Comparison of Optometry Students’ Confidence, Adherence, and Experience in Using Lensometry

Published date: Dec 31 2025

Journal Title: Dubai Medical Journal

Issue title: Dubai Medical Journal (DMJ): Volume 8, Issue 4

Pages: 476-487

DOI: 10.18502/dmj.v8i4.20487

Afsane SaraniStudent Research Committee, Zahedan University of Medical Sciences, Zahedan

Abolfazl PayandehDepartment of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Infectious Disease and Tropical Medicine Research Center, Research Institute of Cellular and Molecular Sciences in Infectious Diseases, Zahedan University of Medical Sciences, Zahedan

Ali MehdipourStudent Research Committee, Zahedan University of Medical Sciences, Zahedan

Monireh MahjoobDepartment of Optometry, Health Promotion Research Center, Zahedan University of Medical Sciences, Zahedan

Neda Nakhjavanpourneda.nakhjavanpoor@gmail.comDepartment of Optometry, Rehabilitation Sciences Research Center, Zahedan University of Medical Sciences, Zahedan

Hava ShafieeDepartment of Optometry, Rehabilitation Sciences Research Center, Zahedan University of Medical Sciences, Zahedan

Purpose: To investigate the confidence levels of optometry students in performing lensometry and to identify factors influencing it.

Methods: This cross-sectional research was carried out on 51 undergraduate optometry students (26 fourth-term and 25 sixth-term) at Zahedan City, Iran, in 2024. Each participant provided feedback on the impact of the lensometry training on their confidence levels via a four-section structured questionnaire using a census sampling method. Descriptive statistics, Chi-square test, Fisher’s exact test, Pearson’s correlation coefficient, and multiple regression model were employed to analyze information. The significance level was set at 0.05. All analyses were performed using SPSS ver. 26.0.

Results: Fourth-term students had a significantly higher mean confidence score (55.19) than sixth term students (55.19 vs. 49.72; p = 0.03). The mean lensometry experience score was also notably higher for fourth-term than sixth-term students (11.88 vs. 10.40; p = 0.03). A significant positive association was detected between lensometry experience and student confidence (r = 0.69, p < 0.001). Additionally, there was a moderate direct association between adherence to basic principles and confidence (r = 0.53, p < 0.001). Confidence in performing lensometry for bifocal lenses (74.50%) was significantly higher compared to progressive lenses (31.37%), which correlated with more experience in bifocal lensometry (70.59% vs. 25.49%). Notably, 89.54% of students lacked experience in reading prism, resulting in lower confidence (21.85%).

Conclusion: Sixth-term students exhibited lower confidence and less lensometry experience than fourth-term students. All students reported lower confidence in performing lensometry on complex lenses. Continuous evaluation of students, giving them appropriate feedback, providing basic training with computer simulators, and doing more exercises with these tools can be useful in solving this problem.

Keywords: lensometry, student’s confidence, optometry education, optics, spectacle

[1] Hashemi H, Fotouhi A, Yekta A, Pakzad R, Ostadimoghaddam H, Khabazkhoob M. Global and regional estimates of prevalence of refractive errors: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Curr Ophthalmol. 2017;30(1):3–22.

[2] Pascolini D, Mariotti SP. Global estimates of visual impairment: 2010. Br J Ophthalmol. 2012;96(5):614– 618.

[3] GBD 2019 Blindness and Vision Impairment Collaborators; Vision Loss Expert Group of the Global Burden of Disease Study. Trends in prevalence of blindness and distance and near vision impairment over 30 years: An analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet Glob Health. 2021;9(2):e130– e143.

[4] Charman WN. Developments in the correction of presbyopia I: Spectacle and contact lenses. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2014;34(1):8–29.

[5] Wolffsohn JS, Davies LN, Sheppard AL. New insights in presbyopia: Impact of correction strategies. BMJ Open Ophthalmol. 2023;8(1):e001122.

[6] Papadopoulos PA, Papadopoulos AP. Current management of presbyopia. Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol. 2014;21(1):10–17.

[7] Holden BA, Fricke TR, Ho SM, Wong R, Schlenther G, Cronjé S, et al. Global vision impairment due to uncorrected presbyopia. Arch Ophthalmol. 2008;126(12):1731–1739.

[8] Brooks CW. System for ophthalmic dispensing. 4th ed. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2023.

[9] Cordero I. Understanding and caring for a lensmeter. Community Eye Health. 2016;29(94):37.

[10] Beesley J, Davey CJ, Elliott DB. What are the causes of non-tolerance to new spectacles and how can they be avoided? Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2022;42(3):619–632.

[11] Doorduyn K, Heitmar R, Coetzee L. Simulation techniques in optometric education: Is a model eye for tonometry a valuable instruction tool? Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2024;44(7):1569–1581.

[12] Alhazmi MS, Butler CW, Junghans BM. Does the virtual refractor patient-simulator improve student competency when refracting in the consulting room? Clin Exp Optom. 2018;101(6):771–777.

[13] Hollis J, Allen PM, Heywood J. Learning retinoscopy: A journey through problem space. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2022;42(5):940–947.

[14] Edgar AK, Macfarlane S, Kiddell EJ, Armitage JA, Wood-Bradley RJ. The perceived value and impact of virtual simulation-based education on students’ learning: A mixed methods study. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22(1):823.

[15] Galanis P. Validity and reliability of questionnaires in epidemiological studies. Archives of Hellenic Medicine. 2013;30(1):97–110.

[16] Schulz C, Hodgkins P. Factors associated with confidence in fundoscopy. Clin Teach. 2014;11(6):431– 435.

[17] Ahuja A, Memon U. Evaluating the learning curve of a novice optometry student in scleral lens fitting: A prospective quantitative study using deliberate practice and cumulative summation (LC-CUSUM). J Contact Lens Res Sci. 2024;8(1):e47–e58.

[18] Macedo-de-Araújo RJ, van der Worp E, González-Méijome JM. Practitioner learning curve in fitting scleral lenses in irregular and regular corneas using a fitting trial. BioMed Res Int. 2019;2019:5737124.

[19] Schuwirth LW, Van der Vleuten CP. Programmatic assessment: From assessment of learning to assessment for learning. Med Teach. 2011;33(6):478–485.

[20] Heeneman S, Oudkerk Pool A, Schuwirth LW, van der Vleuten CP, Driessen EW. The impact of programmatic assessment on student learning: Theory versus practice. Med Educ. 2015;49(5):487– 498.

[21] Kordestani Moghaddam A, Khankeh HR, Shariati M, Norcini J, Jalili M. Educational impact of assessment on medical students’ learning at Tehran University of Medical Sciences: A qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2019;9(7):e031014.

[22] Blais N, Tousignant B, Hanssens JM. Comprehensive primary eye care: A comparison between an in-person eye exam and a Tele-Eye care exam. Clin Optom (Auckl). 2024;16:17–30.

[23] Woods C, Naroo S, Zeri F, Bakkar M, Barodawala F, Evans V, et al. Evidence for commonly used teaching, learning and assessment methods in contact lens clinical skills education. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2023;46(2):101821.

[24] Musa MJ, Zeppieri M. Lensometry. [Updated 2023 Nov 12]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK597365/