THE PERFORMANCE OF TRAINABLE AND EDUCABLE RETARDATES

ON THE VISUAL DISCRIMINATION TEST

by

CAROL A. O'DONNELL, B.A.

A THESIS

IN

PSYCHOLOGY

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Approved

Accepted

August, 1977

~yc^ T'j^

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I want to express my appreciation to Dr. Joseph B. Ray

for his direction of this thesis, to Dr. Roger L. Greene

for his helpful criticism, and to Mr. Don Beal for his

input regarding research methodology and for his assistance

in the statistical analysis of the data.

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . ii

LIST OF TABLES iv

I. INTRODUCTION 1

Purpose and Scope 1

Review of Relevant Literature 3

Rationale for This Study 31

II. METHOD AND PROCEDURE 34

Subjects 34

Apparatus 35

Procedure 36

Hypotheses 40

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 42

Results 42

Discussion 50

IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 55

REFERENCES 59

APPENDIX 63

A. THE VISUAL DISCRIMINATION TEST 64

B. SCORING CRITERIA FOR THE COPY TASK 95

C. RAW SCORES ON THE VISUAL DISCRIMINATION TEST 113

D. RAW SCORES ON THE COPY TASK 115

E. TABLES ON ITEM ANALYSES 118

111

LIST OF TABLES

1. Analysis of Variance of Total Items Correct Across Intelligence and Sex 43

2. Means and Standard Deviations of Total Score Across Sex and Intelligence 44

3. Analysis of Covariance Examining Total Items Correct Across Intelligence and Sex, with IQ Covaried Out 46

4. Analysis of Covariance Examining Total Items Correct Across Intelligence and Sex, with Age Covaried Out 46

5. Correlation of Total Score, IQ, and Age . . . . 47

6. Analysis of Variance of Total Scores Across Sex, Intelligence, and Task 49

APPENDIX

2 7. X Comparison of Response Accuracy by Sex

for Each Item 2

8. X Comparison of Response Accuracy by Level for Each Item

2 9. X Comparison of Response Accuracy by Sex

and Intelligence for Each Item 10. Distribution of Response by Intelligence . . . .

2 11. X Comparison of Response Accuracy by

Intelligence for Each Item of Copy Task . . . 2

12. X Comparison of Response Accuracy by Sex for Each Item of Copy Task

2 13. X Comparison of Response Accuracy by Sex

and Intelligence for Each Item of Copy Task

IV

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Purpose and Scope

Psychologists have at their disposal a wide range of

tools to aid in the process of evaluating, diagnosing, and

treating their clients. According to Sundberg's (1961)

survey of 185 hospitals and clinical service agencies, the

Rorschach, the Draw-a-Person Test, the Thematic Appercep­

tion Test, and the Bender-Gestalt Test (BG) are the four

most frequently used psychological tools. Since these

instruments are widely used and important decisions regard­

ing educational recommendations, outpatient treatment, and

residental placement are frequently based on data derived

from them, it seems essential that a scholarly skepticism be

maintained and a recurrent demand for studies validating

basic premises and diagnostic conclusions be made. Such

studies can produce information that may assist clinicians

in using each of the above tools more appropriately.

As mentioned earlier, the BG ranks fourth in the fre­

quency of use among psychological instruments. Although

this particular test has been investigated extensively,

there are surprisingly few generalizations that can be made

about it (Billingslea, 1963). This fact may be indicative

of the need for one or more of the following changes: a

more standardized form, a more objective and uniformly ac­

cepted scoring system, an alteration in the way it is used

with certain populations, a new look at the conclusions

that are drawn from the test results, and possibly the need

to develop a more useful and productive variation of the

present test form. Because of the apparent need for these

changes, the Visual Discrimination Test (VDT), an instru­

ment involving a modification of the BG with a multiple-

choice format and a pass/fail scoring system was developed

(Ray, 1974). The present study involved an investigation

of this new instrument. The purposes of the present study

were multiple in nature. Since most of the research on

the VDT has involved populations with normal intelligence,

one of the goals of this research project was to collect

data on the performance of individuals functioning at the

lower end of the intelligence range. Another major purpose

of this study was to determine whether the VDT is a reliable

measure of intelligence among mentally retarded individuals.

The study also investigated differences between visual and

visual-motor task performance among mental retardates. The

effect of such variables as sex, age, and reaction time on

visual and visual-motor task performance were also explored.

A final purpose of the study was to conduct an item analysis

of the visual and visual-motor task to determine which, if

any, items of the VDT significantly discriminate between the

educable and trainable mental retardates.

Review of Relevant Literature

Development of Bender Gestalt Test

Prior to reviewing the literature which is pertinent

to the present study, it seems worthwhile to provide infor­

mation regarding the origin and development of the BG. This

popular instrument was developed by Loretta Bender in 1932

and consists of nine geometrical designs or figures composed

of dots, lines, angles, and curves combined in a variety of

patterns. These nine figures are presented to the examinee,

one at a time, and he is asked to copy them on a blank sheet

of paper. Bender selected these test figures from Wertheim-

er's (1923) gestalt designs. Not only did Bender utilize

Wertheimer's designs, but she also accepted his theoretical

orientation which emphasizes studying integrated patterns

of human behavior in terms of the totally functioning orga­

nism rather than focusing on simple, isolated stimulus

response patterns (Bender, 1938). Bender explained in detail

how this gestalt orientation applies to the perceptual motor

functioning involved in the reproduction of her test figures.

Gestalt function may be defined as that function of the integrated organism whereby it responds to a given constellation of stimuli as a whole, the re­sponse itself being a constellation of pattern or gestalt. Integration occurs by differentiation. The whole setting of the stimulus and the whole integrative state of the organism determines the pattern of response. Any pattern in any sensory field may be regarded as a potential stimulus. Any resulting pattern is a sensory motor pattern. Every sensory pattern has a background and orien­tation in relation to spatial gestalt function.

A series of sensory motor experiences involves temporal patterning. Any deviation in the total organism will be reflected in the final sensory motor pattern in response to the given stimulus pattern. (Bender, 1946, pp. 3-4)

Bender (1938) indicates that the perception and reproduction

of the nine BG figures are determined by the above principles

and vary depending on the individual's level of maturation

and/or his pathological state. She also believed that al­

though individuals see and reproduce the nine designs dif­

ferently, that there is a "normal range" within which these

reproductions fall. It is assumed that deviations from this

"normal range" are indicative of deviations from the average

person in one or more of the following areas: mental ca­

pacity, intellectual functioning, perceptual skills, motor

skills, emotional stability, and soundness of brain tissues

and chemistry (Billingslea, 1963).

Since its development approximately four decades ago,

the BG has attained wide usage. It has also been exposed to

extensive questioning and investigation through numerous

research projects. Some of the main points of emphasis in

the research have been on the use of this instrument as a

tool for diagnosing psychiatric patients, as a personality

test, as an intelligence test, and as a test for organic

brain pathology. The first two points of focus are not

relevant to the present study and therefore will not be

reviewed. The literature that is pertinent is that which

concerns the BG as a test of intelligence and as a test for

organic brain pathology.

Bender Gestalt as a Test of Intelligence

Numerous studies investigating the BG have attempted

to determine its validity and usefulness as an intelligence

test. Although Bender (1938) originally devised a table of

responses for each year of age from 3 through 11 with which

an individual's responses could be compared in order to

determine a mental age (MA), she did not specifically de­

fine this MA as a measure of intelligence. She indicated

that the reproduction of the BG figures reflects the matura­

tion level of a person's visual-motor perception. Bender

(1938) also explained that this visual-motor perception is

closely related to several functions of intelligence includ­

ing language ability, memory, organization, visual percep­

tion, motor skills, and temporal and spatial concepts.

Several early studies attempted to validate the MAs

derived from administering and scoring the BG. Hewyer and

Angsulvent (1949) conducted a study using 100 hospitalized

young people ranging from 3 to 20 years of age; they found

that the MAs derived from administering the BG were as

accurate as those obtained from the Binet-Simon of the

Stanford-Terman batteries. Wolfsohn (1951-52) administered

the BG, the Patterson Form Boards, and the Goodenough

Draw-A-Man Test to Israeli immigrant children who ranged

from 6 to 11 years of age; his results indicated a positive

correlation of .73 between the Goodenough and BG MAs. Also,

Keller (1955), who attempted to modify Bender's procedure

to develop a scoring system involving maturation levels for

use with the mentally retarded, reported positive correla­

tions with the Binet and Grace Arthur that ranged from

.63 to .77 on 37 males that were 7 through 11 years of

age.

Later research studies focused on the relationship

between performance on the BG and various intelligence

test scores among children. Pascal and Suttell (1951)

reported that there was no significant relationship be­

tween IQ scores and the BG performance of normal children.

Koppitz (1964) responded by explaining that she believed

the results of Pascal and Suttell's study reflected the

inappropriateness of using their scoring system with young

children; the system had been designed for use with adults.

Koppitz (1958) conducted a study to explore the relationship

of the BG and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children

(Wise). She administered the WISC to 90 elementary school

children for whom she had BG protocols; these children were

all clinic or private patients v/ho had been referred for

evaluations because of emotional and/or learning problems.

The subjects ranged in age from 6 years 7 months to 11 years

7 months and their IQs ranged from 73 to 126. The results

of this study demonstrated that performance on the BG is

positively correlated with the WISC Full Scale IQ score,

the Verbal and the Performance IQ scores, and with the

scores on the Arithmetic, Picture Completion, Picture

Arrangement, Block Design, and Object Assembly subtest

scores.

Koppitz (1964) also conducted a study to determine how

well the scores on the Developmental Bender Scoring System

that she devised correlate with intelligence test scores at

different age levels. The subjects for this study were 239

children who had been referred for evaluations because of

emotional and/or learning problems and who ranged in age

from 5 to 10 years. Each child was administered a BG fol­

lowed by either the Stanford-Binet Form L or the WISC,

depending on whether his chronological age and/or mental

age fell below or above 7 years. The subjects were divided

into two groups: one group consisting of 176 subjects with

IQs ranging from 75 to 149 (mean of 98) and the other group

consisting of 63 subjects with IQs ranging from 40 to 74

(mean of 63). All of the Pearson correlations between the

IQ score and the BG score for each age level in the normal

group and for the total group of retarded subjects were

found to be significant at the .001 level. The BG scores

and IQ scores were positively correlated for both populations

at each age level.

8

There are also several studies dealing with the issue

of the BG as an intelligence test for mentally retarded

subjects. Bensberg's (1952) study included 161 brain-

injured mentally retarded people who were matched for MA

and chronological age with an equal number of nonbrain-

injured retardates. The Pearson correlations for BG

scores and MA ranged from .64 to .80. Likewise, Feldman

(1953) conducted a study using 54 brain-injured and 54

nonbrain-injured retardates. He reported a significant re­

lationship between MAs or IQs and BG scores; the higher the

MA and IQ, the better the Bender score. Feldman pointed

out that this significant relationship between BG and IQ

scores was present in both groups despite etiological dif­

ferences. Baroff's (1957) investigation included 76

nonbrain-injured mentally retarded subjects; like Bensberg

(1952) and Feldman (1953), he reported a significant cor­

relation between BG scores and MA. More recently, Koppitz's

(1964) study which was conducted to determine the correla­

tion between BG and WISC scores confirmed the earlier find­

ings of Bensberg (1952), Feldman (1953), and Baroff (1957).

Koppitz (1964) reported a positive correlation between the

BG and IQ scores of the 63 retarded subjects and between

their BG scores and their MAs; the correlations were -.44

and -.85, respectively, and were both significant at the

.001 level. Koppitz (1964) replicated her earlier study

with 91 retarded public school children who were either

attending special education classes or being considered for

such classes. The subjects ranged in age from 5 to 16 years

and their IQs, based on either the WISC or Stanford-Binet

Intelligence Scale, ranged from 40 to 74 (mean of 63). The

subjects were divided into two groups: Group I included

54 children, age 5 years 6 months to 10 years 10 months,

with an MA range of 3 years 7 months to 7 years 10 months,

while Group II included 37 children, age 11 years 1 month

to 16 years 2 months, with a mental range of 4 years _

0 months to 10 years 10 months. The Pearson correlations

that were computed between the Bender scores and the MAs,

for each of the two groups separately and for both groups

together, were all found to be statistically significant

at the .001 level when a t test was applied; the correla­

tions were -.84, -.50, and -.70, respectively.

