THE RELATEGNSHLP 0F LATERAL DOMLNANCE
TO THE LEARNING 0F A COMPLEX
MOTOR SKILL

Thesis for the Degree of M. A.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
JOHN PATRICK COOKE JR.
1969

.3 ’fc ‘

University

 
 

Michigan St

 
 

gi'dcwtrwm-«raxmainmmy
. t‘kx fl
LIBRA R ‘

  

 

 

F‘I’T'“ “7 m A 7'5"" Ah 7 ”1*“ *- hn rT'r 'Ar‘
lnn Pznfillukban o: LALLRAL uoklNANon
m. mT“"—‘ *‘rn T'r'xrm Afi r‘ 7'"
i0 ldfl LZHRXimu U: A CUMPHLX
an N- TT 7-
h
by

 

The purpose of this stc dy wa s to investigate the
.relationship of lateral dominance to the learning of a

vex motor skill.

O
0
F1
U
[,4

D

Fourteen lemales, who were enrolled in a beginning
Department at Michigan tate Uni ersity durinz the sprin
9, served as subje ects for this study.

All subjects were tested for land and eye dominance
and grouped according to tr e character-isti cs they dis—
played:

Left-hand —— left-eye,

Left-hand -— right-eye,

Right-hand -- right—eye,

Right—hand -- left-eye.

John Patrick Cooke Jr.

A pre-test for throwing ability was administered
to all subjects. Each subject threw a ball at a target
from a distance of ten yards. Ten trials were allowed.

After the pre—test a training program was con-

ducted for six weeks. This program included the use of

s»:
:3
y 1-
(3
:j
"5

various passing and shooting drills equired the
overhand throw.
At the conclusion of the training period, a post-

test for throwing ability was given. Scores were col-

lected in the same manner as in the pre—test procedure.

Test results were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis
one-way analysis of variance by ranks statistical

technique.

 

There were no significant results indicated for
differences between groups in throwing ability or in

pre-test and post-test scores.

,rT\’A\'/‘V~fi
1 I " ‘ \ H
.J..'1I"..LVK/.L.J

“‘A‘
JUL

m:'.-‘. A v-
.‘ “fif‘XlJ

A

fQL"
\‘Ui¢

T Am-A\
Lh.--LUA

“-fi

Hbd
ALL;

'vY-n
HH
§‘—J

m
.Ll

ion,

at

~X
duc

v“ 1

."

If?" ——‘
|_/\

|
.d

.‘
'V'

A‘-

q

ch

0

G.

fl

ion

5..)
ree C

-v-
_L
M
J

S

de

QYIX
T'IL
Recreat

on;

-:n
agar.

o -

ior tne
and

"v‘
r—‘H
*AAH'
- .2
CT-

(—1

TO
V‘.

Department of H

44.0945:
3/000

I would like to dedicate this thesis to my wife,
Sally. Without Her hard work, this year would never

have been possible.

}.J
H

, "\TK\'TT finv“ 'r'1
ACAAufluEuU&LR;S

stance of

H

I would like to acknowledge the Kind ass

the ladies who participated as

U)

ubjects for this study.
Their patience and kind understanding was extremely
valuable. i would also like to express appreciation to
Miss Hallock for her assistance in the completion of this
study. Particularly, . would like to express my sincere
gratitude to Dr. Dorothy Popejoy for her patience, under-

1

standing, and counsel in the completion of this study.

P
H
H

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . .

m

lHE PROBLEM AND DEFINITION OF

tatement of th
Purpose of the

tu . . .
Importance and Need for the 5'
Nature an‘ cope of the Study
Limitations of t-e Study. .
Definition of Terms . . .

ELATED LITEFPTURE. . . . .
Dominance. . . . . . . . .
m” 1‘ " 4 a "\
neories oi Dominance bevel Opr. er
Social Theories of Dominance Dev elo

ment . . . .
Frequency of Dominance
the Populati

Characteristics and Classification

of Dominance. . . . .
Hand Dominance . . . .
Eye DOlLiI“ .ance o o o o
m p '\ w..- '5 4. 1,,
Techniques oi Dominance betel
Hand Dominance . . . .
Eye Dominance . . . .
Dominance and Motor Learning

.t.
Op

mination

'"U

{1)
0'4

(D

p
H
Fl

.mj

cflNLUFJF’H

00 O\ O\ O\

H
C)

+4 +4 +4 +4 +4 +4 +4
mNU‘IUlUJL/UUO

"U
I}
f1}

H
<

THODOLOGY . . .
Source of the Da
Testing Procedur
Description of T

Determination

Determination

Motor Ability
Target Construct
Training Program
MethOd of Statis
SENTATION AID AN
Test Tesults
Statistical

”MARY, CONCLUSIONS,
Summary . . .

Conclusions . .
Recommendations.

:1)

(Dmd
OFJOOUJ

:3

U)

C
‘

S

h
m

(D Forum»
(“it’llff
HA<sn-
1m

0%

U)

0

Po

+4
0 .
m
H

fl

3)
t1
y<
U)
+4
(/3

U
0

g.

0

gg. . .
3(1)-

p
O-

a
H

*U
[D

00 0Q

(D

l’\)
U] .1“!le C) C) \I) \O (D (D

U) U.) U) Ll) Us) l\) R) P.) '\)

(A)
N

Table

C-l.

LIST OF TABLES

Page
Successful and unsuccessful scores before
and after a training program by dominance
groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Tally of successful and unsuccessful scores
before and after a training program by
dominance groups. , , , , , , , , , 68

vi

ill

0Q

uh

Appendix

A.

U]

t: I
H
(O
F]
O
.11
:1>
“U
*0
in
U
H
O
m
U)

Directions for and Items used in
Crider's Eye Dominance Tests . . . .

Hull's Questionnaire used in the
Determination of Hand Dominance . . .

Raw Score Data Sheet for Successful (S)
and Unsuccessful (U) Trials . . . .

ON
00

4-»4— "A J:-‘ ‘
Statement of the Pr0blem

 

Since many games and sports require the manipula-
tion of various types of objects and implements involv—
ing the arms and legs, the phenomenon of preferred
laterality is an area of real concern in physical educa-
tion. At the present time, the relationship of lateral
dominance to motor ability has not been clearly estab-
lished. If evidence can be presented establishing a
clear cut connection between lateral douinance character-
istics and motor abi‘ity, physical educators, psycholo-
gists, and physiologists could utilize this information.

in combined types of study in this area.

 

O

The purpose Oi this study was to investigate the
relationship of hand-eye dominance in the learning of

a complex motor skill in lacrosse.

Importance and Need for the Study

 

The game of lacrosse is the only game that enjoys

a truly American heritage. Fro“ the time of th American

ndian lacrosse has grown to the point where today it i

I 8
ranked as the fastest growing sport in America. Lacrosse

not only presents a vigorous and challenging activity to

C' r
I)
(D
D
d
$5
I,_ I
(D
C f
(D
w
:5
O.
(—1.
w
(I:
( f
C
O
(D
b‘
d
U

U‘
C
d
l—"
cf
{1)
H
U1
0
*3
(D
E}
{D
|,_l.
{:5
U)
Q)
:5

exciting spectacle for the spectator.

