To determine if our results depended on the etiological subtype of amblyopia, the amblyopia group was divided into anisometropic, strabismic, and aniso-strabismic subgroups (
Figures 6 and
7). In the fine range, a repeated measures ANOVA showed a main effect of Group,
F(3, 34) = 12.04,
p = < 0.001; large effect size,
f = 1.003, and a main effect of Disparity,
F(5, 170) = 6.17,
p < 0.001; large effect size,
f = 0.427. This was qualified by a significant Group × Disparity interaction,
F(15, 170) = 2.16,
p = 0.010; large effect size,
f = 0.436. This analysis was followed by tests of the simple effect of Group at each Disparity, which showed a main effect of Group at all disparities in the fine range (
p < 0.05). Tukey's honestly significant difference was used to examine differences among groups. At the smallest disparity (0.02°), controls performed significantly better than all groups of children with amblyopia (
p < 0.01), and the amblyopia groups showed no significant difference in performance (
p > 0.05). At a disparity of 0.08°, controls performed significantly better than all groups of children with amblyopia (
p < 0.01), the anisometropic amblyopia group performed better than the strabismic or aniso-strabismic amblyopia group (
p < 0.01), and the strabismic and aniso-strabismic amblyopia groups showed no significant difference (
p > 0.05). At a disparity of 0.17°, controls performed significantly better than all amblyopia groups (
p < 0.01), the anisometropic amblyopia group performed better than the strabismic or aniso-strabismic amblyopia group (
p < 0.01), and the strabismic amblyopia group performed better than the aniso-strabismic amblyopia group (
p < 0.01). At a disparity of 0.33°, controls performed significantly better than all amblyopia groups (
p < 0.01); the anisometropic and strabismic amblyopia groups showed no significant difference (
p > 0.05) but performed significantly better than the aniso-strabismic amblyopia group (
p < 0.05). At the largest disparities in the fine range (0.67°, 1.0°), the control and anisometropic amblyopia groups showed no significant difference in performance (
p > 0.05), both groups performed better than the strabismic or aniso-strabismic amblyopia groups (
p < 0.01), and there was no significant difference between the strabismic and aniso-strabismic amblyopia groups (
p > 0.05).