..,’--~..-.-.¢Q.. --~'Q"~.—*m\ A PQLOT STUDY: DEVELOPMENT OF A PROFILE RECORD FOR APPRAESING MOTOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE i‘iANDECAPF’ED CHLLD EN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Thesis. for the Degree of M. A. MlCHIGAN STATE UNNERSITY' Davic! A. Fuller 1965- mm w W “l mu! mu in film x1 [ml mg n 1 H mm 293 10 86 ‘. ROOM USE ONLY ABSTRACT A PILOT STUDY: DEVELOPMENT OF A PROFILE RECORD FOR APPRAISING MOTOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE HANDICAPPED CHILD IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL by David A. Fuller The purpose of this study is to develop a theoretical profile record for appraising the motor progress of physi- cally handicapped children through the six year period of elementary school. A review of related literature includes consideration of such topics as: norms for physical growth and development; perceptual aspects of motion; motor devel- opment of handicapped children; and descriptions of some longitudinal growth charts presently being utilized for recording developmental progress in children. The motor develOpment record form designed through this study is based primarily on the profile method. The profile is a graphic presentation of levels of achievement in motor performance at a given time over a period of several meas- urements. The selected motor tasks which have been included in this profile are of two general categories: the skill tests; and basic mOtor patterns. The former tasks are con- comitant with norms for elementary school children (grades David A. Fuller 1-6), being scored on a sex-grade percentile rank basis, while the latter (motor patterns) were selected as signifi- cant stages of normal child development and are more suit- able for appraising progress of the severely handicapped child. A rating scale has been devised for use with the profile which allows a more detailed and individualized evaluation of motor development. This profile has been developed on a theoretical basis, and its value cannot be established until it has been practically applied. A PILOT STUDY: DEVELOPMENT OF A PROFILE RECORD FOR APPRAISING MOTOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE HANDICAPPED CHILD IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL BY David A. Fuller A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation 1965 (“i (w A \ , ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer wishes to express his gratitude to Dr. Janet Wessel for her direction and assistance in the development of this study. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . Purpose of the Study . . . . Definition of Terms . . . . . Scope of the Study . . . . . II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . Physical Growth . . . . . . . Motor Development . . . . . . Perceptual Aspects of Motion Motor Development of the Handicapped Child . . . Recording Motor Development . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . III. THE PROFILE RECORD . . . . . . . . The Frame of Reference . . . Selection of Motor Tasks . . The Profile Design . . . . . General Considerations . The Profile Method . . . Use of the Profile . . . . . IV. SUMMARY OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . Recommendations . . . . . . . APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Page 23 33 39 41 41 45 48 48 51 52 62 64 64 67 78 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Illustration Page 1. Developmental Sequences of Motor Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 2. Developmental Profile for Boys . . . . . . . 53 3. Developmental Profile for Girls . . . . . . 54 4. Rating Scale for Developmental Motor Tasks . 59 iv CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION In the past thirty years there has been a great deal of interest and progress in the study of human growth and de- velopment. Results of this work have generated an interest in finding better ways of examining and interpreting specific developmental processes, and for determining their relation- ship to the individual's total development. Those who work with the growing child (family doctor, teachers, etc.) are generally aware of the importance of periodically evaluating each child's developmental progress. Unfortunately, in most instances the means for systematically doing so have not been made available to them. While a great deal of information concerning normal development has been published, such information is seldom included in a child's school record. The child's health or physical development history often consists only of height and weight measurements. The probable explanation for the "failure" to include developmental progress in movement and fitness on an individual's record, is that the information has not been organized in a form which would be suitable for fairly comprehensive evaluation and diagnostic purposes in the school situation. Another problem has been the lack of a complete definition of essential motor functions, with standards for rating or judging developmental progress in the area of behavioral development. This information would be especially useful for application to physically handi- capped children, where there has been a dearth of published data for this form of develOpment. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY It is the intent of this study to develop a longitudinal record, utilizing the profile method to appraise selected motor tasks in a physically handicapped child. This is to be accomplished by: 1. identifying and selecting developmental data which are of diagnostic or prognostic value for evaluation of motor behavior in children, ages 6 through 12; 2. defining standard measures in relation to develop- mental levels of specific phases of motor activity-- for analysis of motor performance in handicapped children; 3. translating the selected motor task measures into a simple profile for recording levels of achievement of motor development of handicapped children in the elementary school setting. DEF INITI ON OF TERMS To avoid the confusion of interpretation which exists in much of the terminology associated with many aspects of growth and development, definitions of certain terms--as used in this study-—are given here. Growth is considered an increase in size--of the organism as a whole, or any of its parts. It involves quantitative qualities such as height and weight, which can be physically measured. Development is regarded as some increase in skill or degree of complexity in a function. Progressive achievement of more difficult motor patterns is a form of development. A motor skill may be described as an activity involving body movement which is dependent on training or learning, and may be improved through physical repetition. A basic motorgpattern is a form of body movement which evolves as a normal expression of maturation. It is some