Several studies have also attempted to determine the

usefulness of the BG as a test of intelligence among adult

populations. Pascal and Suttell (1951) reported that in­

telligence had no significant effect on Bender scores of

adults with normal IQs. Aaronson and Nelson (1953) con­

ducted a study with adult Veterans Administration patients;

they also reported that there was no significant relationship

between BG scores and the Shipley-Hartford IQ scores. Simi­

larly, Peek and Olsen (1955) obtained BG scores on 193

10

hospitalized male and female patients who ranged in age from

14 to 72 years; they reported an r of .34 between the BG

recall score and the patients' Shipley-Hartford IQ score and

concluded that the relationship was not significant. Later,

Peek and Storms (1958) asked three judges to estimate the

intelligence of 100 nonbrain-injured patients, who ranged

in age from 16 to 59 years, from their BG protocols; the

correlation between the judges' ranking and Shipley-Hartford

IQ scores was not significant.

Summarizing the available literature regarding the use­

fulness of the BG as a test of intelligence seems to present

a clear position. In young children from 4 years 0 months

to 11 years 0 months, visual-motor perception as reflected

by performance on the BG has been shown to be related to

intelligence. Once visual-motor perception has fully matured,

the BG can no longer serve as a measure of intellectual abil­

ity. Most children are able to copy all nine BG designs

without errors by the time they have reached 11 years of age.

Thus for individuals of normal intelligence, the BG is not

a reliable tool for assessing intelligence for persons beyond

11 years of age. Individuals who are not of normal intelli­

gence prove to be an exception. Several studies have re­

ported that among the mentally retarded--regardless of their

age--there is a significant relationship between visual-motor

perception as reflected by BG scores and the person's intel­

lectual ability (Koppitz, 1964).

11

Bender Gestalt as a Test of Organic Brain Pathology

The second major focus in the present literature review

will be on the BG as a test for organic brain pathology.

Approximately one-fourth of all of the studies devoted to

the BG deal with this instrument's ability to diagnose

organic brain pathology (Koppitz, 1964). Although a signifi­

cant portion of this research has been devoted to determining

the presence or absence of brain damage among psychiatric as

well as among nonpsychiatric patients, these studies will

not be discussed. Only those investigations focusing on

the BG's usefulness as a test of organic brain pathology

among mentally retarded individuals will be explored.

The research findings regarding the BG's ability to

discriminate between endogenous or familial retardation and

exogenous or organic retardation will be discussed in more

detail since these findings are particularly relevent to

the present study. Bender's (1938) original assumption was

that the BG could differentiate between individuals with

familial and those with organic retardation. There have

been several subsequent studies conducted to verify this

hypothesis. Bensberg (1952), Feldman (1953), and Baroff

(1957) are among the earlier investigators whose findings

tended to support Bender's claim.

Since Bender's original hypothesis appeared to be based

only on a few case studies, Bensberg (1952) recognized the

12

need for a quantitative investigation to determine the BG's

usefulness in differentiating between brain-injured and

nonbrain-injured retardates. He took 322 subjects and

employed the matched pair technique so that a familial

subject was paired with a brain-injured subject having the

same mental and chronological age. The range in MA for

the males was from 4 to 11.5 years with a mean of 6.25 years

and for the females, from 3 to 12.16 years with a mean of

6.67 years. The chronological ages ranged from 7 to 61 years

with a mean of 30.6 years for the males and 30.1 years for

the females. The diagnoses for the brain-injured subjects

were based on case histories, medical examinations, and

neurological examination. The diagnosis of familial retarda­

tion was based on a history of at least one parent being

retarded, at least one sibling being retarded, and the ab­

sence of trauma. The BG was individually administered to

each subject, and Bender's (1938) normative data were used

to obtain a quantitative measure on the tests. The mean age

for each level of proficiency was determined in order to

score the accuracy of the drawings in this study. The accu­

racy scores on each of the nine designs were totaled, and it

was this total score that was utilized in the comparison of

the performance of the two groups. The results of the study

indicated that the familial or nonbrain-injured group were

significantly more accurate in their reproductions of the BG

13

designs than the brain-injured. Bensberg conducted an analy­

sis of variance on 33 randomly selected matched pairs of sub­

jects, and the results supported the previous t tests (Bens­

berg, 1952). The t test between the familial and organic

males was 4.62, which is significant at less than .01 level

of confidence; the t test between the familial and organic

females was 2.53, which is significant at less than the .02

level of confidence.

Further support for the claim that the BG could be use­

ful in differentiating between familial and organic retar­

dates was offered by the results of Feldman's (1953) experi­

ment. In undertaking this study, Feldman was particularly

concerned with improving the selection process for his groups

over that of previous studies and in using a standardized

test which measured the particular function presumed to

discriminate the two groups best. On the basis of available

findings, Feldman believed that exogenous subjects had in

common a disturbance in visual-motor behavior resulting from

brain injury. Therefore, he used objective criteria to oper­

ationally define the two groups, and he selected the BG as

scored by Pascal and Suttell (1951) for his study. Feldman

(1953) selected 108 subjects from the Polk State School in

Polk, Pennsylvania; 54 retardates composed the exogenous

group and 54 retardates comprised the endogenous group. Each

endogenous subject was free of any neurological signs and

14

also had one sibling who had been or was institutionalized

for mental retardation. Each exogenous subject showed at

least one solitary sign and/or two combined signs in the

neurological examination and no member of his immediate

family had been institutionalized for mental deficiency.

All subjects were equated on the following variables:

chronological age, MA, IQ, and length of institutionali­

zation. Each person was administered the BG test according

to the Pascal and Suttell scoring system. The results of

the study indicated that the endogenous subjects performed

significantly better on the BG than did the exogenous

subjects. In total scores, the mean differences are

highly significant; there was, however, considerable over­

lap in the performance of exogenous and endogenous subjects.

According to this study, both groups exhibited deficiency

in visual-motor functioning.

Feldman's (1953) findings provided the impetus for

Baroff's (1957) study. Apparently, earlier studies had

indicated that deficient visual-motor functioning is present

in the exogenous group, but absent among the endogenous

(Feldman, 1953). The main objective of Baroff's study was

to substantiate Feldman's (1953) findings that the endogenous

retardates also experience visual-motor deficiency. He also

was interested in determining the type of deviation found

among the endogenous retardates' BG protocols when scored

15

according to the Pascal and Suttell system. Baroff's results

were in agreement with those of Feldman (1953); he, too,

found similar frequencies of "organic" deviations among his

76 nonbrain-injured subjects.

In contrast to the findings of Bensberg (1952), Feldman

(1953), and Baroff (1957) , other investigators using mentally

retarded subjects did not find statistically significant

differences between the performances of endogenous and exoge­

nous retardates on the BG. Beck (1959) did not report any

specific deviations on the BG protocols which distinguished

brain-injured from nonbrain-injured subjects, but he did

observe a higher frequency of deviations among the organic

subjects. According to Halpin (1955), there is no signifi­

cant difference between the number of rotations on BG designs

produced by endogenous retardates and those produced by exog­

enous subjects. In his study using institutionalized males.

Garrison (1958) found some differences between groups of

nonbrain-injured, brain-injured, and "unexplained retardates,"

but none of these differences were statistically significant.

In 1968, Adams conducted an experiment with retarded

children in which he used the Background Interference Pro­

cedure (BIP), a procedure developed by Canter (1966) which

had shown reliability in distinguishing organic brain dis­

orders from other psychiatric disorders (Canter, 1968).

This procedure included a standard administration of the BG

16

followed by a second administration copied on a sheet of

8 1/2 X 11 inch paper described as a "confusing array of

curved intersecting lines in contrast to the usual blank

character" (Canter, 1966, p. 91). The subject's perfor­

mance on the first administration was used as a standard

of comparison with the BIP. Adams (1968) reported that there

was no significant difference between the efficacy of the

standard administration and the BIP and that the accuracy

of prediction with retarded subjects was too low to be use­

ful. In 1969, Song and Song replicated Canter's original

design using three groups of adult retardates: brain-

injured, nonbrain-injured, and emotionally distrubed. Al­

though all three groups showed decrements from their stan­

dard administration scores to their BIP scores. Song and

Song (1969) reported no significant differences between

groups.

As demonstrated by the preceding review of the liter­

ature, there have been a number of studies designed and

conducted to determine the usefulness of the BG in evaluating

differences between familial and organic mental retardates.

Not only have the results of these investigations been incon­

sistent, but definite overlap between the performance of

organic and nonorganic subjects on the BG has been reported.

This has led to some speculation that the BG is not reliable

in evaluating the presence of brain damage in the mentally

retarded.

17

Pacella (1965), who was interested in the reliability

of the BG in evaluating the presence of brain damage in the

mentally retarded, designed a study to determine whether

modifying the administration of the BG might produce more

reliable differences between exogenous and endogenous mental

retardates. He designed a study to compare the performance

of brain-injured and nonbrain-injured retardates on three

successive trials of the BG. He hypothesized that there

would be no significant differences between the organic and

nonorganic retardates in accuracy or speed on the first trial,

but that there would be a significant difference on the third

trial.

Organic patients are cerebrally deficient in co­ordinating perceptual experiences with motor be­havior, and are therefore less likely to profit from learning, while non-organic retardates are simply slow to learn and will improve with repe­tition. (Pacella, 1965, p. 724)

Pacella tested 22 organic and 22 nonorganic, hospitalized

mental retardates. An analysis of variance showed no sig­

nificant differences between the two groups in terms of

accuracy scores on the first and second trials, but yielded

a significant difference on the third trial.

Similarly, De Santo (1974) also investigated the reli­

ability of the BG in discriminating between organic and non­

organic retardates. The purpose of his study was to cross-

validate the results of Pacella's investigation using the

latter's three trial administration and to evaluate the

18

Hain (1964) scoring system, which had been designed to mag­

nify the BG's effectiveness in discriminating brain damage,

with adult mental retardates. De Santo's study included

40 institutionalized retardates which were divided into two

groups: a brain-damaged group and nonbrain-damaged group.

The two groups were matched in chronological age and IQ;

the mean age and IQ for the brain-damaged group were 20.6

years and 56.5, respectively; and the mean age and IQ for

the nonbrain-damaged group were 19.2 and 56.5, respectively.

Each subject was individually administered three successive

trials on the BG with a two minute break between trials.

The results indicated no significant differences between

organic and nonorganic subjects on the first trial or

between the first and third trials. The results between

the first and third trials exhibited the same direction as

Pacella's, but an analysis of variance showed this differ­

ence not to be statistically significant (De Santo,

1974) .

In summary, the conclusions from the available research

concerning the usefulness of the BG as a test for organic

brain pathology do not present a simple, clear position.

Most investigators report a significant difference between

the BG performances of brain-injured and nonbrain-injured

persons who are not psychiatric patients (Baroff, 1957;

Bensberg, 1952; Feldman, 1953; Niebuhr & Cohen, 1956;

19

Wewetzer, 1959). However, when the BG is used to distin­

guish between organic and nonorganic or functional disorders

among psychiatric patients, the research findings are incon­

sistent; there appear to be several confounding variables

(e.g., the severity of the brain disorder, the type and

location of the brain leision, the effectiveness of the scor­

ing system that is used, and the presence of deviations which

have been considered "organic signs" among patients with

nonorganic disorders) which require further study (Koppitz,

1964). Likewise, those studies investigating the usefulness

of the BG in distinguishing between familial or nonbrain-

injured retardates and brain-injured retardates report incon­

sistent results. Early studies reported statistically sig­

nificant differences in the performances of these two groups

of retardates on the BG; this has not been supported by more

recent studies. Even among the earlier investigations,

definite overlap between the performances of organic and

nonorganic retardates was discovered. Apparently both

familial and organic retardates experience visual-motor

deficiencies (Baroff, 1959). Therefore, some investigators

have questioned the reliability of the BG in evaluating the

presence or absence of brain damage in the mentally retarded.

