuming that what Smith & Jones concluded in 1932 is actually correct, without checking the original paper. We have exactly the same problem with 'autism'. Lump everyone with autistic characteristics together and we're still scratching our heads after 70 years; group them together according to specific symptoms and we might start making some headway.

 

"No slur taken... I'm not asking Ian to unpack anything. i'm just highlighting the inherent danger of people asking questions they do not understand to professionals and then basing their assessment of the professional on the answers predicted by another professional...

I'm not a professional anything, but if I was and I told people that they could tell if other professionals were up to the job by asking them 'do you use the googlehammer method of bonuncular spondiddling?' I'd be on to a winner every time. I don't think 'catchy outy' is a particularly reliable method of evaluating anyone's professionalism, but certainly - if it is going to be used - then the person asking the questions should at least know what they are asking...

Ian, quite obviously, doesn't think that's important:

 

and his view that they are 'vital to ASD visual assessment' is a very subjective one.

 

As I said, not singling out Ian - I would point out the potential bias in this kind of equation regardless of the 'discipline' being discussed... there are all sorts of people out there saying that this can help or that can help or the other can help our kids, and if they appeared on our boards offering advice or evidence to promote their own interests then someone pointing out that interest would seem to me perfectly reasonable. Again, if you do not agree with that that's fine - we'll agree to differ. "

 

I take your point. But that leaves us with the problem of how the average punter decides on whether s/he is consulting someone using cutting-edge methods or a purveyor of snake oil. Any ideas?

 

cb

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I take your point. But that leaves us with the problem of how the average punter decides on whether s/he is consulting someone using cutting-edge methods or a purveyor of snake oil. Any ideas?

 

cb

 

None at all - other than to make an assessment on as much information from as many different independent sources as you can, and if there are areas of dispute look at them closely, giving full consideration to the arguments on both sides while trying to leave any personal bias (whatever its origins - emotional need, gut instinct, personal preference, prejudice etc etc) to one side. In leiu of any professional or peer feedback in this case, all you can do is bear in mind that Ian does have a personal investment here (regardless of the chicken/egg scenario highlighted in your third para). That's all I'm pointing out, with no judgement about the validity of Ian's research one way or the other, or his right to express his views on the forum. And on your closing note I don't think the two are mutually exclusive: I think you can get cutting-edge snake oil too, and I don't think the purveyors in any case are necessarily selling snake oil knowingly. People can believe emphatically in what they are doing and still be wrong.

L&P

 

BD :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you can get cutting-edge snake oil too

 

 

Now that would be a unique selling point!

 

cb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I read in a research article that only 10% would benefit from the type of assessment that Ian is doing. Also the discovery of the benefits to ASD was a by product from the research. Hence alot of people would not invest in this system unless they had an interest in this area.

 

 

My friend is an Optometrist and she is certainly not poor or struggling within her practice.

 

 

I believe Ian is passionate about what he is specialising in and therefore sometimes comes across very negative to people who do not take up his type of testing. But in reality it depends on what is available in your area, your budget and knowledge. Some of these children with sensory problems would not be able to travel up or down to Ian to be tested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I read in a research article that only 10% would benefit from the type of assessment that Ian is doing. Also the discovery of the benefits to ASD was a by product from the research. Hence alot of people would not invest in this system unless they had an interest in this area.

 

 

My friend is an Optometrist and she is certainly not poor or struggling within her practice.

 

 

I believe Ian is passionate about what he is specialising in and therefore sometimes comes across very negative to people who do not take up his type of testing. But in reality it depends on what is available in your area, your budget and knowledge. Some of these children with sensory problems would not be able to travel up or down to Ian to be tested.

 

Hi Lynne - I too have no doubt that Ian is passionate about his research, and i'm not, again, saying in any way that his research is 'flawed' - because i do not have the expertise to evaluate it in any way shape or form. The only point I am making is that any evaluation Ian offers of his own work - or the work of his professional peers whose methods he considers unreliable - is inherently biased. Obviously I can't comment on any research article you might have read or the 10% figure you mention, but again by defintion if this was an article about the type of assessment Ian is doing and ian himself states that he is the only person doing this kind of assessment then again you must be looking, somewhere along the line, at Ian's own assessment of his own research which, as I've already pointed out, is inherently biased!

Lets put it this way: the fact that a chef is passionate about cooking doesn't earn him any Michelin stars. The chef may tell us that he is the best in his field and that all the other chefs who don't cook the same way he cooks are inferior chefs, and he may absolutely believe that. But without the recognition of his peers (Michelin stars) and despite his self conviction there is no real evidence that he is the best chef in the world, or that his negative assessment of the work of his peers is necessarily valid...

I really can't understand what is 'wrong' with pointing that out(?) :unsure:

 

L&P

 

BD :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...