. 2018 Jun 19;12(3):143–160. doi: 10.1016/j.optom.2018.03.005

Table 2.

Mean and standard deviation for near point of convergence and stereoacuity from previous studies.

Authors and reference numbers	Country of study	Study setting	Age	Sample size	Technique	Near point of convergence
						Mean SD	Mean SD
						Break	Recovery
		Near point of convergence
Present study	South Africa	SS	13–18	1056	PU	6.8 ± 2.8	9.48 ± 3.4
Metsing²⁸	South Africa	SS	8–13	112	PU	4.9 ± 2.3	N/A
Jimenez et al.¹³	Spain	SS	6–12	1056	PU with RL	6.5 ± .7	14.3 ± 11.2
Abraham et al.²⁰	India	SS	10–18	150	AT/PLRG	7.17 ± 3.1	8.63 ± 3.2
Hussaindeen et al.²¹	India	SS	7–13	920	PU/PL	3 ± 3/7 ± 5.1	4 ± 4/10 ± 7
Hayes et al.¹⁶	US	SS	KG, 3rd 6th	297	PU	4.3 ± 3.4	7.2 ± 3.9
Maples et al.¹⁷	USA	SS	8–13	539	PU	4.2 ± 3.4	9.8 ± 4.0
Brent and David⁹	USA	SS	10–14	126	PU	5.0 ± 0.2	N/A
Borsting et al.¹⁸	USA	SS	8–13	14	PU	3.92 ± 3.9	6.73 ± 5.13
Scheiman et al.¹⁹	USA	CS	22–37	175	PLRG	2.3 ± 2.1	4.35 ± 3.2
Yekta et al.²²	Iran	SS	18–35	382	PU	5.2 ± 3.6	N/A
Lanca and Rowe²⁴	Portugal	SS	6–14	530	PU	6.0 ± 0.3	Not reported

		Stereoacuity
Present study	South Africa	SS	13–18	1056	Randot stereo-test		43.9 ± 25.2
Jimenez¹³	Spain	SS	6–12	1056	Randot stereo-test		22 ± 6
Hussaindeen et al.²¹	India	SS	7–17	920	Randot stereo-test		40 ± 1
Almubrad⁵³	Saudi Arabia	SS	6–12	1383	Titmus		43.3 ± 9.2
Oduntan et al.⁵¹	Saudi Arabia	SS	6–12	855	Randot stereo-test		25.3 ± 9.9
Farvardin1 and Afarid⁵⁴	Iran	SS	6–12	1000	Randot stereo-test		71.7 ± 54.7
Guo et al.⁵⁵	China	SS	4–18	5780	Titmus		50.2 ± 50.6