4.3 Article

Associations between Poor Vision, Vision-Related Behaviors and Mathematics Achievement in Chinese Students from the CNAEQ-PEH 2015

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17228561

关键词

vision health; primary school students; mathematics achievement

资金

  1. MOE (Chinese Ministry of Education) Project of Humanities and Social Sciences [16YGC890012]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Poor vision is prevalent in school-aged students, especially in East Asia. This can not only cause irreversibly physical health impairments like glaucoma and cataracts, but also the loss of individual education and employment opportunities and deterioration of the quality of life. The present study aims to investigate the associations between poor vision, vision-related risk behaviors, and mathematics achievement in youth from China. Methods: The present study included a total of 106,192 Grade 4 students and 70,236 Grade 8 students from the China National Assessment of Educational Quality-Physical Education & Health 2015 (CNAEQ-PEH 2015). We conducted a standard logarithmic visual acuity scale for vision screening, a self-reported questionnaire for vision-related risk behavior and a standardized mathematics assessment for mathematics performance. Poor vision is defined as the visual acuity below 5.0 by using the standard logarithmic visual acuity chart. Linear regression was conducted. Results: The prevalence rate of poor vision in China was 37.1% in Grade 4 and 66.2% in Grade 8 in 2015. Students who had poor vision were more likely to have better mathematics achievement than those with normal vision. Reading in bed, insufficient sleep, and screen time during weekdays and weekends were associated with higher odds of poor vision. Conclusions: Poor vision was positively associated with mathematics academic achievements, while vision-related risk behaviors such as screen time, homework time and reading in bed were associated with a high prevalence of poor vision in compulsory education cycle students.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据