Contamination of Motor and Perceptual Abil­ities in Bender Gestalt Performance

Apparently, one of the basic assumptions underlying the

20

use of the BG is that adequacy of the drawing performance

is directly related to accuracy of the visual perception

(Morrison & Kahn, 1970). This general assumption is re­

flected in Bender's (1938) statement: "The motor behavior

of the small child . . . adapts itself to resemble the stim­

ulus perceived in the optic field" (p. 9). One of the

earlier studies conducted to determine whether Bender design

reproductions are influenced more by perceptual than motor

factors was conducted by McPherson and Pepin (1955). Their

subjects used two different methods in reproducing the

Bender figures; they were asked to duplicate the BG designs

by drawing them on paper and by placing pieces of felt on a

felt board. The investigators hypothesized that if the re­

sponses resulting from the two techniques were similar, then

reproductions were independent of motor factors and influenced

more by perceptual factors. Performances were rated as to

degree of similarity to the original stimuli. The results

indicated that uniformity occurred a minimum of 77% of its

theoretical possibility and that extreme disagreement occurred

only 6% of the time. The authors concluded that BG perfor­

mance is influenced more by perceptual skills than by motor

abilities. Niebuhr and Cohen (1956) expressed the opinion

that performance on the BG involved several psychological

functions. These investigators were interested in determin­

ing the focus of the distortions in the BG reproductions.

21

They questioned whether people perceived the designs accu­

rately and then distorted them in reproduction or whether

they misperceived the design and more or less accurately

reproduced their misconceptions. Niebuhr and Cohen used a

multiple-choice perceptual task and a copy task on three

groups of psychiatric patients and one group of student

nurses. Within each group, they reported positive but non­

significant correlations between perceptual and motor effi­

ciency, thus leaving the issue of the relationship between

perceptual and motor efficiency unresolved (Niebuhr & Cohen,

1956) .

More recently, Morrison and Kahn (1970) conducted a

study to determine the relationship between perceptual and

motor factors in BG performances. They stated.

While it may be expected that people who do not perceive BG figures accurately are not likely to be able to draw them accurately, it does not fol­low that perception is poor if the drawings are poor. (p. 3)

According to Morrison and Kahn, several dysfunctions other

than visual perception might account for poor BG performance.

They stated that rehabilitation programs for people with cen­

tral nervous system (CNS) impairment frequently include per­

ceptual retraining; determination for inclusion in the re­

training program was based on the assumption that poor BG

performances imply perceptual dysfunction. They encouraged

increased investigation of the perceptual component in BG

22

performances not only for theoretical reasons, but also for

application in rehabilitation programming. In their study,

Morrison and Kahn (1970) used 25 patients, who had been

diagnosed as having CNS impairment, from a private rehabili­

tation hospital. Each subject was given the standard and

experimental administration of the BG. The experimental

administration involved a choice task in which a stimulus

figure was presented and the subject was required to point

to the matching figure from four alternative figures. The

findings indicated that persons with CNS damage were able to

achieve a rather high level of accuracy on the perceptual

task, but that their performance on the drawing task was

significantly poorer. They found little correlation between

perceptual level and drawing level for the BG figures and

therefore considered the possibility that there were some

behavioral steps such as perceptual or kinesthetic feedback,

association, or evaluation which contributed more signifi­

cantly to the quality of the drawing than visual perception.

In conclusion, they stated that perceptual disorders were not

readily identifiable by use of the BG (Morrison & Kahn,

1970) .

Somewhat later, Cundick and Robison (1972) investigated

the perceptual component of visual-motor tasks. They stated

that most psychological evaluations include tests that re­

quire the production of geometric designs; they explained

23

that in order to copy these designs, an individual must be

able to form an accurate mental picture of the design and

then must have the motor ability to reproduce this mental

image on paper. They indicated that it is possible for a

person to form an accurate mental image and not be able to

reproduce it on paper. Therefore, Cundick and Robison sug­

gested that it might be well to separate the visual task from

the motor task. In their opinion, this approach would elim­

inate some of the existing problems with scoring systems,

e.g., the lack of an objective scoring system and the lack of

appropriate norms, and produce a purer test of the visual

discrimination of forms. In their study, they used 24 brain-

injured children and 24 control children aged 6 to 11 years

who were matched in age, sex, and verbal ability. Each

person was given two administrations, one memory presenta­

tion and one matching presentation, of a multiple-choice task

involving 50 sets of geometric designs. In the first admin­

istration, people were presented a stimulus design on a card

which was then removed; following a 5 second delay, the per­

son was asked to select the same design from four alterna­

tives. The second administration involved matching the

stimulus design with one of the four alternatives while the

stimulus card was still present. While both presentations

discriminated between the groups, the memory presentation

was superior in discriminating between the brain-injured and

the normal children (Cundick & Robison, 1972).

24

Fidel and Ray (1972) designed a study to test the valid­

ity of an objective scoring system for the visual-perceptual

aspect of the BG. They stated that most studies have dealt

with the reproduction aspect and not considered the other

factors which are "(a) seeing the stimulus; (b) perception,

or understanding what has been seen; (c) translating the per­

ception into action" (Fidel & Ray, 1972, pp. 280-281). Their

study included 100 male children divided into three diagnostic

groups: 40 nonorganic, 40 minimally organic, and 20 grossly

organic. The children ranged from 5 1/2 to 9 1/2 years of

age and were of average intelligence. Each subject was indi­

vidually tested and asked to do the following: copy the BG

designs, select the appropriate response from the 5 multiple-

choice designs on Form 1 of the Revised Objective Perceptual

Test (OPT), and select the appropriate multiple-choice design

from Form II of the Revised OPT. Form I of the Revised OPT

has flaps which prevent the subject from viewing more than one

alternate design at a time, while Form II permits the child

to see all of the alternate designs before making his choice.

The scores from Forms I and II were combined to obtain the

Combined Form score of the Revised OPT. The results showed

that the visual-perceptual efficiency of the children de­

creased with the severity of their organic impairment. It

was also found that a more accurate diagnosis between non­

organic and minimally organic children could be obtained by

25

utilizing both BG drawings and Revised OPT scores; according

to this study, some impaired children may have perceptual

limitations, motor limitations, or both. This study indi­

cated that the 'use of both the perceptual task and the motor

task was valuable in determining whether a child's diffi­

culty is mainly receptive or mainly expressive (Fidel & Ray,

1972) .

Newcomer and Hammill (1973) also saw the need to study

visual tasks and motor tasks separately. They considered

the possibility that the observed high rate of perceptual

disorders in children with motor handicaps might be a func­

tion of the tests used to measure visual perception. The

most widely used tests—the BG, the Memory for Designs, and

the Frostig Developmental Test—are all visual-motor tests

and require copying or tracing tasks. The results of such

tests may reflect a person's motor rather than perceptual

limitations. According to Newcomer and Hammill, there is

a significant body of research supporting the premise that

visual perception and motor development are to a large ex­

tent separate systems. If this is true, then poor performance

on a visual-motor integration test may be indicative of de­

ficiencies in either one or both areas. Newcomer and Hammill

conducted a study to measure the visual perception of a

motor-free and a motor-involved test. The study involved 90

children with motor impairment; they were divided into the

26

following three groups: mildly, moderately, and severely

handicapped. Each child was administered the Motor Free

Test of Visual Perception and the BG. The results showed

that the children in all three groups tended to perform at

their chronological age level on the motor-free test, but

that their performance on the motor-involved test was asso­

ciated with the severity of their handicap. Newcomer and

Hammill concluded that children with motor handicaps do not

have the visual-perceptual limitations that are frequently

attributed to them. The results of this study suggested

that visual perception and motor development should be mea­

sured separately (Newcomer & Hammill, 1973).

Cutler, Cicirelli, and Hirshoren (1973) also questioned

the validity of making inferences about visual perception

based on a person's performance on a visual-motor integra­

tion task. They conducted a study to investigate the rela­

tionship between the visual-motor reproduction of simple

geometric designs and the visual discrimination of these

same forms by normal children. The study involved 4 2 chil­

dren of average intelligence who ranged from 5 to 5 1/2

years of age. Each child was administered a discrimination

test and a reproduction test. The discrimination test was

composed of seven geometric designs taken from the Geometric

Design subtest of the Wechsler Pre-school and Primary Scale

of Intelligence (WPPSI). For each design, eight types of

27

errors and three degrees of distortion were used. The child

was asked if the transformation was the same or different

from the original design. The seven original designs were

also used in the reproduction task. The results of the study

did not support the notion that errors in visual-motor repro­

duction of form are primarily attributable to mistakes in

visual perception. The results also showed that while chil­

dren are able to make subtle visual discriminations, they

may make gross mistakes in visual-motor reproductions. The

investigators concluded that the use of visual-motor activity

to assess visual perception in young children might result

in the introduction of confounding variables, i.e., repro­

duction errors.that are not related to visual perceptual

limitations (Cutler et al., 1973).

Friedrich and Fuller have also questioned the validity

of making inferences about a person's visual perception based

on his performance on a visual-motor task. In one of their

earlier studies (Friedrich, Fuller, & Hawkins, 1969) with

mentally retarded subjects, these experimenters used the

Minnesota Percepto Diagnostic Test (MPD) and the Block

Design subtest from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale

(WAIS) to more accurately specify the variables involved in

the faulty reproduction of visual-motor designs. They indi­

cated that poor visual-motor task performance might result

from misperception, integrative dysfunctions, execution

28

difficulty or any combination of these factors. The results

of the study showed that mentally retarded individuals had

difficulties in the areas of integration and execution.

Later studies by these same investigators (Friedrich &

Fuller, 1973; Friedrich & Fuller, 1974) added further sub­

stantiation to these findings. One specific integrative

variable that was manipulated was short-term memory; it was

shown to significantly influence performance in visual-motor

tasks. These investigators concluded that it is not appro­

priate to infer that poor performance on visual-motor tasks

is the result of visual-perceptual limitations or the result

of some unitary perceptual problem (Friedrich & Fuller, 1974).

More recently Daniels and Ray (1975) questioned the

validity of using visual-motor tasks to assess visual per­

ception. In their study, the VDT and a copy variation of the

test were used to explore the development of visual discrim­

ination and design reproduction skills in normal children.

The subjects included 60 children, 10 from each grade from

kindergarten through the fifth grade. Each child was adminis­

tered the VDT and the related copy task. The results showed

that the visual discrimination and the motor reproduction of

designs are developmentally distinct skills and can be mea­

sured separately. It was noted that these two distinct abil­

ities are confounded in the present widely used visual-motor

tests. They recommended that instruments measuring visual

29

discrimination skill, e.g., the VDT, be used in conjunction

with tests measuring motor reproduction skills in order to

obtain a more accurate assessment and to formulate a more

appropriate educational program (Daniels & Ray, 1975).

As demonstrated by the preceding literature review, the

construct validity of the BG and other similar visual-motor

tests has been seriously questioned. A significant body of

current research does not support the basic premise that the

quality of the drawing performance in the reproduction of

geometric designs is directly related to the accuracy of the

visual perception. Therefore, the traditional conclusion

that poor performance on visual-motor tasks implies a visual-

perceptual dysfunction seems to be invalid. In their study,

Morrison and Kahn (1970) found little correlation between

their subject's perceptual level and drawing level on the

BG. Cundick and Robison (1972) indicated that it is pos­

sible for a person to form an accurate mental image of a

design and not be able to reproduce it on paper. Cutler,

Cicirelli, and Hirshoren (1973) demonstrated that children

who are capable of making subtle visual discriminations may

make gross errors in visual-motor reproductions. Several

investigators have explained this by stating that there

appear to be other variables or behavioral steps involved

in visual-motor task performance in addition to visual per­

ception. As the result of their study, Morrison and Kahn

30

(1970) considered the possibility that perceptual or kines­

thetic feedback, association, or evaluation might also sig­

nificantly contribute to the quality of the drawing. Fidel

and Ray (197 2) assumed that the reproduction of the Bender

drawings involved seeing the design, understanding it, trans­

lating the perception into action, and possessing the neces­

sary motor coordination to copy the figure. Friedrich,

Fuller, and Hawkins (1969), Friedrich and Fuller (1973), and

Friedrich and Fuller (1974) indicated that poor visual-motor

task performance might result from misperception, integrative

dysfunctions, execution difficulty, or any combination of

these variables. Several of these investigators (Cutler

et al., 1973; Daniels & Ray, 1975; Fidel & Ray, 1972; Fried­

rich & Fuller, 1974; Newcomer & Hammill, 1973) stressed the

need to separate the visual task from the motor task when

testing in order to obtain a more accurate assessment of a

person's visual-perceptual level and drawing level. Daniels

and Ray (197 5) concluded that visual discrimination and motor

reproduction are developmentally distinct skills that are con­

founded in the present widely used visual-motor tests; they

emphasized the importance of measuring these skills sepa­

rately in order to obtain a more accurate assessment that

might be used in the formulation of a more appropriate edu­

cational program for the individual.