J.

1

If it is possible to establisn that there is a
direct and measurable connection between certain dominance

hievement, the physical

0
O
i?
C)
Fl
.‘5
{1)
Cf
P-
O
:1
m
9)
:75
(L
U)
C
'U
(D
* S
L l
C)
‘3'
:1
0
cf
0
'3
m
(D

educator in the classroom could utilize this information

to improve upon \r realign teaching methods currently in

use. This would be particularly helpful when attempting

to teach skills to the left—handed individual. Slow

The selection 0
a roblem which every coach must face, as it is in any
other type of athletic competition. Prediction formulae

.- -, .n .-. D w " 4.: an‘w‘A‘J. fi.:‘.:4_ , ,q
and/or other means lor predicting athletic aoiilty and

minimal success. If a relationship of dominance char—
acteristics of any given individual and his athletic
ability were established, the problem of player selection

for the coach would be reduced considerably.

Nature an Scppe of the Study

~ipated in this study.

H
(3

Fourteen subjects part
They ranged in age from eig teen to twenty— —two yea
old. All subjects were female students who were en—
rolled in a lacrosse activity class in the Woman's
Physical Education Department of Michigan State Uni-
f-

versity during the spring of 1909. The subjects were

grouped according to hand- and eye-dominance combinations

1

J

.and - right eye;

..

into four preference groups: left
left hand - left eye; rig ht hand - right eye; right
hand - left eye.

The subjects participated in a training program

9 q

for six weeks which included training in skil and

accuracy in the overhand throw.

A pre—test and post-test were administered to com-
pare the achievement of each group. Each subject was

allowed ten throws at a target placed in front of

m

regulation lacrosse goal which was divided into areas
of different point values. Results 0: the tests were

compared with non-p ma etric statistics.

PI)
cf
D 3“
(D
(I)
(‘1’
C
KL

Limitations c
Limitations of the study included the following:
I. The methods used for the determination of domi-

a.

nance characteristics were som what dated, and

more recent inexpensive techniques were not
available.

The effect of having a male teacher instruct-
ing a female activity cannot be determined.
To insure the presence of left-handed indi-
viduals within the population, eight subjects
were requested to enroll in the activity.

As the training program progressed, subjects
from all dominance groups withdrew from the
class, which severely limited the number of

subjects within each dominance group.

Definition of Terms

 

Dominance.—-A preference for one hand, one

 

eye, or one foot over the other in any given
activity.

Dextrality.--Pure right-sided dominance.

 

Sinistrality.--Pure left-sided dominance.

 

Homolaterality.--Dominance on the same side

 

of the hand, eye, and foot.

Contralaterality.--A quality of mixed domi-

 

nance of hand, eye, and foot.

Overhand throwing motion.-eA term to describe

 

the action of each subject as she threw a ball

lat a target.

U1

‘I

The crosse was held at the throat in the dominant
hand in a vertical position, with the pocket of the

ng motion was

FJ.

crosse facing the target. The throw
initiated by stepping forward on the opposite foot.
Action of the hands and arms was a combined, coordinated

on. To initiate the pushing

H

ing mot

F l
F_J

pushing and pu
motion, the upper hand_and arm were extended at the
elbow and shoulder simultaneously. To initiate the
pulling motion, the lower hand and arm were drawn from
a position cf extension from the body to a position in

which the lower hand on the crosse finally rested in

the approximate area of the opposite axilla.

n"r r17: 1"?
Othin? ii
tramm. TTMT m T
RHJ—JI“..L-_. LJ-L 4::R‘A“ LTAFiJ—J
Since tre ,urpose oi this study was to inves -
‘- _ n“* A "A- p 1 (N‘— n‘ f‘ ‘— v-n ‘—
tne re'atlonsnip o- lateral dominance b0 .otor

‘ A ‘- -1 A - -. m -. ‘
ance, and KobOT lEQPning was reviewed.

 

The phenomena of dominance, preferred lateralit

or handedness appears to be one of th mysteries 0:
human development. Walters stated, ”Alth ugh we are
constructed bi later ally we function nilaterally and

have

a preference for one nand, one leg, and one eye.

Theories of Dominance

 

Development

 

- 2 i.- ,. ”
Early theories mentioned by Elau, ild retn,j a
IT A " fl . ‘ ' ‘- 4.“ .“ ,a n. " A“ 1
way centered around developmental ideas and rel ed
three major areas: anatomical factors, hereditary

factors, and social influence factors.

The early anatomical theories were concerned wi

cerebral dominance within the fetus. One such theory

reasoned that the fetus would develop a dominant brai

hemisphere prior to birth. In this case if the left

0\

y,

«a

n4

th

n

brain was dominant the child would be born with righ -

sided dominance. If the right brain was dominant the

child would be born with a left-sided dominance.5
Another anatori cal theory, wr ich was supported,

m inta ir led that the blood flow to one side of the brain

reater than the bloOd flow to the other side of the

2
p)
m
0'}

‘

rain hemisphere which received the greatest

(3'

O”
’3
Q)
p.
:3
F 3

”8

amount of blood would become the dominant side.

This theory was disproved by Cunningham in 1902.
He found no significant difference in size between left

and right carotid arteries.

Blau in agreeing with Cunningham, stated that the
hysiological di: erer .ces bethee the doninant and non—
dominant sides as concerned with the brain and sensory
organs were undetectable.

Other anatomical tr eor ies were concerned with the

center of gravity of tie body as determined by the place-
1 ' ,l 9 "‘ lo .' ‘—t,.h4— ‘ Lana +—'q‘
ment of the Viscera. slau indicated that this theory

c<1
O
'3
(D
()1
P
C)”
F.)
(I)
(D
<
F]
D:
(D
:‘S
O
(I)

could not be supported with an
A fifth possible treory indicated that the route

of the subclavian artery influenced the determination of

the preferred hand. In this situation the blood pressure

exerted by the right-side artery was greater, thus causing

a greater incidence of ri ght -handedness within the popu-

ll 12 . .. L

lation. Blau indicated biat this theory could not

be supported by any evidence either.

Cr;

13

The last theory was developed by Jones, who
stated that the length of the bones on the right side of

reater than the same bone on

w-

a r ght-handed person was

(V!

the opposite side. This theory was inva Ni ated by

Beeleyl)4 in l918.
. 15

Iildreth fy

}-Jc

indicated that all efforts to ident
a structural reason which would account for lateral
dominance have failed.

blau agreed and stated that congenital theories

fififififi

had little signili cance.
A . Ba 17 h - 'V: 1 ‘_1 l8 .3 1: A ~ ‘ A“ 4-.

Both au and hildretn indicated that there
were theorists who held that handedness was determined
by heredity. Blau‘9 found no consistent evidence that
handedness followed familial tendencies. He further
stated that in studies conducted Wl th twins, and in
families with one or both parents being left-handed,

there was no definite correlation between biological

symmetry and lateral preference.