aspect of the sequential phases which are common in the development of all normal children. Motor capacity is considered the total potentiality a child possesses for performing a motor act. (Performance implies the "doing" of something.) Motor ability is the extent to which the motor capacity is expressed in some measurable form. It may be used synonymously with motor achievement. Gross motor acts involve the use of the large muscle groups and generally entail movement of the whole body, while figg_ motor tasks involve more coordinated effort--such as manipu- lations with the fingers. Handicapped is used to describe any individual who is limited in motor performance, regard— less of etiological considerations. SCOPE OF THE STUDY This study is the effort of one investigator to convert selected aspects of developmental data into simple, meaning- ful techniques for evaluating selected motor tasks in developmental progress of handicapped children. The profile is to be designed for children of the elementary school level (approximately 6-12 years of age), for recording motor development over a six year period. This study does not undertake the evaluation of the proposed theoretical profile in an actual sdhool setting. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE A review of related literature will be discussed herein under the categories of: physical growth; motor development; perceptual aSpects of motion; motor development of the handicapped child; and methods of recording growth and development. PHYSICAL GROWTH Growth may be considered quantitative change, or measur— able variations of body size, proportions, and mass. The common human pattern of over-all growth seems to be controlled by the same factors in all children. The individuality of growth is manifest in total body and segment size, and in the ages at which it occurs. The literature provides exten- sive coverage of normal growth-—from infancy to early adulthood. Height and weight norms may be found in charts and tables of a variety of design and statistical form. The norms presented in most of the recent studies are quite comparable, which indicates the uniformity of distribution in these growth elements in the maturing child. Norms of height and weight for the American child must periodically be re-evaluated and revised. This is necessary due to the general variations which have gradually evolved. In a study of adolescent-age groups, it was determined that the boys and girls now are...”ta11er and heavier than those of the same age, grade, and school of 24 years ago. Girls average 1 inch taller and 6 pounds heavier. Differences for boys are over two inches and ten pounds."1 This gradual change in growth norms is probably the result of generally improved nutritional standards. This view is supported by the fact that final, or adult growth averages have remained more nearly constant over this time. As Carter states: What environmental [nutritional] improvements appear to be doing is, in the main, to accelerate growth, so that full adult height is being reached earlier. Pu- berty is being reached at a steadily younger age in both boys and girls and almost full adult height in men is being reached on the average at eighteen or nine- teen years of age...2 Investigators have determined that quite early in life, children fall into a "channel" for height and weight values, which can be projected up to maturity. It has been found 1Anna S. Espenschade and H. E. Meleny, ”Motor Performance of Adolescent Boys and Girls of Today in Comparison with Those of 24 Years Ago," Research Quarterly, XXXII (May, 1961), p. 187. 2Cedric 0. Carter, Human Heredity (Baltimore, Maryland: Penguin Books, 1962), p. 101. reliable enough so that any great deviation from the ex— pected course should be given careful consideration. Weight measurements for a child usually fall in the same percentile group at succeeding ages or change only gradually from period to period. Children with weight and height measurements which (a) fall in dif- ferent percentile groups, (b) shift percentile groups subsequently, or (c) fall near to or outside the 3rd and 97th percentile should be reviewed for growth failure. Utility as a diagnostic aid, of course necessitates record- ing the child's progress over a period of several years. No child seems to show a constant pattern when measured from month to month. If a record of height and weight data from previous teachers is kept up to date, a child's growth progress may be more accurately established. This is pointed out by Millard, Who states: "Height and weight measures as conventionally used, have very little value for child study.... If the total pattern shows progress, monthly deviations may . "4 be ignored. Several writers have found that growth measures are not directly related to physical ability. "Height and weight 3Ernest H. Watson and G. H. Lowrey, Growth and Develop- ment of Children (2nd ed. Chicago: The YearBook Publishers Inc., 1954), p. 59. 4Cecil V. Millard, Child Growth and Development In The Elementary School Years (Boston: D. C. Heath and Company, 1958), p. 95. factors in general, showed a lower relationship to perform- ance than did the age factor for both boys and girls"5 In spite of such findings, these normative values remain essen- tial factors in assessing total physical development of the individual child, and must be considered an integral part of the longitudinal profile. Early studies were confined mainly to height and weight. These two universally accepted measures of physical growth are still considered important tools for the assessment of growth status and the analysis of growth progress.6 MOTOR DEVELOPMENT While the general term development has a variety of physical, social and psychological applications, it is used here in reference to motor skills or ability. The child's motor development may be defined as a gradual process of learning control and integration of his neuro-muscular responses. Motor control evolves much more slowly than does general body growth;/ The 2 year old child has already at- tained about half his final adult height, while his reaction 5Marjorie Latchaw, "Measuring Selected Motor Skills in Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Grades," Research Quarterly, XXV (December, 1954), p. 448. 