ABSTRACT
Suppose the patient does not experience the expected outcome; or if he does, suppose there was a relapse. If the problem is not related to any of the items listed in the chapter Extraneous Variables, then it may be related to the apparatus or to the method of treatment instead of the eye. In research terminology, the problem probably resides not in the dependent variable but in the independent variable. For example, you may have made a miscalculation in designing the lens, or the patient may have misinterpreted the steps of the drill (assuming that the patient’s prescription and K reading are correct). If an adverse factor affecting the design of the lens and/or the application of the drills was dealt with by adhering to protocol, it demonstrates the consistency of applying standardization in seeking a solution.
I also included a case to illustrate that it is actually more difficult to correct a patient with a prescription of −0.25 D in each eye. There is not much room for error and designing the lens can be challenging. One of the stipulations is that you cannot reverse any part of the eye that did not become myopic. The case study alone provides excellent verification on the reliability of ortho C. To avoid the difficulties you may encounter, you may actually want to pass up treating anyone with −0.25 D in both eyes and suggest natural relaxation exercises instead.