 

The theory of social inf uence as a cause of
determining handedness seemed to receive the strongest
support from most authors. In this situation, handed-
ness was determined by direct or indirect pressure placed

.1 . ..,- 20 . -h ..
on the child by SOCiety. hiidreth pOinted out this

connection when she sta ‘ted that social convention had

strong connections with laterality by establishing rules
pertaining to how certain activities were to be done. In

}"

tatenent sne also stated that

U)

5

further support of th

ness was a cultural and social convention

(1.

right hande

which most people found it expedient to conform.

21 ,
D“ ‘ ated tna

oiau agreed when he 5

Cl‘

learning and

cf

education could be factors in choosing the preferred side.

' an 22 fin- 23 (~- - A t 24 fifi _- -~ h‘ -
Oxendine, raimer, and fPOVlnS all indiCated

that early training and activity were important factors

-: ‘ -. w: n‘ — 0" gAW' n-
ln tne determination oi dominance.
Blau indicated that tne prezerred hand was some—

w-I

imitation hy tne child of the parent,

cf

#4)

ti he result 0

E3

es
training of the child by parents and educators, and other

influential factors placed on the child by social pressure.

}-
p
§
0
s:
:3
p
(3
:3
9-4)
0
*S
O
(B
Q.
d.
:T
(I)
O
:‘3‘
Fl.‘
F ,
(L

He also mentioned injury to a
into a pattern of preference as a factor in the determina-
tion of dominance.

26 ,,27., . Ur}:

-' ‘ ‘1. 0" .- . ‘ | ‘u"
Biau and :iidre n ootn agreed that at

the chil‘ had no preference for one side over the other

D.

an that there were both right and left dominant potential

H.

t

(D

p.

e

(W

.20 . - . .. ,. .. .
Hildretn stated that up to age three the Child

ized dex-

had little need in daily activity for speCia
terity. She further stated that consistent sidedness
really occurred only when the child learned motor coordi—

nation.

F'
C.)

Cratty29

indicated that by age seven the
cated a preference for one side which remained

throughout life.

'7'. 1 4—1 “O n 19 1 1 o ‘ '-

nildretnj indicated that infant studies
right-handedness was shown at an earlier age than
handedness. She also indi ated that from ages three

seven there was a marked increase

handed children with a decrease in ambilaterality

 

 

Frecuency o- Doninance :ypes
Withir the Population
31 4- 32 . ..s 33 it. ,- - i

Blau, Oxenulne, and Riie estinated th
percentage of right—handed people within the popu
ranged from 70 to 98 per cent, depending upon the
being read.

.. . A . . . ., , -

dildretn3 found :urtner that females outnu
males within this group. Her findings were suppo

. . k 35 . .‘.. L A - . .
other investigators, who indicated a relationsn
dominance inciderce wi h regards to age, sex, and

Between the pure right—handed and the pure

considered to

I"

37

handed groups was a group which was

A

36

v

ambidextrous. Cildreth and Oxendine defined

dexterity as the equal ability of both hands in 5

functional tasks, or a non-preference of one hand

the other.
38

Hildreth

felt That the truly ambidextrous

( . n 3 ~ I" fl

was non-eXistent. t’.ie:er“ reported only ."2i
of 17,07H school children as showing ambidexteiit

l-J o

0 us 1 ‘ 1‘..-
iound that

left—

to

the number of right-

Y)
.L

left—

be

0
l—

amb

imilar

OVEI’

person

w
A;

er 0613

'U

ll

40 . . . . .
Blau maintained a more conservative pOint of view

by stating that all people are ambidextrous when con—

H

sidering the activities which brought both sides nto

play. He further stated:

Laterality has Significance nly in terms of a
particul r actiVit . Separa ed from the activity
it has no meaning but taxeh o ether it shows a
preferen of one side ove h

Se
e other coupled
l
r

SK 1 . A consistent
right-leit pattern for ‘iffe eit activities and
i f t ali . i i n~
forms oT la er ty in one p rson an e rare, a d
a mixed design more com mon. 4
u-‘fi 4L.“ “2 . - .1” __ - o 1- 'v r- " a A
Hiidretn found t.at tests indicated the average

:3

two—handed person was never effective in tool using. I
support of this she cited evidence which indicated that

n inconsistent hand preference, and efforts to change

‘

Q)

the dominant hand in habitual skills, caused motor diffi-

fi

culties and soci

U)
(‘1
: §
(1)
:5
(—f.
O,
H
F1)
H

l adJu

Q)

She also stat ed that those individuals who have not

achieved manual dominance were less e- ective or possibly

fl

handic appe ed in motor pe fo r..ance. She cited five studies

95

d
[—1-
(D
U]
P.
:1

in which the authors indicated numerous difficul
individuals who were unable to express a consistent domi—
nant side.
The remaining dominance group consisted of those

individuals who exhibited a left-handed preference in

.. . 143. 1-..“ --..--..
actiVity. Hildreth indicated that this trait Was mole
common when skills other than writing and eating were

_ “L4 0 -o ' 1 ~ . m I
Observed. Burt indicated that tne di fierence between

t was

H

hands was not so much connected with stren th as

09

connected with speed and skill in an activity requiring

dexterity.
' 145 4 - h 0 “VA ‘ n4- 1“ Y) ‘fi"
Downey, in 1926, lounu that the peicehtage of
1 q ~ ~ 0 ~_g . - 1 W1 1‘1 146 v ~— ~ 1 47
ieIt-nanded inleiduais was small. slau, Hiidretn,
.. A8 . i., #9 . .. . . . . , . a. . -
Cxendine, and nize indicated that the ieit~nand popu-

lation comprised from two to thirty per cent of the popu-

lation. The accepted, conservative estimate ranged from

handed individual tends to be a slow learner in the motor

realm; he is clumsy, awkward in sports and motor periorm-

n50

ance.
l . . - .. . L
Blau5 found in his study that the percentage of
leIt-.anded individuals was more ferquent in the follow-

1. Males m re than females

2. Mental defectives

3. Delinqu nts and defectives

M. Psyc.opaths, epileptics, neurotics, psychotics
5. Stutterers

6. Children with reading difficulties

He qualified his findings by saying that only the rate
of incidence (of left—handed persons) was higher. There

were right—hand dominant people in these groups.

'—

92

DJ

Palmer indicate similar findings in his study

done in 1964.

13

Characteristics and Classification
of Dominance

 

 

Hand Dominance

 

Hildreth commented on the difficulty of determining

dominance when she stated, ”Laterality is a complex

"53 514

feature of human structure and development. Irwin
further established this difficulty when he found that
dominance does not approximate a normal distribution.

Palmer55 indicated that true dominance was diffi-
cult to establish because of the influence of opposite?
sided tendencies in the performance of any activity.
This has caused many individuals to be incorrectly
classified into a particular dominance group.

Blau56 indicated difficulty in testing methods as

one reason for inconsistency in hand-dominance determina—

tion.

Eye Dominance

 

Blau57 indicated that the phenomena of occular
dominance was first recognized by Humphrey in 1861.
Since that time many investigations regarding occular
dominance were undertaken in an effort to determine its
distribution within the population, and to explore any
means by which occular dominance could be determined.