6H. Harrison Clarke and J. S..Widkens, "Maturity, Struc- tural, Strength, and Motor Ability Growth Curves of Boys 9 to 15 Years of Age," Research Quarterly, XXXIII (March, 1962), p. 27. time at 5-1/2 years, and consistency of performance at 8-1/2 years-~are about 50 percent developed. A review of the literature in this area provides some interesting findings. The infant and pre-school age groups are quite well covered for norms in motor development. Physical skill testing at the secondary school level also provides a good deal of normative data on physical develop- ment. The six years of elementary school ages is quite another story. Most of the testing in this developmental period is done for one basic skill, or includes only two or three of the six elementary grades. More studies are needed similar to Johnson's,7 which reports norms for several skills from tests that can be applied through the six elementary grades. [Human physical development, or body movement patterns, may be based on two principles: (1) Development from bi- lateral to unilateral body control; (2) Development from maximal muscle activity to minimum use of muscle action. The first would include the major developmental directions 7Robert D. Johnson, "Measurements of Achievement in Fundamental Skills of Elementary School Children," Research .Quarterly, XXXIII (March, 1962), 94-103. V 8D. Bruce Gardner, Development in Early Childhood The Preschool Years (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), p. 153. 10 of cephalo-caudal (head to foot) and proximo-distal (body center to extremities). The second refers to the trans- gression from gross to fine muscle coordination. It im- plies learning not only the use of appropriate muscles, but the inhibition of the non-essential muscle groups as well. A deficiency in this aspect of physical development, depend- ing on the degree, may be reflected in the child who is "poorly coordinated"--to the severely cerebral palsied child. The basic phylogenetic pattern of human development has been cited by numerous writers. Median age values have been established for achievement of specific skills (i.e. rolling, sitting, standing, creeping) in the infant and young child. In a discussion of skill patterns, Jones states: From the sequential growth studies of young children... conclusion that there are: (l) regularity in the emer- gence of behavior; (2) general maturational trends; (3) overlapping of functions at earlier ages which_become more discrete as development takes place.9 (The basic sequence of physical development is main— tained in the handicapped child, although there may be a retardation in rate or achievement of some particular skills. 9Theresa D. Jones, The Development of Certain Motgryskills and Play Activities in Young Children ("Child Development Mono- graphs" No 26; New York: Bureau of Publications Teachers Col— 1ege, Columbia University, 1939), p. 15. 11 Developmental sequence of children are orderly and pre- dictable and, to a considerable extent, independent to the rate of develOpment. ...Even in the presence of cerebral, sensory or other severe morphologic defects the sequential nature of behavior development is the rule. Some re-interpretations may be necessary where the given handicap in a child precludes the classical appearance of certain stages.10 m 0 U Q 0.....- O pull up to standing position crawl, hitch, etc. creep, cross pattern opposition with small objects deliberate release of objects rolls ball to someone walk, with support stand alone walk alone pick up objects without falling seats self in chair .throws objects tower building--several blocks catches large ball walk backwards up & down stairs--2 ft. each step jumps with both feet Chronological Age I I 11 |._I N walk on tiptoes H Grade 4 I u up stairs—-one foot each step 1 2 3 l 2 3 l 2 3 l 2 3 l climb stairs——with railing 2 3 l 2 3 l 2 3 l 2 3 stand on one foot——few seconds Illustration 2. Longitudinal Profile for Boys 'r—Ui _ SCORES SCORES 4E SKILL SKILL gm #1 #2 DEVELOPMENTAL PROFILE OF SELECTED #3 #4 SET KICK JUMP MOTOR TASKS——GIRLS PASS ZIG- 3 AND AND ZAG 5 _ REACH CATCH RUN Q (p01nts)(1ns,) 50 (points)(sec.) G 12 R NAME A DATE OF BIRTH //// . ° E DATE AGE RECORDER 10 31 9.5 ~ 38 8 4 / . l 9 29 8.5 ' 32 9 5 ° 2 8 25 7.5 ——~ ~ ....... - 25 9 5 ° 3 7 24 7.5 21 9 9 ° 4 6 22 6.0 15 ll 6 ’ 5 50 6 A I I 1 : J . SKILL SCORESLBELOW NORMSI LEVEL BASIC MOTOR PATTERNS #1 1 i I ' j. : ) #l 1 roll, supine to prone #2 ! I i f I 3 #2 A 2 sitting, with support BASIC MOTOR #3 4 5 E T ; f #3 3 sitting, without support LEVEL #4 § . i i i ' f #4 I pull up to standing position I i I ; g I ! B 2 crawl, hitch, etc. 3 H 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 H 3 creep, cross pattern 1 w} I I i I E l opposition with small objects 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 C 2 deliberate release of objects i g i i i } E 3 rolls ball to someone 2 G 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 G 1 walk, with support I E E i l ' i D 2 stand alone F 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 3 walk alone I 1 E 3 E E I l climb stairs with railing E 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 E 2 pick up objects without falling 1 E I E E E E 3 seats self in chair 1 D 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 l throws objects C 060 000 000 060 0'0 060 060 F 2 tower building——several blocks . . 1 1 ? I . 3 catches large ball B 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 1 walk backwards ‘ ' ' i ‘ i ' G 2 up & down stairs-~2 feet each step .5 A 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 3 jumps with both feet . . T i ' ' ‘ ‘ 1 walk on tiptoes Chronological Age E ? é ? l? l; l? H 2 upstairs——one foot each step Grade 1 2 3 4 5 6 i 3 stands on one foot--few seconds Illustration 3. Longitudinal Profile for Girls 55 because of the simplicity of recording and interpreting data, and its percentile basis. It would enhance the diagnostic value of the profile record if some provision were made for recording the child's history of significant illnesses. (Similar to that of the Fels Composite Sheet.) If such information were recorded along with growth and motor development data, possible effects of certain pathol- ogies on the child's total develOpment might be determined. This profile provides for recording of two measurements each year (grade level). It would be desirable to schedule the testing periods in the same two months (i.e., September and June) every year. Along with the several obvious ad— vantages of this routine, there is the factor of "seasonal growth spurts." Reynolds and Sontag, and other investigators ..."have demonstrated the existence of a seasonal factor in growth, for height, weight, and ossification."59 The testing and recording procedure should be as highly standardized as is possible. This would involve such factors as: dress (preferably gym clothes) of the children; the area used for testing; testee preparation (motivation, etc.); and uniform- ity of scoring techniques. 59Sontag and Reynolds, p. 348. 