31

Rationale for this Study

The BG is one of the most frequently used tools among

currently available psychological instruments and has been

the subject of rather extensive research. Nevertheless,

there are surprisingly few generalizations that can be made

about this test (Billingslea, 1963). Therefore, it seems

essential that a scholarly skepticism be maintained and that

further research be conducted to validate basic premises and

diagnostic conclusions, to increase the standardization of

the test form and the objectivity of the scoring system, to

alter the use of the test when necessary with certain popu­

lations, and to develop new, more valid variations of the

present test form.

A significant body of current research has failed to

support the basic premise that the quality of the drawing

performance in the reproduction of geometric designs is

directly related to the accuracy of the visual perception and

the traditional conclusion that poor performance on visual-

motor tasks implies a visual-perceptual dysfunction. Several

investigators have indicated that there appear to be other

behavioral steps or variables involved in visual-motor task

performance in addition to visual perception. For example,

according to Friedrich and Fuller (1973, 1974), poor visual-

motor task performance might result from misperception, in­

tegrative dysfunctions, execution difficulties, or any

32

combination of these factors. Some researchers (Cutler et

al., 1973; Daniels & Ray, 1975; Fidel & Ray, 1972; Friedrich

& Fuller, 1974; Newcomer & Hammill, 1973) have stressed the

need to separate the visual task from the motor task when

testing in order to obtain a more accurate assessment of

a person's visual-perceptual level and motor or drawing level.

In response to the recent research findings stressing

the need to separate the visual task from the motor task,

Ray (1974) designed the VDT. It appears to have the poten­

tial for eliminating several limitations present in the BG

and other similar visual-motor tests, i.e., by separating

the visual task from the motor task, it avoids many of the

problematic, confounding variables, and it offers a com­

pletely objective scoring system.

Although the VDT has been used with learning disabled

and reading disabled children, no studies have been reported

with the mentally retarded. The present study was conducted

to expand the research data on the VDT to include populations

at the lower end of the intelligence range and to determine

whether or not this particular psychological instrument is a

reliable measure of intelligence among mentally retarded in­

dividuals. Some secondary purposes of this study were to

explore differences between visual and visual-motor task

performance among mental retardates, to determine the effect

of such variables as sex, age, and reaction time on the

33

performance of these tasks, and to determine which, if any,

items on this tool more significantly discriminated between

educable and trainable retardates.

CHAPTER II

METHOD AND PROCEDURE

Subjects

The 60 subjects involved in this study were mentally

retarded students from the resident population of the Lubbock

State School in Lubbock, Texas. These individuals were

divided into two groups: trainables and educables. Each

group included 15 males and 15 females. Although no attempt

was made to control for etiological factors, the majority of

the people in these groups were individuals with symptoms of

chronic brain damage rather than a familial cause of retarda­

tion.

The individuals who served as subjects were selected

on the basis of their IQ, age, and lack of any vision impair­

ment or physical handicap that would effect their ability to

complete the required tasks. The IQ of each subject was

based on his/her most recent full scale IQ score obtained on

the WISC, WAIS, or, in the cases of the lower IQ scores, the

Stanford-Binet or some other appropriate intelligence test.

The IQ range for the trainably retarded subjects was from

25 to 54 with a mean IQ of 40.46. The IQ range for the fe­

males in this group was from 25 to 53 with a mean IQ of 39.73,

while the range for the males was from 26 to 54 with a mean

IQ of 41.20. The IQ range for the educably retarded group

34

35

was from 56 to 82 with a mean of 66.60. The female, educable

retardates' IQs ranged from 56 to 82 with a mean of 65.40,

while the males ranged from 56 to 79 with a mean IQ of 67.80.

The age range for the trainable group was from 10.83 to 17.92

years with a mean of 14.65 years. The females in this group

ranged from 10.83 to 17.92 years with a mean age of 14.43,

while the males ranged from 13.58 to 16.58 years with a mean

of 14.87. The age range for the educably retarded group was

from 12.67 to 22.08 years with a mean of 18.44. The females

in this group ranged from 16.08 to 22.08 years with a mean

age of 19.57, while the males ranged from 12.67 to 19.67

with a mean of 17.23 years.

Apparatus

The VDT, an instrument designed by Ray (1974) at Texas

Tech University, was used in this study. This instrument

was originally developed for use in evaluating the level of

visual-perceptual functioning in diverse psychiatric and

educational populations. The tool itself is a multiple-

choice, visual discrimination test in which the examinee is

asked to select from five multiple-choice possibilities the

response figure that is exactly the same as the test figure

he has been shown. The test consists of 31 items, includ­

ing one demonstration item which is not scored. The major­

ity of these test figures consist of geometric designs similar

to those used in the BG, the Developmental Test of Visual-

36

Motor Integration (Beery & Buktenica, 1967), and the Primary

Visual Motor Test (Haworth, 1970). The test figures are

located on an 8 1/2 x 11 inch sheet of white paper which are

presented to the examinee in a horizontal position. The test

figure is situated in the center of the upper half of each

sheet while the five multiple-choice response figures are

located immediately below it. For each test figure, the

ordinal position of the correct response figure was randomly

varied in order to prevent false positive scores resulting

from perseveration. For each of the test items, the incor­

rect response figures included incomplete closures, rotations,

perseverations, and distortions of the original test figures.

All of the test and response figures were presented in black

print.

A visual-motor task or copy modification of the VDT was

also used in this study. This task involved the same 31 test

figures used in the VDT. For the copy task, the test figures

were presented individually on separate sheets of paper (2 1/4

X 3 3/4 inches). The subject was provided with answer sheets

upon which to draw his design reproductions. Each answer

sheet consisted of an 8 1/2 x 11 inch sheet of white, mimeo­

graphed paper which had been divided into eight boxes of

equal size.

Procedure

The children were tested at the Lubbock State School.

37

The atmosphere was quiet and relatively free of distracting

auditory or visual stimuli. Prior to beginning the individ­

ual administration of the two tasks involved in this study,

time was taken to establish rapport with each person. When

the administration of the tests began, each individual was

asked to perform the visual discrimination task first. This

task was followed by an approximately 90 second rest period

and the administration of the second task, i.e., the visual-

motor task or copy modification of the VDT.

After meeting the person in the lobby and escorting him

to the office, the examiner seated herself beside the indi­

vidual. Time was taken to insure that each person was re­

laxed and as comfortable as possible. The sheet containing the

sample test figure and the five multiple-choice response

figures was then placed in front of the individual. They

were instructed to look at the test figure at the top of the

page and then to look at the five multiple-choice response

figures at the bottom of the page. The person was then told

that one of the pictures at the bottom of the page was the

same or just like the picture at the top of the page. He

was asked to find the picture that was the same and to show

the examiner by pointing to it with his finger. If the per­

son's response was incorrect, the examiner pointed to the

correct response and explained that it was the same length,

same size, same shape, and that it went in the same direction

38

as the picture at the top of the page. Following the example,

the 3 0 test items were presented, one at a time.

On the VDT, each of the five multiple-choice response

figures for the sample item and for the 30 test items were

designated by the numbers 1 through 5, reading from left to

right. As the person performing the task made his response

choice, his choice (1, 2, 3, 4, or 5) was recorded on his

individual answer sheet by the examiner. If the person

pointed to one figure but then spontaneously changed his

mind and selected another response figure, this was indicated

on the answer sheet by enclosing his first, second, third, or

fourth choice in a circle and then writing his final response

choice, e.g., ( 5j, (3^, (2^, 4. In addition to recording the

person's response choice, his/her reaction time for each of

the 31 test items was also recorded. Following the presen­

tation of each test item, the instructions were reverbalized.

The reaction time was defined as the time between the com­

pletion of the instructions and the person's choice of a

response figure.

Following the completion of the visual discrimination

task and a short rest period, the visual-motor task or copy

variation of the VDT was administered. The person was handed

a pencil and informed that he would be drawing some pictures;

he was also given an answer sheet upon which to draw his

design reproductions. Each test figure was presented and the

39

person was instructed to draw or to make a picture that

looked just like, or was the same as, the one the examiner

had placed in front of him. The test items were presented

individually and in the same sequence as they were for the

visual discrimination task. Upon completion of a design,

the examiner recorded the person's reaction time. Reaction

time was defined as the time between the presentation of

the stimulus and the completion of the design reproduction

on each test item.

Each person who participated in this study received

two scores: one on the visual discrimination task and an­

other on the visual-motor or copy task. Item 1, the line,

was used as an example on both tasks and was not included in

the scoring. The scoring of the remaining 30 test items on

the visual discrimination task was completed on a pass/fail

basis by the examiner; on each test item there was only one

possible correct response choice, and the individual's score

on the visual discrimination test was the total number of

correct responses.

The scoring procedure for the visual-motor or copy task

was slightly different. Scoring criteria and examples of

pass/fail responses were established in order to evaluate

task performance. For the sample item and 15 of the other

test items. Beery and Buktenica's (1967) scoring criteria

for the Developmental Test of Visual Motor Integration were

40

used. These criteria were applicable to Items 1, 2, 3, 4,

6, 7, 8, 16, 18, 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31. For the

scoring of the remaining 15 test items, the examiner estab­

lished scoring criteria and examples of pass/fail responses

by emulating Beery's and Buktenica's (1967) approach (see

Appendix B). Once the scoring criteria and examples for

pass/fail responses were formulated, the drawing reproduc­

tions of all 60 subjects were presented to three college

students for scoring. Each scorer assigned a pass or fail

score to each of the 30 design reproductions made by each of

the 60 retardates involved in this study. Therefore, each

design reproduction was scored three times and the final

score on each item was determined by the agreement of two of

the three scorers. The individual's score on the copy task

was the total number of correct responses.

The data gathered through the administration and scor­

ing of the visual discrimination and visual-motor task

performance of the 60 subjects involved in this study were

analyzed through the use of the following statistical tech­

niques: analysis of variance, analysis of covariance,

product-moment correlation, and chi square.

Hypotheses

The following hypotheses were investigated:

H There will be a significant difference between the

41

total number of correct responses obtained by the educables

and trainables on the VDT.

H2 There will be a significant difference between the

total number of correct responses achieved by the educables

and trainables on the copy task.

H^ There will be a significant difference between the

mental retardates' performance (total number of correct

responses) on the VDT and their performance on the copy task,

CHAPTER III

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Results

In order to test the hypotheses stated in Chapter II,

the data were analyzed through analysis of variance (ANOVA)

(Kirk, 1968) , analysis of covariance (Kirk, 1968) , product-

moment correlation (Ferguson, 1966), and chi square (Siegel,

1956). The results will be discussed in terms of the spe­

cific hypothesis that was investigated.

Hypothesis 1 predicted a significant difference between

the total scores of educable and trainable retardates on the

VDT. The ANOVA results summarized in Table 1 indicate that

there is a significant difference between the total scores

of the two groups (F=24.59, df=l, 56, p<.001). No signifi­

cant difference between the total scores of the males and

females was found. Furthermore, there was no significant

interaction between levels of intelligence and sex (see

Table 1). The means and standard deviations are presented

in Table 2; it can be seen that the educables averaged 20.33

items correct while the trainables averaged only 14.06 items

correct. Thus, the educables achieved a significantly

higher level of accuracy than did the trainable retardates.

To further clarify the possible effects of certain

variables, an analysis of covariance was conducted. When IQ

4 2

43

TABLE 1

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE EXAMINING TOTAL ITEMS CORRECT ACROSS INTELLIGENCE AND SEX

Source SS df MS

Sex (A) .266 1 .266 .011

Intelligence (B) 589.06 1 589.06 24.59*

A X B 17.07 1 17.06 .713

Error 1341.19 56 23.95

Total 1947.59 59

*p < .0001.

44

TABLE 2

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF TOTAL SCORE ACROSS SEX AND INTELLIGENCE

Sex

Male

Female

Intelligence

Educable

X = 20.93

SD = 3.76

X = 19.73

SD = 4.26

Trainable

X = 13.60

SD = 5.97

X = 14.53

SD = 5.26

X = 20.33

SD = 4.00

X = 14.06

SD = 5. 55

X = 17.26

SD = 6.16

X = 17.13

SD = 5.39

45

was the covariate, the significant treatment effect which

appeared in the first (ANOVA) analysis disappeared implying

that, at least with this sample, intelligence may be an im­

portant variable effecting performance on the VDT (see

Table 3). As depicted in Table 4, when age was the covariate,

the significant levels of intelligence effect remained

(F=13.40, df=l, 59, p<.001). The correlation of total

scores, IQ, and age are shown in Table 5; all three correla­

tions were significant.