According to Hoerr and Olsen in Blakiston's New

 

Gould Medical Dictionary, the dominant eye was defined

14

as, ”Tha eye which is unconsciously and preferentially

CI)

_
n3

Jo

tions.

(/1
9)
E).
W
O

}

chosen to guide decis on More specifi-
cally the dominant eye would be that eye unconsciously
utilized by the individual in situations in which a

binocular view was not possible or was undesirable.

*‘J
P-

p
4

,-~-.r" -. w: A ‘ "‘l\“.
occular dominance by stating,

Q:

~ les explaine
"Occular dominance tends to clear the visual field by
giving the right of way to the image to the dominant
eye-"59
Meanwwfl, . ,,
Crider lound that there were three types OI eye

dominance into which subjects could be classified. he

as

()J

ie

i... I
Q)
0 4
U;
M
9—0)

also found more people who were correctly c
being impartial eyed than were in the group classified

as being left-eye dominant. The right—eye dominant group

was again found to contai. the largest percentage of the

combination.

No exact figures were indicated for the size of
- r62

0% ‘- ‘-
iliGPEllii

[4

the left-eye dominant population. and

..

a o

-. 6 .. .
Oxendine 3 agreed that leIt-eye dominance was more

common than left-hand dominance. They were supported by
the work of Sinclair and Smith.

Hildreth ’ indicated that eyedness could not be
influenced by training. She also indicated that other

investigators in this area could not supp rt any theories

Crider indicated that there appeared to be no
significant difference between the sexes in relation to
which eye was dominant. This was in opposition to the

findings that more males exhibited left-handedness than

females.

 

rm, - a r '
_ flf‘W‘fi“"q f‘ (‘_m'1V‘QV‘,"$e
.. db -- _(_,' “CAR; \J ‘. ‘1’ \Jq~—..‘-.-\.~§AV
—\ c o
I‘Zhrl"“~- if:“"- (Kw
U. ‘JK-- ....-.p~v..uv-¢

 

..anq iJ\J..;_.pC. we

A ..

 

Many tecnniques have been utilized as testing or

(D
(‘1‘
(D

V3
L

W

,i
y i

screening methods to assist investigators in d .idihg
the hand dominance of test subjects. Among those more

commonly used were the questionnaire and those techniques

t<
d.
m
U)
('1‘

‘1 - AA C—p-4‘
-l O? chocflt

|.-u

which utilized ski

a
67

4

Zildreth indicated that the determination of the

O

dominant hand was a problem for statistical analysis.

She supported this stand by indicating the complexity of
clearly establishing the dominant hand. In her examples
she mentioned many activities which were often done with

the left-hand by individuals who were classified as being

right-handed. She felt that through statistics a con-

sistent measurement of hand preference could be estab-

O\
(D

Oxendine stated that tests requiring both fine
and gross dexterity and skill would be helpful in the
determination of dominance. Along with the task perfor1-

ance he supported the use of a questionnaire as a screen—

—'

Crovitz and Hull both used the questionnaire techni-
69

que as a method of domin nce determii tion. Crovitz
developed his test for use in screening large groups.
’ O I O Q -
Hull7 initially tested ner subjects using a question-
naire and a performance test. She rearranged the test
questions after an initial test and retested the same
grOup, wnich es abl shed a hit: reliability for her
technique.

- -.71 - ...... .1. ~ 1.

Dlad Called the questionnaire te Cl-leu* notoriously

unreliable, and later mer.tio ned Hull's test as being of.
limited value. however, in his section relating to test-
ing methods, he listed Hull's test as the suggested
method for determining hand dominance with the co.ment

I I I n O 72
that it was suffiCient ior inactic al purposes. Oxendine

cited other methods utilized by other investigators which

required timing and 5 im mulus machinery.

Eye Dominance

 

Eye dominance determination was another area in
which there was considerable investigation, particularly
in the area of psychology. One of the most important
criterions for the determination of eye dominance was
that the subject should not be aw re of the test purpose.
This unconscious sighting was an essential element in
preventing the subject from becoming confused during
testing.

Miles73 was the first author who indicated the need
for unconscious sighting by the subject. His testing
method utilized a tapered cone which the subject used to
sight a visual target. He found that by having the sub—
ject keep both eyes open while looking through the large
end of the cone towar' the small end of the cone, the

U " 1 c
t Witd only Ofl

'e

O

testee was forced to si

()9
:3
Cf
cf
:1
(D
(t
('D
U)
d
O
0

LI

C r
(D
U)
cf
(/2
:3
}_)
(“f
3‘
<
O)
FS
H

eye. By repeating the ous visual targets,
Miles was able to determine the preferred eye with ex—
tremely high consistency. In this case, the preferred
eye was considered to be the dominant eye.

A {371'1 . - ._.:r.' 1 -.‘ _- ._ ,...- ..

tulf substantiated this consistency using a
similar type of cone. He found a reliability coefficient
of 0.97 for measurement consistency.

Other tests utilized the fingers and pencils as

sighting objects. Crovitz75 maintained that this type
of test was useful only as a screening device. To

FI
CI)

detect real dominance with consistency, a more dif-
ferentiated test lust be developed.

6
Cr er7

}._Jo

developed one of the best test batteries
concerning eye-dominance determ'nation. These particula

items were developed over a period of ten years using

(3‘

thousands of subjects. The attery had a reported relia—

bility of 0.98 to 0.99. Crider also reported that sex,
ha ndedness, intelligence, or visual acuity did not
influence test resu‘ts. Further investigation into test—

ing methodology failed to disclose other methods of equal

consistency or ease of administration.

a clear relationship between dominance and skill.

Roth investiga ted the effects of hand and eye
dominance as factors in motor ability. He indicated
that of he four hand— eye domir -ance combinations pos—
sible, the left -hand right—eye group proved to be superior
in motor ability. Of the other groups, the right-hand,
right—eye group was rated second; the right-hand, left—
eye group was third; and the left-hand, left—eye group

was rated fourth.

After Roth there ap

D,

years before Sinc"a“ an

cf

tionship of laterali y in

authors found no relation

dominance to the preferr
80

6‘:

O
'1 v-
uA-Jé

In 1958 Way ves

peared to be a lapse of fiftee

Smith79 investigated t

i

swimming and dominance.

Q

I1

' f and foot

0 hand,

F]

p eyes

(I)

d side for breathing in swimmi

‘

tigated the relationship of

v~
A A

g.

lateral dominance to scores on motor ability and selected

D 11
J.

skills tests. She ound

tween motor ability mean
which were determined by

conclusions she stated th

no significant differences be-
scores of laterality groups
hand—eye preference. In her

at motor ability seemed to be

related to foot ambidexterity since combinations of pre-

f rence,
motor ability scores.
Startin

.
m1 Y‘
‘Io-L‘l

a

O;

O

thletic activities incre

m

tigated dominance as
dexterity and strength.
indicating an inconsisten
measuring different trait
Ries82
Her

and pure dominance.

dominance gave higher res

b)
nship to physical education an
_ 1.- .81
ured by the factors of balance

She considered her results as
by in preferred dominance when

S .

results indicated that mixed

4.
U

tes .

ults on the accuracy

including foot ambidexterity, resulted in hi her

found no relationship to accuracy in fencing

2O

1

.b . . . . - ,. . _

hancini 3 found that right-handed squects reacted

faster to the right and left—handed sub; ects to the left
when testing their ability to move laterally.

