Chapter 2 / Case Analysis and Classification 53

TABLE 2.2 Morgan’s Table of Expected Findings

Test Expected Finding Standard Deviation

Distance lateral phoria 1 exophoria ±2 Δ
Near lateral phoria 3 exophoria ±3 Δ
AC/A ratio 4:1 ±2 Δ
Base-out (distance) Blur: 9 ±4 Δ
Break: 19 ±8 Δ
Recovery: 10 ±4 Δ
Base-in (distance) Break: 7 ±3 Δ
Recovery: 4 ±2 Δ
Base-out (near) Blur: 17 ±5 Δ
Break: 21 ±6 Δ
Recovery: 11 ±7 Δ
Base-in (near) Blur: 13 ±4 Δ
Break: 21 ±4 Δ
Recovery: 13 ±5 Δ
Amplitude of accommodation
Push-up 18 − 1/3 age ±2.00 D
Fused cross-cylinder +0.50 ±0.50 D
Negative relative accommodation +2.00 ±0.50 D
Positive relative accommodation −2.37 ±1.00 D

Advantages
• The primary advantage of this approach is the concept that it is important to look at groups of findings
rather than individual data. Morgan (15) stresses that if one finding falls outside the “normal range” it does
not necessarily indicate that the patient has a problem. He states that “statistical data applies to populations
and not necessarily to individuals.”
• Another advantage of this system is its flexibility and ease of use, compared to the complexity and rigidity
associated with graphical and analytical analyses.

TABLE 2.3 Morgan’s Three Groups

Group A data
Negative fusional vergence at distance—break
Negative fusional vergence at near—blur
Negative fusional vergence at near—break
Positive relative accommodation
Amplitude
Group B data
Positive fusional vergence at distance—blur and break
Positive fusional vergence at distance—blur and break
Binocular cross-cylinder
Monocular cross-cylinder
Near retinoscopy
Negative relative accommodation
Group C data
Phoria
AC/A ratio

(c) 2015 Wolters Kluwer. All Rights Reserved.