Several item analyses were also conducted on the VDT.

A chi square analysis was used to examine the frequency of

correct and incorrect responses by intelligence levels

(educables vs. trainables). Ten items were found to sig­

nificantly discriminate between the two groups; they were

Items 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 14, 22, 23, and 24. On each of

these items, the educables achieved a higher level of ac­

curacy than the trainable retardates (see Table 8, Appen­

dix E). Another item analysis utilizing a chi square,

revealed that only on Item 10 was there a significant dif­

ference in the frequency of correct and incorrect responses

when the performance of males and females was compared (see

Table 7, Appendix E). Further chi square analysis indicated

that there were no significant interactions between levels

of intelligence and sex on any of the VDT items (see Table 9,

Appendix E).

46

TABLE 3

ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE EXAMINING TOTAL ITEMS CORRECT ACROSS INTELLIGENCE AND SEX, WITH IQ COVARIED OUT

Source

Sex (A)

Intelligence

A X B

Error

Total

(B)

SS

2.56

8.98

12.94

1004.82

1947.59

df

1

1

1

55

59

MS

2.56

8.98

12.94

18.26

33.01

F

.156

.492

.708

TABLE 4

ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE EXAMINING TOTAL ITEMS CORRECT ACROSS INTELLIGENCE AND SEX, WITH AGE COVARIED OUT

Source SS df MS F

Sex (A) .003 1 .003 0.00

Intelligence (B) 326.79 1 326.79 13.40*

A X B 14.02 1 14.02 .575

Error 1341.16 55 24.38

Total 1947.59 59 33.0

*p < .001.

47

TABLE 5

CORRELATION OF TOTAL SCORE, IQ, AND AGE

Variable 2. 3.

1. Total score .686** .361*

2. IQ .643**

3. Age

*p < .002.

**p < .001

A separate item analysis by intelligence levels (educa­

bles vs. trainables) was also conducted to determine the

most frequently chosen incorrect responses. The results

are reported in Table 10 (see Appendix E); the correct

response for each item is denoted by an asterisk. The trend

across all items was for the trainable retardates to demon­

strate greater scatter and more randomness. On Items 26,

29, 30, and 31, the random scatter was relatively great

across both levels of intelligence.

A final item analysis on the VDT was conducted by a

completely randomized, factorial ANOVA design which examined

reaction time for levels of intelligence and sex. Signifi­

cant differences were reported on only 3 of the 31 test

items; these differences were found on Items 1, 20 and 30

(F=4.45, df=l, 56, p<.05; F=6.02, df=l, 56, p<.05; F=4.76,

48

df=l, 56, p<.05, respectively) and were all differences

between levels of intelligence. On Item 1, the mean reaction

time for educables was 2.31 seconds and for trainables was

4.61 seconds. While on Items 20 and 30, the mean reaction

times for the educables were 4.41 and 7.45, respectively,

and for the trainables were 2.91 and 3.95, respectively.

On these latter two items, the educable retardates displayed

a longer reaction time than the trainables. Although there

was not a significant difference in reaction times between

levels of intelligence on other test items, a trend toward

longer reaction times was evident among the educables.

Two additional hypotheses were examined. Hypothesis 2

predicted a significant difference between the total scores

of educable and trainable retardates on the copy task. A

split plot factorial (SPF-22.2) ANOVA was conducted. The

results recorded in Table 6 indicate there is a significant

difference in the performance of educables and trainables on

the copy task; the educable retardates achieved higher total

scores. The mean number of items correct and the standard

deviations on the copy task were as follows: X=16.53 and

SD=6.49 for the educables and X=8.56 and SD=7.08 for the

trainables. Furthermore, Hypothesis 3 predicted a signifi­

cant difference between the total scores obtained by the

retardates when their performances on the VDT and copy task

were compared. A split plot factorial (SPF-22.2) ANOVA

49

TABLE 6

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF TOTAL SCORES ACROSS SEX, INTELLIGENCE, AND TASK

Source SS df MS

Sex (A)

Levels (B)

A X B

S W Groups

Tasks (C)

A X C

B X C

A B C

C X S

25.20

1519.40

.20

3208.79

648.67

18.40

21.67

29.00

755.73

1

1

1

56

1

1

1

1

56

25.20

1519.40

.20

57.29

648.67

18.40

21.67

29.00

13.49

.44

26.51*

.004

48.06**

1.364

1.606

2.150

Total 6227.12 119 52.32

* *

P<. 00005

P<.000001

[TEXAS TECH L IBRARY

50

revealed that the educables, the trainables, and all mental

retardates obtained more correct responses on the VDT than

they did on the copy task. The mean number of items cor­

rect and the standard deviations were as follows: X=20.33

and SD=4.00 for the educables on the VDT and X=16.53 and

SD=6.49 on the copy task, X=14.06 and SD=5.55 for the train­

ables on the VDT and X=8.56 and SD=7.08 on the copy task,

and X=17.20 and SD=5.74 for all retardates on the VDT and

X=12.55 and SD=7.84 on the copy task.

Additional item analyses were conducted to investigate

the educable and trainable retardates' performance on the

copy task. A 2x2 chi square analysis (Bruning & Kintz,

1968) revealed that educable retardates achieved higher

levels of accuracy on Items 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14,

15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, and 26 than the trainables

(see Table 11, Appendix E). No significant differences in

the number of correct copy responses between males and

females were found for any test item (see Table 12, Appen­

dix E) . Furthermore, there were no significant interactions

between levels of intelligence and sex on any of the items

(see Table 13, Appendix E).

Discussion

The results of the present study supported the hypothe­

ses that were investigated. A significant difference was

found between the number of correct responses given by

51

educables and trainables on the VDT and on the copy task.

According to the results, both the VDT and the copy task

discriminated between levels of intelligence (educables vs.

trainables) in the mentally retarded. This finding offers

further substantiation for the conclusions of previous

studies (Baroff, 1957; Bensberg, 1952; Feldman, 1953;

Koppitz, 1964) which found a significant positive correlation

between visual-motor perception and level of intelligence

among the mentally retarded, regardless of their age. To

further clarify the significance of the effect of the vari­

able of intelligence on the retardates' performance, IQ and

age were covaried out on the VDT. When IQ was the covariate,

the significant treatment effect that had previously been

demonstrated disappeared. When age was the covariate, the

significant treatment effect remained. Together, these

analyses of covariance offered further support for the con­

clusion that intelligence is an important factor effecting

the retardates' performance on the VDT.

A significant difference was found between the levels

of accuracy achieved by the educables, trainables, and all

mental retardates when performance on the VDT and on the

copy task were compared. The results showed that, at least

for this sample, the visual discrimination task (VDT) was

significantly easier than the visual-motor (copy) task.

All retardates achieved significantly higher levels of

52

accuracy on the VDT, which is a simple perceptual task, than

they did on the copy task, which requires integration and

execution skills in addition to visual-perceptual skills.

As demonstrated by earlier investigators (Friedrich & Fuller,

1973, 1974; Friedrich, Fuller, & Hawkins, 1969), the present

study also offered support for the conclusion that mentally

retarded individuals seem to have more difficulty in the

areas of integration and execution rather than in visual

perception. The results also seemed to offer further sub­

stantiation for previous investigators' conclusions that

visual-motor performance is not a unitary function, i.e.,

that visual perception or discrimination and visual-motor

reproduction are developmentally distinct skills. These

results also demonstrated that the traditional diagnostic

conclusion that poor performance on a visual-motor task,

e.g., the BG, automatically implies a visual-perceptual

limitation might prove to be invalid and might result in

inappropriate educational programming for an individual.

Item analyses demonstrated that 9 VDT items, i.e..

Items 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 14, 22, and 24, discriminated be­

tween educable and trainable retardates. The educables

achieved significantly higher levels of accuracy on these

items than the trainables. An analysis was also conducted

to determine the most frequently chosen incorrect response

on each VDT item. The trend across all items was that the

53

trainables demonstrated greater scatter and more randomness

than the educables. However, there were some items, i.e..

Items 26, 29, 30, and 31, upon which the random scatter was

relatively great across both intellectual groups. If this

trend is present in other populations, perhaps these items

are too difficult and need to be modified. If the trend is

only representative of mental retardates' performance, it

may be useful to retain these items as discriminators. An

item analysis was also conducted on the copy task to deter­

mine which items discriminated between educables and train­

ables; it was discovered that the educables obtained higher

levels of accuracy on Items 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14,

15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, and 26.

An analysis of reaction times on the VDT revealed sig­

nificant differences between the performance of educables

and trainables on only 3 items (Items 1, 20, and 30) . On

the latter two items, the educables had longer reaction

times. Although there was not a significant difference in

reaction times between intellectual levels on any other

items, a trend toward the educables having longer reaction

times was evident on the majority of the remaining test

items. When these data are evaluated in conjunction with

the results reported in Table 8, which presents response

accuracy by intelligence levels, it seems that the educables

obtained more correct responses, but had longer reaction

54

times than the trainables. In general, the trainables ap­

peared to respond more quickly and to make more errors than

the educable retardates.

Finally, the analysis of the data indicated that there

were no significant differences between males and females in

terms of accuracy levels or reaction times on the VDT. There

were also no significant interactions between levels of sex,

levels of intelligence, or levels of task on the VDT or copy

task.

The results of the present study suggest at least

one possible area for additional research. In terms of the

future development of the VDT, it might be useful to repli­

cate this study which indicates that the VDT is able to

discriminate between levels of intelligence among mental

retardates. Following such a replication, it might be con­

structive to determine whether the VDT can also discriminate

between levels of intelligence within the normal intellectual

range. Efforts could then be made to develop norms in terms

of average numbers of correct responses for various levels

of intelligence. The VDT appears to have some potential as

a nonverbal intelligence test that can be administered in a

brief period of time for screening purposes.

CHAPTER IV

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

In recent research, some of the basic assumptions and

uses of the BG and other similar visual-motor tasks have

been seriously questioned. A significant body of current

research (Cundick & Robinson, 1972; Cutler et al. , 1973;

Daniels & Ray, 1975; Fidel & Ray, 1972; Friedrich & Fuller,

1973, 1974; Friedrich, Fuller, & Hawkins, 1969; Morrison &

Kahn, 1970; Newcomer & Hammill, 1973) does not support the

basic premise that the quality of the drawing performance

in the reproduction of geometric designs is directly related

to the accuracy of the visual perception nor the traditional

conclusion that poor performance on visual-motor tasks im­

plies a visual-perceptual dysfunction. Several of these

investigators (Fidel & Ray, 1972; Friedrich & Fuller, 1973,

1974; Friedrich, Fuller, & Hawkins, 1969; Morrison & Kahn,

1970) have indicated that there appear to be several behav­

ioral steps or variables, e.g., misperception, integration

dysfunctions, execution difficulties, or any combination of

these factors, involved in visual-motor dysfunctions. Some

researchers (Cutler et al., 1973; Daniels & Ray, 1975; Fidel

& Ray, 1972; Friedrich & Fuller, 1974; Newcomer & Hammill,

1973) have concluded that visual perception or discrimination

and visual-motor reproduction are developmentally distinct

55

56

skills; they have stressed the need to separate the visual

task from the motor rask when testing in order to obtain a

more accurate assessment of the person's visual-perceptual

and motor reproduction skills. In response to this need,

Ray (1974) designed the VDT, a multiple-choice modification

of the BG. Since the majority of the research on the VDT

has involved populations within the normal range of intelli­

gence, the present study was conducted to expand the avail­

able research data to include populations at the lower end

of the intellectual range.

This research study was conducted to determine whether

the VDT and a copy task variation of this instrument are

able to discriminate between levels of intelligence, to

explore differences between the visual and visual-motor

performance among mental retardates, and to ascertain the

effect of such variables as sex, age, and reaction time on

the performance of these tasks. Sixty residents from the

Lubbock State School, who were selected on the basis of IQ,

age, and the lack of any interfering visual or physical

handicap, participated in the study; they were divided into

two groups of educable (IQ 50 to 75) and trainable (IQ 25

to 50) retardates,each of which included 15 males and 15

females. Each person was individually administered the

VDT and a copy modification. Both tasks were scored on a

pass/fail basis and the resulting data were analyzed through

57

ANOVA, analysis of covariance, product-moment correlation,

and chi square.