QM
s U ~ - - I - o 0 ‘ W 9 ‘ 1 .
Adams found that indiVicu als With pure dominance

- 1

were superior in more batting categories than those

indiv idu Ma s with crossed dominance. He concluded that

CT
:5

there was some con me tion between d minance and bat

l E
ability.
9
U

Poindexter found that pure dominant individuals

were consistently better in the performance of a per-
ceptual motor task than mixed dom‘nance groups.

/

.. 80 . . . . . ..
RODinson came to a Sin ilar conCiusion in his
study when he found that laterally dominant subjects
were better in reaction time tests.
t 8 ' ‘- ~‘ 0.. ‘ “D" A. -2
Sander, in ner study, lounc a QllIePche in

ability of crossed and unilateral hand and foot groups

ance of motor skills. He indicated that this could be
due to the fact that most skills are taught by right-
handed teachers who have difficulty transpo sin * the
skill to the opposit hand.

89

Fitts theorized that the number of skills that
a man could learn were limitless. The major limitations

dealing with skill achievement in any one individual

[\l
i

were directly concerned with individual physiological
makeup. Of particular concern were the muscular and
nervous systems.

Waterland's remarks concerning skilled movement

‘

provided further insignt into the complexity of the

problem:

)—I

(-1;
(1/

Skilled movenent is composed of three in r-
related components, willed movement that nay be
cortically direCted; reflexes that are evoked
in association with the purposive act, and the
sensory inputs from the external and internal
envllonrrentflO

chievement,

m

’_ .J

urther stated that there were indications that perzorm—

_
(

ance approached these limits so slowly that it Was seldom

o
J

p.

pO‘S ole to establish wner any given indiViduai had

(I)
I.

reached his limit in any given actiVity. aqu'ily
important was tn t

F1. .-.' h,.— -r. h -r-~_»: * ”a- -.' .— ‘ ty.—7“ *: A
lwo main lactors appeared to rest-lct tne skill aChieVe—

ment of any given individual.

A . m («A 1:; I‘“" On. P,» fl-,-’ ‘. " ‘4. v“ “4%- N:
aglnv process. because Oi age and suoseQuent physiologi-

F14

kill achievemer

U)

cal changes, the ultimate level of
possible was lowered. Secondly, motivation, which was

initially strong, often times became reduced to the point

p.

ll eased.

C)

where the effort required to improve in sk

'JJ
/
O
U)

I

I
O
t‘I‘
m
:11
H
H

la

b. Etta Walters, "Interaction of the Body and
Its Segments," American Journal of Physical Nadicine

 

XL‘I (1967), 28l.
2 1n }\6 D h - 77‘.“ ‘F
Aoranam Llat, lne Nas-

No. 5, New York: The Americ¢“

tion, Inc., 19M6), p. 12.

 

Research Monograph
chiatric Associa—

LA)

n

r, . f eenetic Psvcnology, LXXV
O, (a).(?art II) 221—254, (b).
XYVI (lSSO), (Part IV) 39-lOO,

'J

\u' ' .

Gertrude Hildreth, "The Development and Training
0; Hand Dominance,” Jc.*r

( 9A9), (Part I) 197- 22
Part III) 255— 275, (c).
(a).(Part V) lOl—lhu, (

UFJ

 

 

 

 

 

L. E. Way, Relationship of Lateral Dominance to
Scores on Motor Ability and Selected Skill Tests,"
Research Quarterly, XXIX (October, 1958), 360-369.

E

’Blau, 0p. cit., p. l5, citing D. d. Cunningham,
”Right- Handedness and Left-handedness," Huxley Lecture,
1902, Journal of Rogal Anthropological Institite of
Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 32 (1902), 273.

62 . i . . n i -

blau, on. eit., p. l:, Citing :. h. Jordan,
"Inher itance of Left-Hancedness,” American Breeders
Magazine, Vol. 2, No. l (l9ll), l9.

7 -1 .

Blau, o_. cit., p. lo.

8 , -

Ioid., p. 29.

9Blau, op. ci ., p. 16, citing A. Buchanan,
"Mechanical Theory of Predominance of the Rigit hand,”
Procedures of the Philosophical Society of Glascow, 1502.

10 .
Blau, op. c1t., p. 15.
ll . - . . i

Blau, oo. c1t., p. 15, Citing J. nyrtl,_1 arcbuch

der Topographischen Ana tor ie (#th ed.; oraumulier,

 

Vienna: 1860).

l2Ioid., p. 16.

23

op. cit , p. 1?, citing W. F. Jone
ed “ unpublished thesis, i r
fornia, Los Angeles, 1918).

 

 

n. -:¢— ‘ . : n -.
Blau, op. cit., p. i , citing a. L. Beeiey, An
‘r ' A“. A 1‘r‘:-_ —. ‘ ‘A__"‘-:_ :r‘ r: f:‘ , —-q -: rs ‘. “
Egperimontal Study in Leis handedness (ChICago. University
'1 n . r. - v R - - "
OI oniCago firess, i9io).

 

nildreth, on. Cit., p. 262 (Part III).

 

nildreth, 0:. .it., p. 200 (Part I).

 

22 pa\ ; , , \

 

Joseph B. Oxer -di tne, -nzszology of flotor Learnirg
(New Yor‘: Apple ton-Century—C roits, 1906), p. 299.
23 fi-w~ ”a 1 i a l “199-. - ,
Robert D. Fairer, uevelopmenu o- a oilierentiated
nnadeoness, P‘vccological Billetin, LKII (1964), 265.

 

K. A. Prov ,
r t al Psy

 

 

27

 

28I - _
29'“ r~ ‘- T ”kn-“‘4- 73 n' A7fifx w :9er 54 7
dryaAiU U o KILQVUy, $Syan.—\JW ryv, a .C “L: “LbaJ.
Activity (Eng O‘lewood Cliffs: Prentice hall, 1908), p. 32.
O

3 Hildreth, op. cit., p. 225 (Part II).

31Blau, op. cit., p. 86.

32 .. .g an
Oxendine, Op. Cit., p. 3u6.

33D. C. Rife, "Heredity and handedness,” Science

Monthly, LXXIII (1951), 321.

:1:
I...)
Q.
*3
(D
(.1.
f)‘

U
0
O
o
[.1
(1
U
U
m
C)
O
A
* U
m
*3
cr
H
v

nildreth, 3 Ci“., p. 251 (Part II), citing
N. Schae:er, "Lie L1ngonarder in cer Berliner Gemein-
oeschalen,” Berliner K ein. Nocnenscn., XXXXVIII (1911).