56 Whenever feasible, the child should take the skill tests (Johnson's)--regardless of his ability level. If he scores in any skill within the range ("SCORES"--sides of the pro- file) given, his position may be recorded on the top section of the profile. This is done by following the line corres- ponding to his chronological age (or grade level at the time of testing) upward, and coming across from the score achieved (or where approximated from the listed norms)--and placing a dot on the line. The skill scores presented on the pro- file are the median values for the given developmental ages. By reviewing the percentile tables (Appendix B), the exact percentile rank for the child's score may be found. If the child can perform in a skill test-—but his scores are below the range of the norms--his score should be recorded in the proper (skill number and age) space, in the middle section of the profile ("SKILL SCORES BELOW NORMS"). In this way, the Child's relative "progress" can be determined between test applications, even though his ability in one particular skill may not be developed enough to "graph." If the child is handicapped to the extent that he cannot perform the motor skills for any score, he may be "tested" at the "basic motor pattern" level. The information box to the lower right of the profile describes the basic patterns and the corresponding 57 "level" of each. The lower section of the profile proper is used for recording the child's achievement level in these tasks. The basic motor patterns are arranged in levels (A-H)-—from simple to more complex. (Normal developmental age range of these motor tasks is approximately 7 months to 3 years.) The selected tasks in levels A, B, D, E, G, and H are primarily locomotor in nature, and those in levels C and F are manipulative (arms and hands). These basic motor patterns should be performed on gym mats (except for "stair" climbing). "Unassisted" in relation to performance of these tasks indicates no aid from the tester, or any type of apparatus. By “inking" in the circles correspond- ing to the particular task level (letter and number) achieved, the child's abilities at each age may be charted, and yearly advances in these basic patterns may be shown. This recording of basic motor task achievement is neces- sarily only an approximation, and to enhance the value of this profile, a detailed description of the child's ability in a particular task should be recorded for reference--on the rating sheet (reverse side of the profile). For example, a child may not be able to creep in a cross pattern, (right leg-left hand move forward at the same time, then left leg- right hand, etc.) but may move along the mats on his hands 58 and knees in some other manner. A written description of this should be included with the level (i.e., "B-3") and the date. Thus, even though a child may be at the same achievement level in successive years on the profile, some developmental progress may be noted in the more detailed description on the accompanying rating scale. The rating sheet should be considered a valuable supplement to the longitudinal record. Some of the suggestions of Zausmer6o have been incorporated into this (Illustration 4) rating scale. The child's name and date of birth are recorded at the tOp of the1:ating form. flhe rating "KEY" (lower right cor- ner of the form) gives the symbols for motivation level and achievement scores. Thexating form allows recording of test results for two test applications each year (grades 1- 6). At the bottom of the form the date (month—year), and motivational level at the time of testing are recorded. The task being rated (i.e., C—l; D-2; Skill #4; etc.) is listed under-"TASK LEVEL." The task achievement ("SCORE") is plotted by placing a dot in the center of the appropriate score (achievement level 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; or 6) row on the 6oZausmer, 247—50. TASK S C NAME 0 R E 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 nau)¢~Ulm|a:OLp¢>U1m Illustration 4 DATE OF BIRTH : RATING SCALE FOR DEVELOPMENTAL MOTOR TASKS COMMENTS Variations, Adjustments, etc. RATING KEY Motivation: O——no attempt made T——tries, but gives up easily TT——tries repeatedly even with successive failures Achievement Score: 1—-unab1e to perform task 2——performs task with assistance 3——partia11y performs the task, without assistance 4——performs task without assistance, fluctuating pattern 5-—improved speed and co- ordination——good pattern 6——high level performance—— indicates readiness for higher level task 6S 60 vertical line which extends from the date of testing (lines to the left and right of the associated grade level lines). The recorder's comments concerning each particular task may be written on the right side of the rating scale. It might be necessary in some cases to utilize all three of the profile "sections" to record motor achievement. For example, the child who is very limited in use of his hands may be scored in "basic" motor levels C and F, the SCORE BELOW NORMS section for the jump and reach skill, ‘and the upper section (graph) for the Kick (#1) and run (#4) tasks. Individual adjustments in test application may be made, and these should be noted in the written description (rating sheet) accompanying the profile form. For instance, a crippled child may take the "zig-zag run" test in his wheelchair and his score ("time" for the test) recorded. Since this is his mode of travel, his "progress" in ability to use it might well be scored. (It would un— doubtedly be interesting for the child as well--allows him to compete.) Similar adjustments (with recorded notations-- rating sheet).can be made for crutches, etc. For the handicapped child Who is older than the average child in a particular grade, the "Grade" (bottom of profile should be used in plotting his achievement (the age may be 61 crossed out, to indicate that the grade is being used in recording his scores). The four motor skills may be graphed (upper section) by joining the dots between tests over the six year period. To differentiate the skill "curves," different designs (i.e., dots, dashes, etc.) or different colors may be used. (This key should be constant for all forms used.) The skill tests may be given twice a year, coincidental with the growth measurements, and scores may be plotted in the upper section (the second one plotted between the chronological age lines), or recorded in the middle ("SCORES BELOW'NORMS") section. For the basic motor pattern tasks, however, the adhievements are recorded on the profile just once for each age (grade) level--preferably at the beginning of each year. The child's progress in these basic motor tasks should be appraised twice each year on the rating sheet. This gives a more detailed analysis of progress, and would be more useful in evaluating the program being used. CHAPTER IV SUMMARY OF THE STUDY In this study, an attempt has been made to devise a longitudinal record for tracing motor development of handi- capped children in an elementary school (ages 6-12) setting. The profile method of construction has been incorporated into the record, which has been designed for such purposes as: a quantitative measure (develOpmental norms) of current status in motor development; a measure of individual motor progress over a six year