The results demonstrated that both the VDT and its

copy task variation significantly discriminated between

educable and trainable retardates; the educables obtained

more correct responses on both tasks. The educables,

trainables, and mental retardates as a group achieved higher

levels of accuracy on the VDT than they did on the copy task,

i.e., the visual discrimination task was significantly easier

than the visual-motor task. In summary, the results of the

present study seem to support several previous research

findings, e.g., that visual-motor functioning is positively

correlated with intelligence among the mentally retarded,

that visual perception and visual-motor reproduction are

developmentally distinct skills, that the traditional

diagnostic conclusion that poor performance on a visual-

motor task implies poor visual perception may be invalid,

and that retardates seem to have more difficulty with visual-

motor tasks which require integration and execution skills

than they do with simple visual or perceptual tasks.

The results of this study suggest several areas for

further research, e.g., to replicate the present study which

indicated that both the VDT and the copy task are able to

discriminate between levels of intelligence among the

mentally retarded, to determine whether the VDT and the

58

copy task can also discriminate between levels of intelli­

gence within the normal intellectual range, and to investi­

gate the particular types of errors most frequently made by

specific samples.

REFERENCES

Aaronson, B. S., Nelson, S., & Halt, S. On a relation be­tween Bender Gestalt recall and Shipley-Hartford scores. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1953, 9, 88.

Adams, J. R. An application of the Canter Background Interference Procedure to the prediction of brain-damage in mentally retarded children. Dissertation Abstracts, 1968, 2^(68), 2197-2198.

Baroff, G. Bender Gestalt visuo-motor function in mental defectives. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1957, 6]^, 753-760.

Beck, H. S. A comparison of convulsive, non-convulsive organic and non-organic public school children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1959, 6^, 866.

Beery, K. D., & Buktenica, N. A. Developmental test of visual motor integration. Chicago: Folott, 1967.

Bender, L. A visual motor gestalt test and its clinical use. American Orthopsychiatric Association Research Monograph, No. 3. New York: American Orthopsychi­atric Association, 1938.

Bender, L. Instructions for use of the visual motor gestalt test. New York: American Orthopsychiatric Association, 1946.

Bensberg, F. J. Performance of brain injured and familial mental defectives on the Bender Gestalt Test. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1952, _16 , 61-64.

Billingslea, F. Y. The Bender Gestalt: A review and a perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 1963, 6^, 233-251

Bruning, J. L., & Kinz, B. L. Computational handbook of statistics. Illinois: Scott, Foresman & Co., 1968.

Canter, A. A background interference procedure to increase sensitivity to the Bender Gestalt Test to organic dis­order. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1966, 30, 91-97.

59

60

Canter, A. Bender Gestalt Test for the detection of organic brain disorder. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1968, 3_2, 522-526. '. " ^

Cundick, B. P., & Robinson, L. R. Performance of medically diagnosed brain damaged children and control subjects. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1972, 21/ 307-310.

Cutler, D. M. , Cicirelli, V. G., & Hirshoren, A. Comparison of discrimination and reproduction tests of children's perception. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1973, 37, 163-166. ~ —

Daniels, H. C. The use of the Visual Discrimination Test in the identification of language/learning disability children. Paper presented at Southwestern Psychological Association, Houston, Texas, 1975.

Daniels, L. C., & Ray, J. B. Use of the Visual Discrimina­tion Test in separating visual discrimination ability in normal children. Paper presented at Southwestern Psychological Association, Houston, Texas, 1975.

De Santo, R. J. The use of the Bender Gestalt for evaluat­ing organicity in adult mental retardates. Master's Thesis presented to the Psychology Department at Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, 1974.

Feldman, I. S. Psychological differences among moron and borderline mental defectives as a function of etiology: I. Visual-Motor functioning. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1953, _57/ 484-494.

Ferguson, G. A. Statistical analysis in psychology and education. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966.

Fidel, E. A., & Ray, J. B. The validity of the Revised Objective Perceptual Test in differentiating among non­organic, minimally organic and grossly organic children. Journal of Special Education, 1972, 6^(3), 279-284.

Friedrich, D., & Fuller, G. B. Visual-motor performance: Additional delineation of the "perceptual deficit" hypothesis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1974, 30 (1) , 30-33.

Friedrich, D., & Fuller, G. B. Visual-motor performance: Delineation of the "perceptual deficit" hypothesis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1973, 29 , 207-209.

61

Friedrich, D., Fuller, G. B., & Hawkins, W. F. Relationship between perception (input) and execution (output). Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1969, 2_9, 923-934.

Garrison, M. A comparison of psychological measures in mentally retarded boys over a three year period as a function of etiology. Train. Sch. Bull., 1958, 55 54-57.

Halpin, V. G. Rotation errors made by brain-injured and familial children on two visual motor tests. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1955, _5£, 485-489.

Haworth, M. R. The Primary Visual Motor Test. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1970.

Hewyer, G., & Angoulvent, W. Le test de Lauretto Bender. Enfranee, 1949, 2 , 89-305.

Keller, J. The use of a Bender Gestalt maturation level scoring system with mentally handicapped children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1955, 2_5/ 263.

Kirk, R. E. Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences. California: Brooks-Cole Co., 1968.

Koppitz, E. M. Relationships between the Bender Gestalt Test and the Wechsler Intelligence test for children. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1958, 14 , 413-416.

Koppitz, E. M. The Bender Gestalt Test for young children. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1964.

McPherson, M. W., & Pepin, L. A. Consistency of reproduc­tions of the Bender Gestalt designs. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1955, U^, 163-166.

Melowsky, F. The use of the Visual Discrimination Test in the identification of reading disability children. Paper presented at Southwestern Pcychological Associ­ation, Houston, Texas, 1975.

Morrison, M. J., & Kahn, H. A comparison of visual and motor modalities in Bender Gestalt performance. American Corrective Therapy Journal, 1970, 2_4(1) , 3-5.

Newcomer, P., & Hammill, D. Visual perception of motor impaired children: Implications for assessment. Exceptional Children, 1973, 3_9(4) / 335-337.

62

Niebuhr, H., & Cohen, D. The effect of psychopathology on visual discrimination. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956, 52/ 173-177.

Pacella, M. The performance of brain-damaged mental retar­dates on successive trials of the Bender Gestalt. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1965, 69, 723-TW. ~ —

Pascal, G. R., & Suttell, B. J. The Bender Gestalt Test. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1951.

Peek, R. M., & Olsen, G. W. The Bender recall index of intellectual functioning. Journal of Clinical Psy­chology, 1955, IJL, 185-188.

Peek, R. M., & Storms, L. H. Judging intellectual status from the Bender Gestalt Test. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1958, L4, 296-299.

Ray, J. B. The Visual Discrimination Test. A test devel­oped at the Psychology Department of Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, 1974. (Unpublished)

Siegel, S. Non-parametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1956.

Song, A. Y., & Song, R. H. The Bender Gestalt Test with Background Interference Procedure on the mentally retarded. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1969, 25(1), 69-71.

Sundberg, N. D. The practice of psychological testing in clinical services in the United States. American Psychologist, 1961, 16 , 79-83.

Wertheimer, M. Studies in the theory of Gestalt psychology. Psychol. Forsch., 1923, £, 301-350.

Wolfsohn, T. Liv'ayat hashimush b'm'ivhanim bilti miluliyim (Using non-verbal tests in measuring intelligence of elementary school pupils.) M'gamot, 1951-52, 2/ 48-157

APPENDIX

A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

The Visual Discrimination Test

Scoring Criteria for the Copy Task

Raw Scores on the Visual Discrimination Test

Raw Scores on the Copy Task

Tables on Item Analyses

63

APPENDIX A: THE VISUAL DISCRIMINATION TEST

(I*- > ir

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

•''"•••i

q

b

74

u.

1

) d

D

a

b

75

••• ,

• « • • • • • *

"•. .."

76

<] n

y

<]

H

^

A

77

78

<^

V

79

<

80

81

O o o o o o

y

D n n D

n

D

nnnnnn

D n D

D D

D

r

82

\-'

^^

^ '

83

wmmmim

84

4

85

86

87

o o o

o

o

o o

o

o o

o

o o

O O o O O O Q O

I n

**-

88

f

o

^

o o c

o

89

90

ZX

•^rmirmmtmmm

91

92

93

/yy

< ^ ^ >

:A

'X\__ \ %

s

94

APPENDIX B: SCORING CRITERIA FOR THE COPY TASK

Figure 1:*

Predominately vertical lines

96

Passing Failing

Figure 2:*

Predominately circular lines

Passing Failing

97

Figure 3:*

(a) Two fully intersecting lines

(b) Two continuous lines

(c) At least 1/2 of each line within 20° of its correct orientation

not: |— J . >fN

-y ;tr y yy

not

not:

Passing

/

- ^

Failing

Figure 4:*

(a) A fairly straight line

(b) At least 1/2 of the line between 110° and 160° (read protractor in clockwise direction

(c) No abrupt change of direction

not

not /

not

Passing Failing

98

Figure 5: l=D Four clearly defined sides (corners need not be angular)

not = ( o Passing Failing

Figure 6: A

Passing

: ^ (a) Three clearly defined sides not

(b) One corner higher than others not: T ^

Failing

99

Figure 7:* 4D (a) No more than slight

separation of forms

(b) No major distortions of circle or open square

(c) Circle and two-cornered square of fairly equal size

(d) Bisector of circle passing through corner of square must project into the square

no

no

not:

not

' •^ y

'•\y Passing Failing

o /

t) Figure 8:*

(a) Three continuous inter­secting lines

(b) Intersection fairly accurate

(c) One horizontal and two diagonals

not: \ /

/^ A

not

Passing Failing

100

Figure 9: <:0 (a) No more than slight not:

separation of forms

(b) No major distortions of circle not: or two-sided triangle

(c) Circle and two-sided triangle not of fairly equal size

CD

= O . ^ (d) Point of triangle within 60°

of correct orientation not . ? Passing

V ) = ^ ^ Failing

Figure 10:

(a) Two fully intersecting lines not: ( _/ -^^

(b) Two continuous lines

(c) At least 1/2 of each line within 20° of its correct orientation

(d) Square on upper portion of right 1/2 of horizontal line

(e) Semi-circle on lower portion of left 1/2 of horizontal line

not: / ->«-f— r -/

not: ^ X X

not: c,-|-Q oj—a

not: 1-^ Passing

v ^ ^ yjJf ^sr-

Failing

d-)-^ ^^

101

Figure 11:

(a) Dots

(b) Inverted U-shaped

(c) Protruding row of dots be­tween 30° and 75° on upper right side of figure

(d) Fairly regular spacing

not: «

not: ; : • • • *

not: '••. ...

rr rj

not:

Passing

» »

* •

M •

9

m • • •

•

/ 0 *

•

!