 

 

 

 

Lhfii‘dretn, op. cit., p. 203, citing C. Burt,
The Backward Child (New YorK Macmillan, 1937),
L57 I: V“ . Hm . .. . h.*-' a. A w '
u. L. downey, 1ypes 01 DGAtTallty ana Tneir
Implications,” American Journal of sychology, XXXVIII
(1927), 317.

 

Li v-. a 1 AA“
7niloretn, on oit., p. 238.
Oxencine, op. c1*., f. 307.

 

 

53E -

1iidr etn, op. cit., p. 198 (Part I).
5“

 

Leslie W. Irwi; "A Study of the Relationship of
Dominance to the Perf01mance of Physical Education
Activities," Researcn QaarterlL, II (1938), 90-119.

 

1

55Palmer, op. cit., p. 239.

 

m
U]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/
So - .
Blau, op. c:t., p. 30.
o 1 -/
ibid., p. 10.
Normand Hoerr and Arthur 0501, Blakiston's New
. a ,. “ ‘ - “ : .1 : ‘1 1, 1 / ' _ 1 ,‘ - . y , _ P . Tg'l‘ 7 1 ,1 1. {f
cou1d RediCal D1ct1onaxy (new ’cra. McCraw-n111, 1 3o).
f-
39 ,1 1, .. 1 . 1 1 .
w. L. Miles, "Cccular Dorinance Demonstrated by
Unconscious Sighting,” Joirnal of Experinental Psy-
w ---| M ---r- ‘ _ F. AAA 7-». -Ar
cno10gy, X11 (February, 1929), 113—120.
60“ 7'1” "A “”11 n m g a h m -
slak e Crider, a pattery o1 1ests 1or the Domi-
nant Eye, Journal of General Psychol 02!, XXX: (October,
IQQQ), 179—190.
61 ,1 _' Y‘ fi6"
way, on. cit., p. 3 3.
,
02...- - .. ..
ni'dretn, op. cit., p. 273.
,
03 , -. 1 :1 1 1

Oxendine, op. c1t., p. 308.

Caroline B. Sinclair and Inez M. Smith, "Later a1 —
ity in Swim ring and Its Relationship to Dominance of
Hand, Lye, nd Foot,” Research Cgarterly, XXVIII (1957) ,
395-AO2, c1ti1.T Charl s Roth, ”Hand Eye ominir ce as a

. -- Or I ._ a 5 ~ ~ fix ._ _‘ _-
Factor in Motor Abi1ity" (unpub1ishec Pn. . dissertat1on,
New York University, 1992), p. 402.
f—
0 vvo 1 .5
Dnilcretn, op. 011., p. 272.
Crider, op. cit., ,. Ic‘.
,
07,.-- . . 1 .
hiicretn, op. c:t., p. 20%.
68
Aenc1ne or. c;t., p. 3u9.
9Herbert -._Crcvitz and Karl Zenn r, ”A Group Test
for AssessinO Eand and Eye Dominance,” American Journal
. T‘T’ —‘. A -, /r\\_ r‘r A I'
of Psycno1o,y, LAKV (tune, 1902/, 273-270.
70fi . ‘l‘ '* ‘1 [ffi‘_ _,;1 ‘1 TPJ- _ '1'! 9‘_ m ‘_
bathe; :_ne U . Eli-L‘, DVLLUEJ OJ. MaveraLl ulf IESV
“ '7“ ‘ - a—n "A: 5“; _— f /
items," Journal of sxper‘rcntal ;uacat1on, 1V (1930),
A
287—290.
71
Blau oo. cit. . 12.
3 1 )
72h ‘ “ .3 .
uxendine, Cu. C1t., p. 309.
73 .. 11 -Ar
Miles, op. c1t., p. 123.

26

 

7LNoel B. Cuff, "A Study of Eyedness and Handed—
ness," Journal of Experimental Psychology, XIV (1931),
l6A-l75.

75
76

Crovitz, op. cit., p. 276.

__1I_—.—

Crider, op. cit., p. 187.

77O. H. Vogel, "The Relationship of Dominance to
Acts of Skill," Research Quarterly, VI (1935), 15—18.

78Leslie w. Irwin, ”A Study of the Relationship of
Dominance to the Performance of Physical Education
Activities," Research Quarterly, II (1938), 98-119.

 

 

79Sinclair and Smith, op. cit.

80Way, op. cit.

81Judith Frasek, "An Investigation of Dominance
as Measured by the Factors of Balance, Dexterity, and
trength" (unpublished Master's thesis, Smith College,
1961).

82Susan Carol Ries, "Dominance, Discrimination and
Accuracy in Fencing" (unpublished Master's thesis,‘
University of California, Los Angeles, 1962).

83V. H. Mancini, ”Study of the Relationship of

Hand Dominance to Performance Time" (unpublished Master's
thesis, Springfield College, 196“).
8A ,

Gary B. Adams, "Effects of Eye Dominance on
Baseball Batting" (unpublished Master's thesis, Uni—
versity of California, Riverside, 196A).

85M. Coleen Poindexter, "Unilateral and Crossed
Lateral Hand Eye Dominance and Performance on a Per-
ceptual Motor Task" (unpublished Master's thesis, Uni-
versity of California, Berkley, 1965).

86Edwin N. Robinson, "A Comparison of Laterally
Dominant to Crossed Dominant Individuals in Tests of
Reaction Time and Hand Eye Coordination" (unpublished
Master's thesis, University of California, Santa
Barbara, 1965).

87Carolyn M. Sander, "Development in Kinesthetic
Awareness in the Non Preferred Arm of College Women"
(unpublished Master's thesis, University of Washington,
Seattle, 1967).

27

88Oxendine, op. cit.

89Paul M. Pitts and Michael I. Posner, Human
Performance (Belmont, California: Brooks Cole Publish—

ing Co., 1967), p. 18.

 

O , . . .

9 Joan C. haterland, "The Supportive Framework for
Willed Movement," American Journal of Physical Medicine,
XLVI (1967), 266.

91Pitts, 0p. cit.

METHCDCLCGY

‘ - “If“ 4 a. : ‘fi -”“"v’\‘ (~— I; Wfi. '— " M ' an r‘n:qf-"
the re1ationsn1p o1 iatera1 do 1nanCe to nOto1 aa111ty,

the experimental method was used to investigate tne prob-

 

class, offered by the Woman's Ph/sical Education Depart-

(1*

O -
ing Procedure

'l,\Q
1Cu

 

‘

or the purpose of categorizing them in hand—eye

F11

dominance groups all subjeCts were first administered a

(D

test questionnaire, and an ey -dominance test battery.

ominance tests, all sub-

C),

By means of the hand-eye
Jects were divided into four groups according to the
combination of dominance characteristics they displayed.

The four groups were designated as follows: left

29

hand - left eye; left hand - right eye; right hand -
left eye; right hand - right eye.

Since all subjects were unfamiliar with lacrosse
and associated skills, two ten—minute training periods
were given to the subjects during the first and second
class periods to assure a meaningful measurement of
their skill. Subjects were then tested for their abil—
ity to throw a lacrosse ball at a target which repre—
sented a lacrosse goal.

