Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Twice Exceptional Convergence EXCESS?

We received the report from the developmental optometrist. DD2 received two diagnoses. One of these was convergence excess (not to be confused with convergence insufficiency, which is I guess the opposite problem, and for which VT is a proven therapy, according to the big medical groups).

Does anyone have a child who has been given this diagnosis?

Thank you.

(Moderators: if this isn't the best place for this post, could you move it, or let me know and I'll repost in the right place?)

I would think the VT would be pretty much the same. Just the other day I was chatting with an optometrist about convergence. Say you look at the brock string and are trying to look at a particular bead (it's just a string with a bead that goes out in front of you; google probably has images). Anyway, she said if you're seeing the string make an X beyond the bead, that's convergence insufficiency, whereas if you're seeing it make an X in the foreground in front of the bead, that would be the excess.

Thanks snowgirl. I just watched a video about the brock string. Interesting. I've posted on 3 lists and am not able to find anyone who has been treated for this condition. I found one study from 1997 that shows benefits from vision therapy, but my insurance (United) has a policy statement that rejects the value of that study on the ground that there was patient selection and some other reason that I forget.

I found one interesting thing - in a textbook that's apparently used by optometrists, it says that treatment for this condition usually takes less time in adults than in children. So maybe I don't have to worry I'm missing some window. As we're not sure we're seeing any symptoms related to convergence excess (many apparently do not have symptoms), and the difficulty of doing therapy would be huge for us (for one thing, I can't even get my DD to practice piano more than 5 minutes a day, and that's something she wants to do!), I think we'll put it off, and revisit the issue next spring, when therapy - $4000! - could at least happen during the summer.

However, if anyone has experience with VT or glasses for convergence excess - positive or not - I'd still like to hear.

no experience with the excess, however my insurance issue was similar: they would pay for the exam, however not pay for the recommended therapy, from the same provider, which I found odd. Why be ok with diagnosing a condition but not the therapy?

We did that $4000 or so therapy with our daughter; later at another dr, found my son had slight insufficiency and he was treated via a computer program for which one needs a prescription, but which only cost $75. DD was also found to still be lacking just a bit in the convergence and she is just now finishing up with the $75 program.
A program called 'vergence', from these folks: http://www.visiontherapysolutions.net/hts.php
(again, requires prescription)

Actually, if you go to the link I put, there is some reference to 'excess' on the research page.

Chris1234:

Thanks for taking the time to try to help me. I did go to the research page, but the links are all to divergence excess, which is something different. (I don't understand all of the terms, but I've gotten far enough with my own research to be pretty sure of that. But given that your kids have something else, there's no reason for you to have known this - I've just researched a little circle around our particular diagnoses myself.)

That computer program is interesting. That would at least solve the problem of the impossible commute to the doctor which we hvae, and I guess it would allow us to experiment at home to see if it was useful, at far less than the $4000 which this eye doc is expecting. Interestingly, ALL THREE doctors to whom we've been referred, including the one who we've actually seen and who made these diagnoses, are on the "doctors" page for the computer program. However, she didn't mention anything about this. And I'm guessing that the computer program's use is supposed to be overseen by the doctor, which adds in another expense too; am I right?

Wait, I found a different page with research that does mention "convergence excess" research - this is the Galloway study that my insurance thinks isn't good enough.

Another problem, I guess, is that the research doesn't show that the effects for VT for convergence excess are long-lasting.

FWIW, an adult I know who was only recently diagnosed with convergence problems (I don't know, absolutely, if convergence or divergence, but I think convergence) has been using the (a) computer program prescribed by the DO for several months now, and has seen some progress. I would speculate that it isn't always recommended for children because of the lower likelihood of implementation fidelity.

@aeh - yes kids may be less likely to do the computer based work, but it only takes 7 minutes a day, so it not impossible.

in praise of the $4000 program however:
The main reason that the first dr, with our dd, did recommend the full vt program is that he identified issues across the board for her vision, involving cross body motion (crawling as a baby works on some of these things) and other similar issues which resulted in her needing what I would call physical therapy rather than just therapy focused on her eyes.

examples: bouncing on a small trampoline while focused on a point on a wall



catching a ball one handed over and over

and things of that nature (obviously using your eyes, but also involving the whole body).

that is not going to occur in the computer program, but I honestly could not tell it if it makes it more or less valid, just different...I will state that dd6 went from not reading more than a paragraph at a time in a sitting (although she could read very large words separately) to:
8 months later, reading small chapter books with pleasure. So, imo, those are results that seemed worth it.

other changes: went from unable to catch a ball (literally would get a ball in the face sometimes) to having very good hands.

So I guess the hand-eye / body-eye coordination that was lacking was vastly improved.


Sorry there are so many conflicting bits of info on it.