period; for determining the effec- tiveness of activity programs; and for diagnosis of special needs in planning activity programs for handicapped chil- dren. The profile has been constructed so that a child represents his own "yardstick" of developmental prOgress, with provision for comparison of his relative position (motor achievement norms) in a given (age-grade) population. In the review of related literature, an attempt was made to recount the essential aspects of normal growth and de- velopment of children, including perceptual aspects of motor activity. The limited data on motor development of physi- cally handicapped children was reviewed and discussed. In a brief review of some of the more renowned longitudinal 62 63 records, it was noted that these forms were chiefly for recording such quantitative values as changes in height and weight (growth progress). It was concluded that the pass- fail type of motor tasks are of limited diagnostic value and should not be included on this profile form. The skill tasks (Johnson study) chosen fulfilled such requirements as ease of administration, applicability for a six year period (elementary school), and a presentation of test scores in percentile form. The "basic motor patterns" were included so that motor progress might be recorded for those children who are too physically restricted to perform the skill tasks. A rating sheet--which was developed for use with the profile record--provides a more detailed measurement of motor de- velopment. It includes consideration of such factors as the child's attitude (motivation) at the time of testing, a per— formance "score" for level of achievement in any particular task, and space for notations Of individual adjustments in performing specific tasks. As noted in the review of related literature (Chapter II), there is a great deficiency in this particular aspect of con- temporary physical education. It is hoped that this study will provide some insight into this area, and perhaps, be 64 prolusory of much additional research which remains to be accomplished in this field. CONCLUS IONS The value of the longitudinal profile which has been developed through this study cannot be established until the "theory" is tested in an actual school setting. Only through the extended application of the selected motor tasks can their suitability for inclusion in a longitudi- nal record of motor progress of handicapped children be determined. While this proposed profile remains speculative as to utility for diagnosing motor progress or for evaluating a physical activity program, just the attempt to validate such information should provide many desirable outcomes. If the profile is used over a period of several years-~regard— less of its intrinsic value--the institution of the motor testing alone will provide much additional information in an area which has long been deficient in the compilation of such data. RECOMMENDATIONS As recommended in the study, the developmental profile should be used in conjunction with one of the longitudinal 65 growth records (i.e., Iowa Growth Forms), to provide a more complete picture of the child's develOpment. This motor profile might be made more comprehensive by inclusion of additional skill tests. Some type of "balance" task, and possibly a "pure" strength test would be worth considering if the pertinent normative data be- comes available. Seashore61 has developed a beam-walking test (dynamic balance) for children in the elementary grades, which may be scored on a percentile basis. A strength test (i.e., grip strength) might also be included in this profile as a measure of motor progress, although there are certain associated difficulties in this type of testing at the earlier elementary level. Metheny62 has emphasized this problem of motivation, or "maximum effort" of the subject, which "may become acute" in younger children. 61Harold G. Seashore, "The Development of a BeamAWalking Test and Its Use in Measuring Development of Balance in Children," Research Quarterly, XVIII (April, 1947), 246-59. 62Eleanor Metheny, "The Present Status of Strength Testing for Children of Elementary School and Preschool Age," Research Quarterly, XII (March, 1941), 115-30. APPENDIX A 67 SKILL TEST ADMINISTRATION The following directions for conducting and scoring the four motor skill tasks were taken from the Johnson63 study (p. 98-100). #1 KICK TEST Equipment. One soccer ball. Markings. On a flat wall space, a target area 5 ft. high and 10 ft. wide is marked with one-half inch tape. This area is divided into five equal rectangles placed perpen- dicular to the floor. The number 5 is taped in the center rectangle, number 3 is taped in the rectangles adjacent to the center rectangle, and number 1 is taped on the two remaining rectangles. On the floor three lines 3 ft. long are marked: one is 10 ft. from the wall; one 20 ft.; and one, 30 ft. from the wall. Qirectionsgfipr performance. The subject places the soccer ball behind the 10 ft. line marked on the floor. From that position he attempts to kick the ball in such a manner that it may hit the wall target. The subject kicks three times from each of the lines marked on the floor. Two practice kicks are made at each line before the three kicks for the record are made. Scoring. The subject receives the number of points indi- cated on the target area into which the ball is kicked. If the ball is kicked on a line between two areas, the score is that for the area with the large number. A ball kicked from in front of the restraining floor line counts 0, and another trial is given. #2 JUMP AND REACH Equipment. Chalk dust, and one piece of construction paper, 6 in. wide and 3 ft. high, ruled off in half inches. 63Robert D. Johnson, "Measurements of Achievement in Funda- mental Skills of.Elementary School Children," Research Quarterly, XXXIII (March, 1962), 94-103. 