Failing

^6 tf o t^

0 ^ 6 6

J" ^ /O 0 * / ^

/ ^ " - ' ^ y ,"

^ Figure 12:

(a) Three clearly defined sides not . ^ ^

(b) One corner higher than others not:

(c) Square-like protrusion on side opposite highest corner

not

^

• ^ X Passing Failing

102

Figure 13

(a) Two semi-circles

(b) No more than slight separation from sides

(c) One semi-circle on left half of top line

(d) One semi-circle on upper half of right side

Passing

^

I J

not: Q Q not:

not

not: • a Failing

Figure 14:

(a) Predominately horizontal lines

(b) Absence of reversed or "floating" tip

(c) Sharp point on tip

(d) Tip on right end of line

not

not: ,>

not: ^

• >

Passing Failing

<r ri

103

Figure 15: A D O n

(a) Four clearly defined sides

(b) Triangle-like form for roof

(c) Presence of 2 windows and 1 door

(d) Absence of additional features

not:

not:

not:

not:

a Passing Failing

A

Figure 16:*

(a) Absence of reversed or "floating tips"

(b) Sharp points on tips

(c) No indication of directional confusion

(d) Fairly equal length of "legs"

no

not: J|_,

not • • ^ -

not: t-^ Passing

t ^ ^

Failing

t <- - >

J

104

D a. D

Figure 17: o a (a) Six Squares

a

(b) Four clearly defined sides on each square

(c) Squares arranged in a diag­onal line from left to right

(d) Slight separation between squares

V n o t : < : ^ n o t :

n o t : -O

n o t : X

D

D a

Passing

D Z3

U P. Dp Q

0 D °n D

D Q

a. 0 il

Figure 18:* (}

(a) Four good corners

(b) Opposing corners (especially horizontal)

Failing

04 0 O Q

D.

not: r^

not: -<^

(c) Only slight "dog ears" allowed not: -^ / V

(d) No kite shapes

(d) Both acute angles must be 60° or less

not: A

Passing Failing

105

Figure 19 y (a) No more than slight not

separation of forms

(b) No major distortions of two- not cornered square or other design

(c) Both forms of fairly equal size not

U . - / -

(d) Design on lower, right corner of two-cornered square

not:

^

o

Passing

y Figure 20:

Failing

(a) Four cornered square and two circles

(b) One circle touching upper, left corner of square; other circle touching lower, right corner of square

(c) Three forms in a diagonal line from left to right

(d) Forms of fairly equal size

y o 9-,

not: ^ ^ ^

not

not

y Passing Failing

o a c)

0 o

106

Figure 21:* oo (a) Four-cornered square and

a circle

(b) Opposite corners within 10° of vertical and horizontal orientation

(c) Square touches circle with closed corner

(d) Little or no gap or overlap of forms

(e) Contact of corner within middle 1/3 of circle

(f) Relatively equal size of circle and square

n o t : Cy^ cyi ts:>

n o t : o 0 ^ n o t :

no

Pass ing F a i l i n g

107

Figure 22:

(a) Two continuous, inter- not: secting lines

(b) Lines angled between 20° not: -70° and 110°-160°

/ \

(c) Fairly equal length of "leg" no

(d) One-cornered form on the not: inside of each "leg" at the top and bottom of X

t=^ t

Passing Failing

^

Figure 23: ^ c

(a) Eight Circles

o

o^a

(b) Circular arrangement of circles

(c) Unshaded circles

Passing

Oo

o

c> o 0 6

6

O O

not:

not:

not:

Failing

•

0

*

•

g O Q . . O Ooo-

108

Figure 24:

(a) Dots

(b) Dots placed in triangular arrangement

(c) Two relatively straight sides not:

0 e 6 • 0

not: t.<^6

not:

A

(CI)

•

•

«

Horizontal baseline

Passing

• •

* • •

/. ' -> • I

1 \

*. •' ' ' • .*

Failing

o

6^ 0 y—\ a ^

^ O ^ ^

Figure 25: n r r r T T T l

(a) Formed with two continu­ous lengthwise lines

(b) Eight to ten vertical lines

(c) Space between vertical lines increases from left to right

(d) Horizontal baseline

(e) Upper lengthwise line is not parallel to baseline; space between horizontal line increases from left to right

not

not

not

iEircx7

Passing

mUlJ rrrrrrD rnTTQ

Failing

109

F i g u r e 26 :*

(a) Two triangles

(b) Two corners of inner triangle clearly touch near medians of outer triangle and 3rd corner must be closed

(c) Left outer angle approxi­mately 90°

(d) Right outer side slopes 100° or more

not

not

Passing

^

Figure 27: . *

Failing

(a) All sides indicated (one of the most obtuse angles may be rounded)

(b) No evidence of directional confusion

(c) Overlap clearly shown, but not extreme

not

not:

not:

Passing

A

0

Failing

110

Figure 28:*

(a) Correct number of parts

(b) Correct orientation

(c) No evidence of confusion

Passing

Figure 29:*

(a) Outer form a parallelogram (may be square)

(b) Inner form a horizontal rectangle

(c) Inner form clearly shifted right and down

(d) No confusion or distortion

not

not

not

^ ^ ^

Failing

r N = ^

not : ^ ^ ^

not:

not

not:

^ ^

Mrr^

Passing Failing

Ill

Figure 30*

(a) Correct intersection of double-line forms

(b) One over and one underlap-ping of the same triangle (without guidelines)

(c) No 30° rotations

(d) No extreme distortion

Passing

Figure 31:*

(a) Three complete, double-line circles

(b) Overlapping correctly

(c) At least one clean 3-D overlap 4)T)

not:

not

not:

not:

Failing

not

not:

not:

% , ( ^

Passing Failing

112 *rpl The above scoring criteria for Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7,

»/ 16, 18, 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 are taken from Beery s Scoring criteria for the Developmental Test of Visual Integration (VMI); the scoring criteria for Items 5, 9, 10, li, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, and 25 were developed by the author following Beery's style (Beery & Buktenica, 1967) . jr jr v j

APPENDIX C: RAW SCORES ON THE

VISUAL DISCRIMINATION TEST

114

TRAINABLES

Females Males

Subject Raw Subject Raw Number Score Number Score

EDUCABLES

Females Males

Subject Raw Subject Raw Number Score Number Score

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

17

15

19

25

21

7

11

5

15

19

16

13

11

12

12

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

18

10

9

11

19

7

20

20

12

17

18

4

6

10

23

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

24

25

13

23

17

14

13

22

21

24

24

18

23

17

18

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

14

25

24

25

22

21

25

23

18

24

16

23

15

19

20

APPENDIX D: RAW SCORES ON THE COPY TASK

116

Females

TRAINABLES

Males

Subject Rater Scores Raw Number Rl R2 R3 Score

10 9

Subject Rater Scores Raw Number Rl R2 R3 Score

16 15 15 16 15

10 11 10 17

8 18

15 15 15 15 19

21 16 18 19 20

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

1

2

2

19

9

7

3

3

1

3

0

1

3

18

8

8

3

0

1

3

1

1

2

22

9

8

3

3

1

2

1

1

2

19

9

7

3

3

1

3

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

20 23 22

20 20 20

17 17 17

18 18 18

22

20

17 21 20

18

18

2

2

4

20

117

31

32

Females

23 24 23

26 24 25

EDUCABLES

Subject Rater Scores Raw Number Rl R2 R3 Score

23

26

Males

Subject Rater Scores Raw Number Rl R2 R3 Score

46

47

10 10

24 22 19 23

33 48 8

34 8 8 49 22 22 22 22

35 27 27 27 27 50 18 20 20 19

36 12 15 11 12 51 23 24 23 24

37 13 13 10 13 52 10 10 8 8

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

14

21

23

25

15

17

8

9

13

21

23

24

17

18

9

8

14

20

21

23

14

19

6

7

13

20

23

23

16

18

8

7

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

23 23 21

13 15 14

22 21 23

16 16 15

13 13 12

14

19

18

13 12

18 19

18 18

23

13

23

16

14

13

20

19

APPENDIX E: TABLES ON ITEM ANALYSES

119

TABLE 7 2

X COMPARISON OF RESPONSE ACCURACY BY SEX FOR EACH ITEM

ITEM Male Female

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

25 5

23 7

20 10

24 6

9 21

26 4

13 17

20 10

22 8

23 7

19 11

15 15

20 10

83.3 16.7

76.7 23.3

66.6 33.3

80 20.0

30 70

86.7 13.3

43.3 56.7

66.7 33.3

73.3 26.7

76.7 23.3

63.3 36.7

50.0 50.0

66.7 33.3

24 6

23 7

18 12

26 4

12 18

24 6

15 15

20 10

23 7

14 16

23 7

17 13

19 11

80.0 20.0

76.7 23.3

60.0 40.0

86.7 13.3

40.0 60.0

80.0 20.0

50.0 50.0

66.7 23.3

76.7 23.3

46.7 53.3

76.7 23.3

56.7 43.3

63.3 36.7

0 . 0

0 . 0 9

0 .07

0 . 1 2

0 . 2 9

0 . 1 2

0 . 0 6

0 .07

0 . 0

4.51*

0.71

0 .06

0 . 0

120

TABLE 7 — C o n t i n u e d

ITEM

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Male

f

25 5

12 18

13 17

25 5

25 5

13 17

. 17 13

12 18

17 13

21 9

14 16

19 11

12 18

21 9

%

83.3 16.7

40.0 60.0

43.3 56.7

83.3 16.7

83.3 16.7

43.3 56.7

56.7 43.3

40.0 60.0

56.7 43.3

70.0 30.0

46.7 53.3

63.3 36.7

40.0 60.0

70.0 30.0

Femali

f

27 3

18 12

11 19

25 5

27 3

10 20

17 13

14 16

14 16

23 7

10

20

19

11

8

22

22

8

e

%

90.0 10.0

60.0 40.0

36.7 63.3

83.3 16.7

90.0

10.0

33.3

66.7

56.7

43.3

46.7

53.3

46.7

53.3

76.7

23.3

33.3

66.7

63.3

36.7

26.7

73.3

73.3

26.7

2 X

0.144

1.66

0.069

0.120

0.144

0.28

0.06

0.06

0.26

0.08

0.625

0.071

0.675

0.0

TABLE 7—Continued

121

ITEM Male Female

X

28.

29.

30.

31.

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

*P<.05.

22 8

10 20

2 28

5 25

73.3 26.7

33.3 66.7

6.7 93.3

16.7 83.3

20 10

9 21

3 27

4 26

66.7 33.3

30.0 70.0

10.0 90.0

13.3 86.7

0 . 0 7 9

0 . 0

0 . 0

0 . 0

122

TABLE 8 2

X COMPARISON OF RESPONSE ACCURACY BY LEVEL FOR EACH ITEM

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

Item

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Educable

f

27 3

30 0

23 7

29 1

15 15

29 1

18 12

24 6

25 5

23 7

22 8

14 16

23 7

%

90.0 10.00

100 0.0

76.0 23.0

96.7 3.3

50.0 50.0

96.7 3.3

60.0 40.0

80.0 20.0

83.3 16.7

76.7 23.3

73.3 26.7

46.7 53.3

76.7 23.3

Trainable

f

22 8

16 14

15 15

21 9

6 24

21 9

10 20

16 14

20 10

14 16

20 10

18 12

16 14

%

73.3 26.7

53.3 47.6

50.0 50.0

70.0 30.0

20.0 80.0

70.0 30.0

33.3 66.0

53.3 46.7

66.7 33.3

46.7 53.3

66.7 33.3

60.0 40.0

53.3 46.7

x2

1.78

15.74***

3.51

5.88**

4.68*

5.88**

3.28

3.67*

1.42

4.51*

0.079

0.60

2.63

123

TABLE 8—Continued

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

Item

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Educable

f

30 0

17 13

15 15

28 2

29 1

15 15

21 9

17 13

20 10

27 3

17 13

22 8

12 18

21 9

%

100 0

56.7 43.3

50 50

93.3 6.7

96.7 3.3

50 50

70 30

56.7 43.3

66.7 33.3

90 10

56.7 43.3

73.3 26.7

40 60

70 30

Trainable

f

22 8

13 17

9 21

22 8

23 7

8 22

13 17

9 21

11 19

17 13

7 23

16 14

8 22

22 8

%

73.3 26.7

43.3 56.7

30.0 70.0

73.3 26.7

76.7 23.3

26.7 73.3

43.3 56.7

30.0 70.0

36.7 63.3

56.7 43.3

23.3 76.7

53.3 46.7

26.7 73.3

73.3 26.7

x'

7.06**

.60

1.73

3.00

3.60

2.53

3.32

3.32

4.27*

6.90**

5.62*

1.79

0.675

0.0

124

TABLE 8—Continued

28.

29.

30.

31.

Item

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Correct Incorrect

Educ

f

24 6

12 18

3 27

5 25

:able

%

80 20

40 60

10 90

16.7 83.3

Trainable

f

18 12

7 23

2 28

4 26

Q,

•5

60.0 40.0

23.3 76.7

6.7 93.3

13.3 86.7

x^

1.98

1.23

0.0

0.0

*p < .05.