After a six-week training program the subjects

were retested with the same procedures and target.
Description of Tests

Determination of
Hand Dominance

 

 

The questionnaire technique, developed by Hull,l

was used to establish hand dominance (see Appendix B).
The questionnaire was a series of forty questions
in which the subject was asked to indicate which hand she
preferred to use to perform various common activities.
If the subject could perform the skill equally well with
either hand, she indicated this also.
The dominant hand was determined from the question-
naire by totaling the hand preferences the subject indi-

cated the most number of times.

x A).

Append;

(see

I

 

 

i

i
i

13-

W a S

Q

Chen

which eye

ermine ‘
of seven objects

4..
U

ce

0

¢_
U

A.
U

‘ec

‘,
r‘.

y the sued

Ia
u

i
S
t
g

1

eyes

both

vs
U
A.

q

structed to kee

tems.

W

.L

U

he tes

4-
U

ous objects as she

*

C
fl

var

ghted

i

S
l
d
0—. .fi

5
n
C

k

r

e
h

S
C
C

-—.U

for the

USBQ

eye was

ait eye was

oomin

1

the

ow;

ned.

.
q

”mi

81

1.
L;

 

oe

.

n
i

e

.-

YR

‘rely to o;

U.

-.

iei sec

5 t

d.

r‘

~A

:et w

‘ 5
‘ r—
U

e—n
Lid.

i
1'1

.0

rea

a
T

*IV
5
9

two areas, the

to

A.

i
.G

vide

:
.L

the target was d

M

E
i

g

'7‘
a

i

2.1

E
5

area

the outer

-

and

I
q
l-L

ya

flakey w.

Q
o

"0 .'_
Ir01lv

1n

aceo
goal mouth a line ten yar

were pl

31

 

 

.l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

; 3.2
E?
|
Z.
4—36" +
v v
a g +|
' 78" 4

 

Figure l.——Modified lacrosse goal target.

32

line, which was five yards long, was drawn perpendicular
to the first. If this line was extended it would divide
the goal into two equal halves.

Each subject was given instruction on the approach
to the target. The left-handed subjects were instructed
to throw from the right-hand side of the restraining
lines and the right—handed subjects were instructed to
throw from the left-hand side of the restraining lines.
The following instructions were given to each subject in
exactly the same way,

Throw the ball at the target. You must stay
within this area (indicating the right-hand or
left—hand restraining area depending on the
dominant hand of the subject). Run or trot

to the target. Do not step over any of the
lines. You do not want to hit the middle of
the target.

The subject was then told to pick up a regulation
woman's lacrosse ball with her crosse and carry out the
instructions. Replacement balls were immediately avail-
able. This permitted the subjects to recover from their
throw, pick up a new ball, trot to the target and throw
again in a very short period of time.

Each subject took ten shots at the goal from her
respective restraining area. Successful or unsuccessful
throws were determined and recorded. If the subject
missed the target completely, or struck the center area

or target backing material in such a manner than it would

be a miss in a game situation, she was rated unsuccessful

U)
LA)

3 7 ~-;1 *‘ ’- 1 r «fir-e r. ‘- h r“

in her throw. 11 the Subject struck the outer area or
~ VV‘.“ ~I fi 0 A J‘- h _ V‘: ‘A‘ ‘ h h 9‘ '1 1

tne marginal 1ine 1t Was considered a success1u1 throw.

No

*3

p.

. Y,“ 11.1 A ,1 n .2. , ..‘ .- 4—,.
orcement was given to any 0. the Subjects

Ho)

en

by verbal or other means.

 

‘-La:’)—::et \/C--S‘::” jsCCLC.‘
1 LI! A 71‘ -w 4— ‘ I -'—-v r‘ ‘ --
The target was constructed in two parts, tne back—

PJJ
P.
(In
C
F.‘i
CD
|,.:

ing portion and the target portion (see
The backing portion o

‘0 '2 . .h" ~2 ’3‘. A‘ firm/\r“ - f‘“ Yfi'f‘.‘ — r‘
of one-hall 1ncn n1Ck -1perooard mater1a1. it Was

mounted on a irame o: two— by four—inch planks and

heavily braced. This portion of the target measured
seventy-eight inches by seventy—eight incnes. The DOCtC”
edge rested on the ground.

ine target portion was constructed of one-half inch
thick exterior type plywood. It was centered on the

backing material by measuring three inches from two sides

|,.Jc
:3
(J
:3”
(I)
U)
H,
“i
O
3:
cf
:3
(1)
cf
0
'O
O
r 5
( f
:3
(D
0'
$1)
0
>1
t '-
:8
014
”1
gm
C l
(D
s
F"
{D
H
F?
:3
(D

and six

0 . ,-~ ’5 f“ “\uAh " A“ A ‘ -.
1ourtn edge 0: tne ta1get rested on the ground and coin-

cided with the edge of the backing material whicn rested
on the ground.

The center area of the target, or the unsuccessful
area, measured three feet by three feet. 1t was located

exactly in the middle of the target area. This area was

nuous red line three—eighths of an

H-

bordered by a cont

inch wide.

The outer most area, or the successful area, was

located exactly eight een inches from the center area

bound ar y The edge of this boundary coincided with the
extreie ed e oi tne piywOOd material. is was also

outlined with the same red color with a line three-

eigl ths of an inch wide.
With the exception of th e red boundary markings,
the entire target and backing materials were r.ted with

vinyl acrylic exterior latex house paint in the tone of
1

"his co1or was chosen because it presented

a neutral background.

a treatment pro ram to teach them the skills of lacrosse
nd tne rules o: t e Jame At tre begi.n1nO of eacn
class all subjec tOOk part in various and different
drill which ir vol ved throwing and catching. Continued
and repeated instruction was carried out inv01ving the

"“als, depending upon the situa-

H
p.
O
} J
:3
a!

i
<1
FJ
Q
5‘

group and speci

tion. These drl‘ lls and activities required between ten
and fifteen minutes per class session at each class meet-

&

fl

lls varied slightly from day to day depending

F"

ing. The dr
upon the conditions. In essence, tr e cverh nd throwing

action was stressed ar nd demonstrated repeatedly. In

’S
Q)

o l reinforcem nt was con—

practice game situations, ve

tinuous.

 

The Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance by
ranks statistical technique was used to determine if.
there was any signi icant difference between dominance
groups in their ability to throw a lacrosse ball at a
target. The same technique was used to determine if
there was any significant changes in the pre-test and

post-test scores of the groups before and after the

training program.

 

1"‘1 .: 1 1' 7‘3""1 u—‘L‘,-Y .7. v1- _,1
CQESCI’_I’ZC U. hull, bouflj O1 hauéf’al

" - uq ‘1 p fi«r a- ‘ LI“ fiA-p PL:
m JOurna1 01 Experimental add at-on,
,1 .' " Hp, “(as—4..- , D m .1 _. 0
Blake Cr1d r, n Batte1y 01 1ests 1

1:“ 1"» af‘.- 5 ' fi,

01 ceneral PsyCho1ogy,

e
nant Eye," Journal

 

19AA), 179—190.