68 Markings. Horizontal lines are drawn on the construction paper one4half inch apart. The paper is fastened to the wall at such a height that the 0 line on the chart is just below the point that represents the standing reach of the shortest performer. Directions for performance. The subject stands with one side of his body parallel with the wall chart. He dips his fore- finger in chalk, reaches as high as possible, and makes a chalk mark on the chart. He then jumps upward as far as pos- sible and makes a mark on the wall at the peak of his jump. Scorinq. The score is the inches (to the nearest one4half inch) between the two chalk marks. The subject is given five jumps, with the highest jump recorded as his score. The subject is not allowed to take any preliminary steps forward before the jump. #3 PASS AND CATCH Equipment. One 8-1/2 in. playground ball (grades 1,2,3) and a regulation-sized volleyball (grades 4,5, and 6). MArkinqs. A 3 ft. square is placed on a flat wall with one— half inch tape. Its bottom line is 4 ft. from the floor. An inner square, 10 in. in from all four sides, is placed on the wall target. Starting 3 ft. from the wall, and in line with the wall target, there are placed five 2 ft. squares, each 1 ft. behind the other. Directions f9; performance. -With both feet inside the first square the subject stands facing the wall target and throws the ball at the wall target; keeping both feet inside the square he attempts to catch the ball in the air when it re- bounds from the wall. The throw should be made with an underhand motion. After two practice trials the subject is given three trials for record when he is in each of the five squares. Scorinq. Two points for successfully throwing the ball in or on the inner wall target square; two points for success- fully catching the rebounding ball in the air while standing in the floor square; one point for successfully throwing a ball in or on the outer wall target square; one point for successfully catching the rebounding ball in the air on or 69 outside the floor square. The subject's score is the total points scored from all five squares. If the subject steps out of the square while throwing, the throw is nullified and another trial is given. #4 ZIG-ZAG RUN Equipment. Four folding chairs and one stop watch. Markings. Four folding chairs are placed 6 ft. apart on a gymnasium floor and between a starting line and an X placed on the wall of the gymnasium. The first chair is placed 6 ft. from the starting line, and the last chair is placed 6 ft. from the wall. The X, 6 in. in size, is 4 ft. from the floor and placed on the wall. The length of the starting line is 1 ft. There should be an area 20 ft. long behind the starting line that is free from obstruction. Directions for pgrformance. The subject is instructed to stand behind the middle of the starting line and, on the com- mand "Go," to run either to the right or left of the first chair, to zig-zag around the three remaining chairs, to touch the X, to return in the same manner, and to touch the starting line with his foot. Scorinq. Time to the nearest tenth of a second required for running the course. Three trials are given, with the shortest time being the score. For any of the following fouls the sub- ject is required to run the course again: having any part of the forward foot over the starting line when the command is given; not zigzagging around the chairs in the prescribed man- ner; and not touching the x on the wall before returning toward the starting line. APPENDIX B 71 TABLE OF PERCENTILES FOR SKILL TESTS: GRADE 1, BOYS AND GIRLS Kick-- Jump and Pass-and Zig-Zag pts. Reach--in. Catch--pts. Run--sec. % ile B G B G B G B G 100 34 30 11.5 10.5 34 29 8.0 8.8 95 28 27 9.0 8.5 26 23 9.2 9.4 90 27 26 24 21 9.4 9.9 85 26 25 8.5 8.0 23 20 9.8 10.0 80 22 19 9.9 10.4 75 25 24, 8.0 7.5 21 18 10.0 10.8 70 7.5 7.0 20 17 10.2 10.9 65 24 23 6.5 19 10.4 11.0 60 22 7.0 l8 16 10.6 11.4 55 23 6.0 15 10.8 11.5 50 6.5 17 10.9 11.6 45 22 21 5.5 14 11.8 40 6.0 l6 13 11.0 35 21 5.0 15 12 11.2 30 20 20 14 11 11.4 12.0 25 19 13 10 11.6 12.2 20 19 18 12 11.8 12.4 15 18 16 ll 9 12.0 12.6 10 17 14 3 5 10 8 12.2 12.8 5 14 10 3 O 9 5 12.8 13.4 0 12 8 2.5 6 3 13.0 13.6 A Adapted from R. D. Johnson, Research Quarterly, XXXIII (March, 1962), p. 98. ‘ TABLE OF PERCENTILES FOR SKILL TESTS: 72 GRADE 2, BOYS AND GIRLS Kick-- Jump and Pass-and Zig-Zag % ile pts. Reach—-in. Catch--pts. Run--sec. B G B G B G B G 100 36 35 12.5 11.0 39 35 7.6 7.8 95 33 33 10.0 9.5 38 31 8.0 8.2 90 31 31 9.5 9.0 34 28 8.4 8.6 85 30 30 32 27 8.8 8.8 80 28 29 9.0 8.5 31 26 8.9 9.0 75 28 8.5 30 25 9.0 9.4 70 27 27 8.0 29 24 9.2 9.5 65 26 28 23 9.4 9.6 60 26 8.0 7.5 27 22 9.5 9.8 55 25 26 21 9.6 50 25 24 7.5 25 9.8 9.9 45 7.0 24 20 40 24 23 19 9.9 10.0 35 23 22 7.0 6.0 23 18 10.2 30 21 20 6.5 22 17 10.0 10.4 25 20 6.0 21 16 10.1 10.8 20 l9 19 5.5 20 15 10.2 15 18 18 5.5 5.0 19 14 10.6 11.0 10 17 16 5.0 4.5 17 12 10.9 11.2 5 14 14 4.5 4.0 13 10 11.2 11.8 0 10 12 4.0 3.5 8 7 11.4 12.0 Adapted from R. D. Johnson, p. 99. 73 TABLE OF PERCENTILES FOR SKILL TESTS: GRADE 3, BOYS AND GIRLS KiCk-- Jump and Pass-and Zig-Zag % ile pts. Reach--in. Catch--pts. Run--sec. B G B G B G B G 100 40 36 13.0 12.0 41 38 7.4 7.4 95 37 34 11.5 10.0 40 34 7.8 8.0 90 36 32 11.0 9.5 39 33 8.0 8.2 85 34 31 10.0 9.0 38 32 8.2 8.4 80 33 30 37 30 8.4 8.8 75 9.5 8.5 36 29 8.6 8.9 70 32 29 35 28 8.7 9.1 65 31 28 9.0 8.0 34 8.8 9.2 60 30 27 33 27 9.0 9.3 55 26 8.5 26 9.4 50 29 25 7.5 32 25 9.5 45 24 31 9.2 9.6 40 28 8.0 7.0 30 24 9.3 9.8 35 27 23 23 9.4 30 22 29 22 9.6 25 26 21 7.5 6.5 21 9.8 10.0 20 25 20 7.0 6.0 28 20 10.0 10.4 15 23 19 6.5 27 19 10.2 10.6 10 22 18 6.0 5.5 25 18 10.4 10.8 5 - 20 17 5.0 5.0 21 16 10.6 11.0 0 16 16 4.5 4.5 17 13 10.8 11.2 Adapted from R. D. Johnson, p. 100. TABLE OF PERCENTILES FOR SKILL TESTS: GRADE 4, BOYS AND GIRLS 74 Kick-- Jump and Pass-and Zig-Zag % ile pts. Reach--in. Catch--pts. Run--sec. B G B G B G B G 100 42 39 15.0 14.0 50 43 7.0 7.2 95 38 37 13.0 11.0 47 40 7.6 7.8 90 37 35 12.0 10.5 45 39 7.8 8.0 85 36 34 11.5 10.0 43 38 8.0 8.4 80 35 33 11.0 42 37 8.2 8.6 75 32 10.5 9.5 41 36 8.4 8.8 70 34 31 10.0 40 35 8.5 9.0 65 9.0 34 8.6 9.1 60 33 30 39 8.7 9.2 55 9.5 8.5 38 33 8.8 9.4 50 32 29 32 9.0 9.5 45 31 9.0 8.0 37 9.1 9.6 40 36 31 9.2 9.7 35 30 28 7.5 35 30 9.3 9.8 30 29 27 8.5 7.0 34 29 9.4 10.0 25 26 8.0 33 28 9.6 10.2 20 28 25 6.5 32 27 9.8 10.4 15 27 24 7.5 6.0 31 26 10.0 10.6 10 25 22 7.0 5.5 30 24 10.2 10.8 5 23 20 6.5 5.0 27 21 10.6 11.2 0 19 16 6.0 4.5 23 16 10.8 11.4 Adapted from R. D. Johnson, p. 101. TABLE OF PERCENTILES FOR SKILL TESTS: 75 GRADE 5, BOYS AND GIRLS Kick-- Jump and Pass-and Zig-Zag % ile pts. Reach—-in. Catch-—pts. Run--sec. B G B G B G B G 100 43 40 16.0 15.0 57 53 6.6 6.8 95 4O 38 14.0 13.0 54 50 7.0 7.2 90 39 36 13.0 12.0 52 45 7.2 7.4 85 38 35 12.5 50 44 7.3 7.8 80 37 34 12.0 11.5 48 43 7.4 75 36 33 11.0 47 42 7.5 70 35 11.5 10.5 46 41 7.6 8.0 65 32 11.0 45 40 7.8 8.1 60 34 31 10.5 10.0 44 8.2 55 39 8.3 50 33 10.0 9.5 43 38 8.0 8.4 45 30 42 37 8.1 8.5 40 32 9.5 9.0 41 8.2 8.6 35 29 4O 36 8.3 8.8 30 31 28 9.0 8.5 39 35 8.4 8.9 25 27 8.0 38 34 8.5 9.0 20 30 26 8.5 7.5 37 33 8.6 9.2 15 29 25 8.0 7.0 36 32 8.8 9.4 10 28 23 7.5 6.5 34 31 9.0 9.8 5 26 20 7.0 6.0 33 29 9.2 10.0 0 23 14 6.5 5.5 29 24 9.4 -10.2 Adapted from R. D. Johnson, p. 102. TABLE OF PERCENTILES FOR SKILL TESTS: GRADE 6, BOYS AND GIRLS 76 Kick—- Jump and Pass—and Zig-Zag % ile pts. Reach--in. Catch--pts. Run--sec. B G B G B G B G 100 44 42 17.5 16.0 59 55 6.0 6.6 95 41 40 16.0 14.0 56 51 6.8 7.0 90 4O 38 15.0 13.0 54 49 7.0 7.2 85 39 36 14.0 12.0 53 47 7.2 7.4 80 37 35 13.5 52 46 7.3 7.5 75 34 13.0 11.5 51 45 7.4 7.6 70 36 12.5 50 44 7.5 7.7 65 35 33 12.0 11.0 49 43 7.6 7.8 60 48 7.8 7.9 55 32 11.5 10.5 47 42 8.0 50 34 10.0 46 41 7.9 8.1 45 31 11.0 40 8.2 40 33 45 8.0 8.3 35 32 30 10.5 44 39 8.1 8.4 30 9.5 43 38 8.2 8.6 25 31 29 10.0 42 37 8.4 8.8 20 3O 28 ‘ 9.0 41 36 8.5 9.0 15 29 27 9.5 8.5 40 35 8.6 9.2 10 28 25 9.0 8.0 39 33 8.8 9.6 5 26 20 8.5 7.0 37 31 9.2 10.0 0 23 15 8.0 6.5 34 28 10.5 Adapted from R. D. Johnson, p. 103. BI BLI OGRAPHY 78 BOOKS Anderson, John E. The Psycholoqyrof Development and Per- sonal Adjustment. New York: Henry Holt and Cbmpany, 1949. Ausubel, David P. Thepry and Problems of Child Development. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1958. Breckenridge, Marion, and Murphy, M. N. Growth and Develop- ment of The Young Child, 6th ed. Philadelphia. W. B. Saunders Company, 1958. Cratty, Bryant J. Movement Behavior and Motor Learning. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, 1964. Delacato, Carl H. The Treatment and Prevention of Reading Problems (The Neurp-Psycholoqical Approach). Spring- field, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas, 1959. Eidinova, M. B., and Pravdina-Vinarskaya, Ye. N. Cerebral Palsy in Children and Its Treatment. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1963. Gardner, D. Bruce. Development in Early Childhood: The Pre- schopl Years. New YOrk: Harper & Row, 1964. Gesell, Arnold, and Amatruda, C. S. DevelopmentaliDiagnosis Norma1.and Abnormal Child Development. New York: Paul B. Hoeber Inc., 1947. Illingworth, Ronald S. The Normal Child. 3rd ed. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1964. Jones, Harold E. Motor Performance and Growth. Berkley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1949. Millard, Cecil V. Child Growth and Development lg the Ele- {pentary School Yearg, Boston: D. C. Heath and Company, 1958. Olson, Willard C. Child Development. 2nd ed. Boston: D. C. Heath and Company, 1959. 79 Pryor, Helen B. As the Child Grows. New York: Silver Bur— dett Company, 1943. Refereppes on Motor Learning and Motor Performance. ("Fit- ness Series," No. 4.) Washington, D. C.: American Association of Health Physical Education and Recrea— tion, 1960. Smith, Karl U., and Smith, W. M. Perception and Motion. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company, 1962. Stott, Leland H. The Longitudinal Study of Individual De- velopment. Detroit: The Merrill-Palmer School, 1955. Stuart, Harold C., and Prugh, D. G. The Healthy Child His .Physical, Psychological, and Social Development. Cam- bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1960. Tanner, J. M. Education and.Physica1 Growth. London: Uni- versity of London Press Ltd., 1961. Tuddenham, Read D., and Snyder, Margaret M. Physical Growth of California Boys and Girlsgfrom Blrrh to Elghteen Years. (University of California Publications in Child Development Vol. 1 NO. 2.) Berkeley and Los Angeles: Uni- versity of California Press, 1954. Van Der Lugt, Maria. V. D. L. Psychomotgr Test Series for Children for the Measurement of Manuaerbility. New York University, 1949. watson, Ernest H., and Lowrey, G. H. Growth and Development of Children. 2nd ed. Chicago: The Year Book Publishers Inc., 1954. - ARTICLES AND PERIODICALS Aldrich, C. A., and Norval, M. A. "A Developmental Graph for the First Year of Life," The Joprnal of Pediatrics, XXIX (September, 1946), 304-08. Asmussen, E. "Physical Performance and Growth in Children Influence of Sex, Age and Intelligence," Journal of Ap- plied Physiology, VIII (January, 1956), 371-80. 80 Bachman, John C. "Motor Learning and Performance as Re- lated to Age and Sex in Two Measures of Balance Coor- dination," Research Quarterly, XXXII (May, 1961), 123-37. Bayley, Nancy. "Mental and Motor Development from Two to Twelve Years," Review of Educational Research, IX (Feb- ruary, 1939), 18-37. Bayley, Nancy, and Espenschade, Anna. "Motor Development from Birth to Maturity," Review of Educationgl Research, XI (December, 1941), 562-72. Bayley, Nancy, and Espenschade, Anna. "Motor Development and Decline," Review of Educational Research, XX (December, 1950), 367-74. Blum, Lucille, and Fieldsteel, N. D. "Method for Objective Measure of Developmental Progress," Amerlcan Journal of leeases of Children, XXCIII (March, 1952), 306-08. Bookwalter, Karl W. "The Relationship of Body Size and Shape to Physical Performance," Research Qparterly, XXIII (May, 1952), 271-79. Brace, D. K. "Studies in Motor Learning of Gross Bodily Motor Skills," Research Quarterly, XVII (December, 1946), 242-53. Brown, Howard S. "A Comparative Study of Motor Fitness Tests," Research Quarterly, XXV (March, 1954), 8-19. Buegel, Hermann. "The Effects of Introducing Ideational Elements in Perceptual-Motor Learning," Journal of Experimentalrpsycholoqy, XXVII (August, 1940), 111-23. ”Buell, Charles. "Motor Performance of Visually-Handicapped Children," Journal of Exceptional Children, XVII (De- cember, 1950), 69-72. Carpenter, Aileen. "The Measurement of General Motor Capac- ' ity and General Motor Ability in the First Three Grades," ResearCh Qparterly, XIII (December, 1942), 444-65. 81 Clarke, H. H., and Harrison, James. "Differences in Physi- cal and Motor Traits Between Boys of Advanced and Re- tarded Maturity," Researcthuarterly, XXXIII (March, 1962), 13—25. Clarke, H. H., andWickens, J. S. "Maturity, Structural, Strength, and Motor Ability Growth Curves of Boys 9 to 15 Years of Age," Research Quarterly, XXXIII (March, 1962), 26-39. Cowan, Edwina, and Pratt, Bertha M. "The Hurdle Jump as a Developmental and Diagnostic Test of Motor Coordination for Children from Three to Twelve Years of Age," Child Development, V (June, 1934), 107-21. Cron,Gerald W. "Development of the Sense of Balance in School Children," Journal of Educational Research, LI (September, 1957), 33-37. Cumbee, Frances Z. "A Factorial Analysis of Motor Co- ordination," Research Quarterly, XXV (December, 1954), 412-28. Dusenberry, Lois. "A Study of the Effects of Training in Ball Throwing by Children Ages Three to Seven," 3g: search Quarterly, XXIII (March, 1952), 9-14. Eidinova, M. B. "Principles of Compensatory Work in Cere- bral Palsy of Children," Cerebral Palsy Review, XXII (March, 1961), 27-28. Espenschade, Anna. "Motor Development," Science and Medicine of Exercise and Sports, Edited by W. R. Johnson. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1960, 419-39. Fleishman, Edwin A. "Role of Kinesthetic and Spatial-Visual Abilities in Perceptual-Motor Learning," Journal of Experimental Psydhology, LXVI (July, 1963), 6-11. Francis, Robert J., and Rarick, G. L. "Motor Characteristics of the Mentally Retarded," American Journal of Mental De- ficiency, LXIII (May, 1959), 792-811. 