This study provides standardized procedures and norms for four perceptual-motor tests and their correlations with readiness/reading in grades K-2. Theoretical constructs and cognitive implications underlying these tasks are discussed. One hundred forty-four normal children in grades K-2 were tested with the Tachistoscope, Divided Form Board, Grooved Pegboard, and Auditory-Visual Integration Test (AVIT), using standardized procedures. Norms including means, standard deviations, ranges of scores, and percentiles were established for each test at each grade level. Except for the AVIT, the correlations between the perceptual tasks and readiness or reading were not only strong in kindergarten, but remained significant in grades 1 and 2. The data suggests that as reading becomes more dependent upon language skills, cognition gradually becomes more dominant. Beyond grade 2, it appears that perception remains a necessary but not a sufficient condition for learning.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Controversy exists regarding the relation between visual memory and academic achievement.
A masked investigation of the relation between visual memory and academics was performed in 155 second-through fourth-grade children (mean age = 8.83 years). Visual memory ability was assessed with the Test of Visual Perceptual Skills visual memory subtest. The school administered the Otis-Lennon School Ability Test and Stanford Achievement Test. Age and verbal ability were controlled in all regression analyses.
Visual memory score was significantly predictive of below-average word decoding (p = 0.027), total math score (p = 0.031), and Stanford complete battery score (p = 0.018). Visual memory score showed a positive trend in predicting reading comprehension (p = 0.093).
Poor visual memory ability (as measured by the Test of Visual Perceptual Skills) is significantly related to below-average reading decoding, math, and overall academic achievement (as measured by the Stanford Achievement Test) in second- through fourth-grade children, while controlling for age and verbal ability.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Children may perform poorly on a test of visual-motor integration due to deficits in one or more of the following: visual analysis/visual spatial ability, motor coordination, visual conceptualization, or visual-motor integration. The VMI Supplemental Developmental Test of Visual Perception (VP) and VMI Supplemental Developmental Test of Motor Coordination (MC) were developed to help differentiate between such difficulties after administration of the Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration (VMI). However, the clinical value of the VMI supplemental tests has not been reported.
The VMI, VP, and MC were administered to 193 children (mean age = 8.77 years).
Multiple linear regression revealed that the supplemental tests were significantly related to the VMI (VP: beta = 0.212 +/- 0.044, p < 0.001; MC: beta = 0.422 +/- 0.299, p < 0.001) but explained only 36.2% of the variance in the VMI. Poor performance was defined as a score >1 SD below the mean for study population norms and below the 16th percentile for published norms. Using study population norms, 35 children did poorly on the VMI, 20% of whom scored poorly on VP, 14.3% of whom scored poorly on MC, 17.1% of whom scored poorly on both supplemental tests, and 48.6% of whom scored within normal on both supplemental tests. Using the published norms, 40 children scored poorly on the VMI. Twenty-eight children scored poorly on VP, 39% of whom scored within normal on the VMI. Fifty-six children scored poorly on MC, 54% of whom scored within normal on the VMI.
There was a significant amount of variance in performance on the VMI that was not explained by performance on the tests of VP or MC alone. Each area should be individually assessed during the visual perceptual examination of children, regardless of performance on the VMI. Even children who perform within normal limits on the VMI may show a deficit in VP or MC.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.