**p < .01.

***p < .001

125

TABLE 9

COMPARISON OF RESPONSE ACCURACY BY SEX AND INTELLIGENCE FOR EACH ITEM

ITEM

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Male Female

Male Female

Male Female

Male • Female

Male Female

Male Female

Male Female

Male Female

Male Female

Male Female

Male Female

Male Female

Male Female

Male Female

Eciucable

f

14 13

15 15

13 10

15 14

7 8

15 14

7 11

13 11

13 12

13 10

10 12

7 7

13 10

15 15

%

.933

.866

1.00 1.00

.866

.666

1.00 .933

.466

.533

1.00 .933

.466

.733

.866

.733

.866

.800

.866

.666

.666

.800

.466

.466

.866

.666

1.00 1.00

Trainable

f

11 11

8 8

7 8

9 12

2 4

11 10

6 14

7 9

9 11

10 4

9 11

8 10

7 9

10 12

%

.733

.733

.533

.533

.466

.533

.600

.800

.133

.266

.733

.666

.400

.933

.466

.600

.600

.733

.666

.266

.600

.733

.533

.666

.466

.600

.666

.800

2 X

.025

.095

,068

.110

.004

.058

.459

.104

.277

.310

.078

.001

.210

.001

126

TABLE 9—Continued

Educable Trainable ITEM X

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

Male Female

Male Female

Male Female

Male Female

Male Female

Male Female

Male Female

Male Female

Male Female

Male Female

Male Female

Male Female

Male Female

Male Female

7 10

9 6

14 14

14 15

8 7

10 11

7 10

12 8

12 15

10 7

12 10

6 6

10 11

14 10

.466

.666

.600

.400

.933

.933

.933 1.00

.533

.466

.666

.733

.466

.666

.800

.533

.800 1.00

.666

.466

.800

.666

.400

.400

.666

.733

.933

.666

5 8

4 5

11 11

11 12

5 3

7 6

5 4

5 6

9 8

4 3

7 9

6 2

11 11

8 10

,333 ,533

,266 333

,733 733

733 800

,333 ,200

,466 ,400

,333 ,266

,333 ,400

,600 ,533

.266

.200

.466

.600

.400

.133

.733

.733

.533

.666

.050

.100

.081

.061

0003

0.0

.081

.161

.057

.144

107

.259

.022

.336

TABLE 9—Continued

127

ITEM

29.

30.

31.

Male Female

Male Female

Male Female

Educable

f

8 4

2 1

3 2

%

.533

.266

.133

.066

.200

.133

Trainable

f

2 5

0 2

2 2

%

.133

.333

0.0 .133

.133

.133

2 X

.129

.300

.642

128

TABLE 10

DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSE BY INTELLIGENCE

ITE]

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

M

Educable Trainable

Educable Trainable

Educable Trainable

Educable Trainable

Educable Trainable

Educable Trainable

Educable Trainable

Educable Trainable

Educable Trainable

Educable Trainable

Educable Trainable

Educable Trainable

Educable Trainable

Educable Trainable

1

0 2

0 6

23* 15

0 2

0 2

0 3

18* 9

0 1

1 2

23* 14

0 4

0 3

2 2

0 1

2

2 2

0 4

0 3

1 4

0 2

0 2

5 3

2 3

2 0

1 2

5 3

14 18

0 2

0 2

RESPONSE CHOICE

3

1 2

30* 16

7 8

0 3

0 3

0 1

0 7

2 5

0 6

2 9

22* 20

16* 8

0 3

0 5

4

27* 22

0 4

0 3

29* 21

15 17

1 3

0 3

2 5

25* 20

3 4

3 3

0

1

23*

16

30*

22

5

0 2

0 0

0 1

0 0

15* 6

29* 21

7 8

24* 16

2 2

1

1

0

0

0

0

5

7

0

0

If sw

129

TABLE 10—Continued

ITEM

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

Educable Trainable

Educable Trainable

Educable Trainable

Educable Trainable

Educable Trainable

Educable Trainable

Educable Trainable

Educable Trainable

Educable Trainable

Educable Trainable

Educable Trainable

Educable Trainable

Educable Trainable

Educable Trainable

1

0 2

0 2

2 4

0 3

3 2

1 3

17* 9

1 2

0 5

17* 7

3 3

3 4

2 3

1 1

2

17* 13

15* 9

0 1

0 2

3 8

21* 13

0 2

7

6

27*

17

0 3

3 5

9 3

1 1

3 6

RESPONSE CHOICE

3

12 12

0 4

28* 22

29* 23

1 6

0 6

4 10

1

9

0

4

11 15

2 3

4 9

21* 21

24* 18

4

0 2

15 14

0 3

1 2

8 6

6

6

5

8

1

2

2 2

2 5

22* 16

2 6

6 1

2 5

.

5

1 1

0 1

0

0

0

0

15*

8

2

2

4

1

20* 11

1 2

0 0

0 3

12* 8

0 4

0 0

130

TABLE 10—Continued

ITEM

29.

30.

31.

Educable Trainable

Educable Trainable

Educable Trainable

1

12* 7

4 5

5* 4

2

11 6

6 6

5 6

RESPONSE

3

5 13

6 12

16 16

CHOICE

4

0 1

11 5

2 4

5

2 3

3* 2

2 0

Correct Response.

TABLE 11 2

X COMPARISON OF RESPONSE ACCURACY BY LEVEL FOR EACH ITEM OF COPY TASK

131

Item

Edi

f

28 2

30 0

30 0

30 0

30 0

29 1

20 10

17 13

13 17

23 7

7 23

22 8

20 12

icable

%

93 6.7

100 0

100 0

100 0

100 0

97 46

66.7 33

57 33

43 56

77 33

23 76

73 26

66 40

Tra

f

26 4

30 0

23 7

17 13

19 11

14 16

10 20

10 20

10 20

10 20

1 29

10 20

10 18

inable

Q.

87 13.3

100 0

77 23

57 43

63 37

3 54

33 66

33 67

33 66

33 66

3.3 96

33 66

33 60

X

1. Correct Incorrect

2. Correct Incorrect

3. Correct Incorrect

4. Correct Incorrect

5. Correct Incorrect

6. Correct Incorrect

7. Correct Incorrect

8. Correct Incorrect

9. Correct Incorrect

10. Correct Incorrect

11. Correct Incorrect

12. Correct Incorrect

13. Correct Incorrect

.18

N/A

5.8***

14.14****

11.13***

16.08****

5.4**

2.42*

.28

9.69***

3.60

8.10***

3.28

TABLE 11—Continued

132

Item

Educable

f

22 8

24 6

20 10

15 15

17 13

13 17

18 12

12 18

11 19

7 23

8 22

6 24

10 20

6 24

Q. "O

73 26

80 20

67 33

50 50

56.7 43.3

43 56

60 40

40 60

37 63

23 77

27 73

20 80

33 66

20 80

Trainable

X

14. Correct Incorrect

15. Correct Incorrect

16. Correct Incorrect

17. Correct Incorrect

18. Correct Incorrect

19. Correct Incorrect

20. Correct Incorrect

21. Correct Incorrect

22. Correct Incorrect

23. Correct Incorrect

24. Correct Incorrect

25. Correct Incorrect

26. Correct Incorrect

27. Correct Incorrect

11 19

9 21

5 25

2 28

8 22

5 25

6 26

4 26

7 23

2 28

2 28

0 30

2 28

2 28

36 63

30 70

17 83

6.7 93

26 74

17 83

13 87

13 87

23 77

7 93

7 93

0 100

7 93

7 93

6.73***

13.19****

13.44****

11.81***

4.38**

3.88**

12.12***

4.17**

.71

2.09

3.00

4.62**

5.10**

1.29

TABLE 11—Continued

133

Educable Trainable

Item % %

28. Correct Incorrect

29. Correct Incorrect

30. Correct Incorrect

31. Correct Incorrect

*p < .5.

**p < .05.

***p < .01.

****p < .001

0 30

8 22

0 30

0 30

0 100

26.7 73

0 100

0 100

0 30

2 28

0 30

0 30

0 100

7 93

0 100

0 100

N/A

3.0

N/A

N/A

TABLE 12 2

X COMPARISON OF RESPONSE ACCURACY BY SEX FOR EACH ITEM OF COPY TASK

134

ITEM Male Female

1 . C o r r e c t I n c o r r e c t

29 1

96 04

25 5

83 17

1.66

2. Correct Incorrect

30 0

100 0

30 0

100 0

N/A

3. Correct Incorrect

27 3

90 10

26 4

87 13

0

4. Correct Incorrect

24 6

80 20

23 7

77 23

0

5. Correct Incorrect

26 4

87 13

23 7

77 23

.44

6. Correct Incorrect

23 7

77 27

20 10

66 33

32

7. Correct Incorrect

16 14

53 47

14 16

47 53

.06

8. Correct Incorrect

16 14

53 47

11 19

37 63

1.07

9. Correct Incorrect

12 18

40 60

11 19

37 63

0

10. Correct Incorrect

19 11

63 37

14 16

47 53

1.29

11. Correct Incorrect

2 28

7 93

6 24

20 80

1.07

12. Correct Incorrect

16 14

53 47

16 14

53 47

.06

13. Correct Incorrect

19 11

63 37

13 17

43 57

1.67

14. Correct Incorrect

18 12

60 40

15 15

50 50

29

135

TABLE 12—Continued

ITEM

15. Correct Incorrect

16. Correct Incorrect

17. Correct Incorrect

18. Correct Incorrect

19. Correct Incorrect

20. Correct Incorrect

21. Correct Incorrect

22. Correct Incorrect

23. Correct Incorrect

24. Correct Incorrect

25. Correct Incorrect

26. Correct Incorrect

27. Correct Incorrect

28. Correct Incorrect

Male

f

17 13

15 15

9 21

15 15

10 20

12 18

9 21

12 18

3 27

6 24

3 27

5 25

3 27

0 30

%

57 43

50 50

30 70

50 50

33 66

40 60

30 70

40 60

10 90

20 80

10 90

17 83

10 90

0 100

Female

f

16 14

10 20

8 22

10 20

8 22

10 20

7 23

6 24

6 24

4 26

3 27

7 23

5 25

0 30

%

53 47

33 66

26 74

33 66

27 73

33 66

23 77

20 80

20 80

13 87

3 90

23 77

17 83

0 100

2 X

0

1.09

0

1.09

.07

.07

.08

1.98

.52

.12

.18

.10

.14

N/A

TABLE 12—Continued

136

ITEM

29. Correct Incorrect

30. Correct Incorrect

31. Correct Incorrect

ly

f

6 24

0 30

0 30

lale

%

20 80

0 100

0 100

f

4 26

0 30

0 30

Female

%

13 87

0 100

0 100

X

.12

N/A

N/A

137

TABLE 13 2

X COMPARISON OF RESPONSE ACCURACY BY SEX AND INTELLIGENCE FOR EACH ITEM OF COPY TASK

ITFM Jk. X U l Jl

1. Male Female

2. Male Female

3. Male Female

4. Male Female

5. Male Female

6. Male Female

7. Male Female

8. Male Female

9. Male Female

10. Male Female

11. Male Female

12. Male Female

13. Male Female

14. Male Female

Educable

f

14 14

15 15

15 16

15 15

15 15

15 14

10 10

10 7

7 6

13 10

2 5

10 12

13 7

11 11

%

93 93

100 100

100 100

100 100

100 100

100 93

66 60

60 46

46 40

86 66

13 33

66 80

86 46

73 73

Trainable

f

15 11

15 15

12 11

9 8

11 8

8 6

6 4

6 4

5 5

6 4

0 1

6 4

6 6

7 4

%

100 73

100 100

80 73

60 53

73 53

53 40

40 26

40 26

33 33

40 26

0 06

40 26

40 40

46 26

2 X

.08

.06

.01

.01

.06

.006

.01

.11

.05

.03

.01

.14

.21

.13

138

TABLE 13—Continued

TTT?M 1.1. EtL

15.

16.

17.

18.

i 1 9 .

i 20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

Male Female

Male Female

Male Female

Male Female

Male Female

Male Female

Male Female

Male Female

Male Female

Male Female

Male Female

Male Female

Male Female

Male Female

Educcible

f

12 12

11 9

8 7

9 8

6 7

9 9

5 7

7 4

3 4

5 3

3 3

5 5

2 4

0 0

%

80 80

73 60

53 46

60 53

40 46

60 60

33 46

46 26

20 26

33 20

20 20

33 33

13 26

0 0

Trainable

f

5 4

4 11

1 1

6 2

4 1

3 1

4 0

5 2

0 2

1 1

0 0

0 2

1 1

0 0

%

33 26

26 73

06 06

40 13

26 06

20 06

26 0

33 13

0 13

06 06

0 0

0 13

06 06

0 0

2 X

01 • V^A

.26

.11

.37

.11

.12

FET*

FET*

FET*

FET*

N/A

FET*

FET*

N/A

139

ITEM

29 . Male Female

TABLE 1 3 — C o n t i n u e d

Educable

4 4

%

26 26

T r a i n a b l e

2 0

%

13 0 FET*

30 . Male Female

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

N/A

3 1 . Male Female

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

N/A

'FET - F i s h e r ' s E x a c t T e s t .

I <1.i,#.