82 Garmezy, Norman, and Harris, J. G. "Motor Performance of Cerebral Palsied Children as a Function of Their Suc- cess or Failure in Achieving Material Rewards," Child Development, XXIV (December, 1953), 287-300. Goodenough, Florence L., and Smart, R. C. "Inter-Relation- ships of Motor Abilities in YOung Children," Child Development, VI (June, 1935), 141-53. Guilford, J. P. "A System of the Psychomotor Abilities," American Journal of Psychology, LXXI (March, 1958), Harrison, Virginia F. "A Review of the Neuromuscular Bases for Motor Learning," Research Quarterly, XXXIII (March, 1962), 59-69. Herron, Matt. "Maverick Methods Give Help to Brain-Injured Children. Return to Babyhood," Life, LV (August 23, 1963), 31. Hicks, Allan J. "The Acquisition of Motor Skill in Young Children. II. The Influence of Specific and of General Practice on Motor Skill," Child Development, I (December, 1930), 292-97. Hoskins, Robert N. "The Relationship of Measurements of General Motor Capacity to the Learning of Specific Psycho-Motor Skills," Research Quarterly, V (March, 1934), 63-72. Howe, Clifford E. "A Comparison of Motor Skills of Mentally Retarded and Normal Children," Excepfiipnal Children, XXV (April, 1959), 352-54. Ismail, A. H., and Cowell, C. C. "Purdue Motor Fitness Test Batteries and a Development Profile for Pre-Adolescent Boys," Research Quarterly, XXXIII (December, 1962), Jackson, Robert L., and Kelly, Helen G. "Growth Charts for Use in Pediatric Practice," The Journal of Pediatrics, XXVII (September, 1945), 215-29. 83 Johnson, Robert D. "Measurements of Achievement in Funda- mental Skills of Elementary School Children," Research Quarterly, XXXIII KMarch, 1962), 94-103. Kane, Robert J., and Meredith, Howard V. "Ability in the Standing Broad Jump of Elementary School Children 7, 9, and 11 Years of Age," Researcthuarterly, XXIII (March, 1952), 198-208. Keeler, Lindsey D. “The Effect of Maturation of Physical Skill as Measured by the Johnson Physical Skill Test," Research Quarterly, IX (October, 1938), 54-58. Kephart, Newell C. "Perceptual-Motor Aspects of Learning Disabilities," Exceptional Children, XXXI (December, 1964), 201-06. Krogman, Wilton M. "The Physical Growth of Children: An Appraisal of Studies 1950-1955," Society for Research in Child Develppment Monographs, XX (Serial No. 60, No. 1, 1955). Lassner, Rudolf. "Annotated Bibliography on the Oseret- sky Tests of Motor Proficiency," Journal of Consulting Psychology, XII (January, 1948), 37—47. Latchaw, Marjorie. "Measuring Selected Motor Skills in Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Grades," Research Quarterly, XXV (December, 1954), 439-49. Lemkau, Paul V. "The Influence of Handicapping Conditions on Child Development," Children, VII (March, 1961), 43-47. Lis, Edward F. "Application of Newer Concepts of Growth and Development to the Handicapped Child and Implication for Crippled Children Programs," Newer Concepts of Growth and Development: Implicatlons for Child Health Services. State MCH and CC Agencies of MiChigan and Minnesota and the U.S. Children's Bureau, 1960. 141-54. McCammon, Robert W. "Newer Concepts of Physical Growth and Development of Children," Newer7Concepts of Growth and Development: Implications for Child Health Services. 84 State MCH and CC Agencies of Michigan and Minnesota and the U.S. Children's Bureau, 1960. 21-58. McCaskill, Carra Lou, and Wellman, B. L. "A Study of Common Motor Achievements at the Preschool Ages," Child Develop- ment, IX (June, 1938), 141-50. McCloy, C. H. "The Measurement of General Motor Capacity and General Motor Ability," Research Qparterly, V (March, 1934), 46-61. McCloy, C. H. "The Influence of Chronological Age on Motor Performance," Research Qparterly, VI (May, 1935), 61-64. McCraw, L. W. "Comparison of Methods of Measuring Improve- ment," Research Quarterly, XXII (May, 1951), 191-200. McGraw, Myrtle B., and Breeze, K. W. "Quantitative Studies in the Development of Erect Locomotion," Child Develop- ment, XII (September, 1941), 267-303. Melcher, Ruth T. "Children's Motor Learning With and With- outhision," Child Develppment, V (December, 1934), 315-50. Meredith, Howard V. "Stature and Weight of Children of the United States," American Journal of Diseases of Children, LXII (November, 1941), 909-32. Metheny, Eleanor. "The Present Status of Strength Testing for Children of Elementary School and Preschool Age," Researdh Quarterly, XII (March, 1941), 115-30. Mitchell, Ross G. "The Growth and Motor Development of Chil- dren with Cerebral Palsy," Cerebral Palsy Review, XXII (July, 1961), 3-4; 17-19. Mohr, Dorothy. "The Contributions of Physical Activity to Skill Learning," Research Quarterly, XXXI (May, 1960), 321-50. Phillips, Marjorie, and Summers, Dean. "Relation of Kines- thetic Perception to Motor Learning," Research Quarterly, XXV (December, 1954), 456-69. 85 Rodgers, Elizabeth. "Evaluation of the Fundamentals of Motor Performance," Journal of Health and Physical Education, XVIII (April, 1947), 225-28; 271-75. Seashore, Harold G. "The Development of a Beam4Walking Test and Its Use in Measuring Development of Balance in Children," Research Quarterly, XVIII (April, 1947), 246-59. ' Seils, LeRoy G. "The Relationship Between Measures of Physical Growth and Gross Motor Performance of Pri- mary Grade School Children," Research Quarterly, XXII (May, 1951), 244—60. Siegel, Arthur I. "A Motor Hypothesis of Perceptual Develop- ment," American Journal of Psychology, LXVI (April, 1953), Smith, Jean A. "Relation of Certain Physical Traits and Abilities to Motor Learning in Elementary School Chil- dren," Research Quarterly, XXVII (May, 1956), 220-228. Solley, William H. "Ratio of Physical Development as a Factor in Motor Co-ordination of Boys Ages 10-14," Research Quarterly, XXVIII (October, 1957), 295-304. Sontag, Lester W., and Reynolds, E. L. "The Fels Com- posite Sheet. I: A Practical Method for Analyzing Growth Progress"; II: Variations in Growth Patterns in Health and Disease," The Jougnal of Pediatrics, XXVI (April, 1945), 327-35; 336-52. Strauss, Alfred A. "The Education of the Brain-Injured Child," American Journal of Mental Deficiency, LVI (April, 1952), 712-18. Taft, Lawrence T., and others. "Critique of Rehabilitative Technics in Treatment of Cerebral Palsy," Archivesggg Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, (May, 1962), 238-43. Wenar, Charles. "The Effects of a Motor Handicap on Per- sonality: I. The Effects On Level of Aspiration," Child Development, XXIV (June, 1953), 123-30. 86 Wetzel, Norman C. "Assessing the Physical Condition of Children. I: Case Demonstration of Failing Growth and the Determination of 'Par' by the Grid Method; III: The Components of Physical Status and Physical Progress and Their Evaluation," The Journal of Pedi- atrics, XXII (March, 1943), 82-110; 329-61. Wild, Monica R. "The Behavior Pattern of Throwing and Some Observations Concerning Its Course of Develop- ment in Children," Researcthuarterly, IX (October, 1938), 20-24. Yarmolenko, A. "The Motor Sphere of School-Age Children," Journal70f Genetic Psychology, XLII (1933), 298-316. Zausmer, Elizabeth. "The Evaluation of Motor Development in Children," Journal Of The American Physical Therapy Association, XLIV (April, 1964), 247-50. HICHIGQN STQTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES ll illl 9 III II | 312 31021 1186 Ill!" 3