LA)

C)‘\

ty Test
I (1936),

b r—~ -. - a. , , (a r\ d V j ‘ ~~
raining program :or fourteen

\

women enrolled in a lacrosse activity class are pre-

-.

sented to indicate what e fect a training program had on
four differently classified hand-eye dominance groups in

l rning a complex motor S'ili. The data were grouped

(D
(17

according to hand-eye dominance combinations: left hand

left eye, left hand - right eye, right hand — left eye,
and treated statistically with non-parametric statistics.

 

The pre—test and post—test scores for each indi-
vidual are presented in Table 1. They were divided into
successful and unsuccessful trials. Since the unsuccess-

s represented a complete miss or an obvious save

(D
{p
D
m
l. J
(<1
(I)
't.
51’
Q)
(n
O
:5
,1 J
K“.

by the goalie in a game situation, th
concerned with the successful scores.
The figures in the space beside each su ject repre—
sent the number of successful trials for that subject in
ten attempts. The total n mber of successes 'or each
individual in each group were tabulated and ranked. The

individual with the lowest number of successel received

LA.)
“Q

.coflpscnkzzho oocpCHnaxolozo bdofl ..1Bum£ bzmflkwnn >H aspho mezmfitzuw;:oo
opzmzfliop ozo Agave 1 pin; pzmmx u __;h1::9uu mcowpaCmLECo oocmcmECC one but:
I pcm; pupa N am dzomo mcowomCeLEoo cosmcfieop ohm nzmws I pzmz ado; u H dzoho

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

n.me m.mm Hence scam
w o a m.:_ z 0 :fi
HH 5 m m m w ma
Hm s m ma m a Na
m.o n m m.: : 0 Ha
w o a m . z z w 2
>H 95.5
o . o: a . n z .2305 EEm
m m m H a m a
m.m a m :a m H w
w o : n.0fl o z >
a.Mm w m ma s m o
S 1. m m m m m
HflH dSOLU
39
.3 3.:H n.aa Anson stem
h.mm w m m.: : o 2
fl ea w a n m
ea dzomo
o.» m.mfl menoa xcmm
n . m 11 o w w. a m
n.m : o m.cfi o : H
H dzoao
xsmx Hsummooozn fisgmmooozmzb xcmg fizdnmooozn flsmmmooozmcz
empoozm . whooozm . ,
penetzm
mood< onoawm

It." ifllt$lgxtlnl1!‘llul. . . I I I I l‘l.‘||4) ill :tl'lll 'll‘.. |llil|1l, u, .IIII ll‘lqi‘l‘ 71:: IlIII-Ealll 0|.‘I.‘lll].1 \(
l‘ I! F: I ' ..l'l[nl.|‘§ II} n: . I... .II .I’ i- ll." ||1|l\!lll l‘l."ll'l|||uln

 

.mdsomm mocxcfisop an
Ethmoaa mcflzwwhb w Loewe pcm omodon mopoow fiddwmoooSmcz pzm HSMmmooosmla.fi :g:<e

 

K .C 1 a .Q ..,1 F
r1. 8 .l n .C 1.. 1 e a 6 Va
n a V d .1 n _ O r d t h e .C t
.1 w; .1 n .3 a _ _ 0 e 0 Lb w. e O .l
e .1 w; .n“ 1G -Tv t . _ C W. 01 Tu 0 e 1 C r.“ a I.
d n C O 1 n f .n a S O u w u u .i
e e e a C t a 8 so t C O K O a e .D
K V r t n .n l .i O p. S r n w 5 .n b a
n .1 a e 1 o _ T .C .u we a t D. _
a *o .0 .Q 3 .1 C e O U. .3 d C .1 P
T e 41. T 91 .8 e K P u e .G O a. 1 .1 .1
V. v t r e t . .n n do 0 C 15 t r e u e
S n al_ 3 w“ e _. I. 5 Lb a w; A n1. .1 «no 11 C . n1.
8 a 0 e .1 1C .C . v.1 e 90 a .. .1 W W t
w V t m t e n 2 t C n r d .n
t n _ O F. a _ 1 a a n .1 a .. e t e n
t a 1. 1 e .C 3 t .n a w. p b C C v.1 ._ 1
C r 5 S d t d n n O S m 0 n D e
e S t D. e . . a :2 e e .1 -1 a .C ._..1 O T a h S
._ d e C y 5 .9 . w. .C W1 w.“ T. E C SC .11. t «C p
an u .1; e e e Lu. . Q0 0 8 Au 0 .111. «C U; _ S u
u t .J .n _ 8 l C 1 c C d in y .. 1 va h 1 c r. t C
S b t t qI 2 S a S C e a C C n ._ 1 a w 1
1.1 u . h C .G C 1c .C _ p .. a so a P. do
#0 O S .K P1 so .0 e .0. .11 31 Va C a r .C e : 1 :o no
r. r. O ._ 1 .1 e r u .C u e e n e r a r.
C} .1 A. «C «n pd v. 1 a v.1. AV 0 v“ O _ VJ TC _ 1 Z O 1 co 8
3 .Q S C r S C O C .,.1 i r. t e ._ 1 a V. O .1. T a e
e a a e _ O C S 1.: to h 1 r C 1 1 t E . W W
e C e C T C S S so 1c 1 a S C h P t
C a O .Q a . e e e .1 f _ .1 c h e b C e S e
C e a .f. C v .. K D. u C T C 7.1 e e 1 a S e h 4 1 b
u 1:1. S C S a .f. u 0 M O r“ .11 .O .1 1 S T we 16 S
S t 1 c n a O v. 1 a C a . h ,1 t e e 1c C e e e
C .ni e _ w1 w1 m c r“ S v.1. _ a a v.1 C w“ 1b :0 in.” C
3 r1. 8 O h 1.0 E .1 .1 1 x. h 1 ,t e C K C t n
C 1 1 .. u 1.. 1 t .1. a e . n. 1 c I w... d 1 S W u a d t 0 e
a .D 1...: e C O S O a r1. 2 S w m n O. r
62 u e n 1 .1 .G C n _.0 e .C n.“ a a. 1 S a .0 VJ e
. S .n 1 0 m1 8 D a t _ n e .C 1.. 1 S n C flI
r 0 w; a w,” e _ 6 .Tu _ 1.1 1 1 O .1 y rd 01
o e e C S e O n .111 y Lb Va 1“ Tu u r1“ 11 a, 1 :1.
e d r S i h C .11 m e S e E f e S r 1 u :o y _ -1 d
n P O S t S m.“ 0 _ O _ .l e .F. e e n 11 u
0 O m e y O .0 t D. C r l t . r .3 n .1 co n t
30 .1— Tu D1 .0 0.1 1T. O w _. 1 S n n
01 g T a a a M e e e e e e .0 . e u .1 e a
O n O r n .n 0 e y .1 .n l .n .n n 7 n n d S h C
.1 8 A t P y e m 1 t t a .. 1 . e ml .1
.K d O V do 8 _ _ _ d e S P S f
n n w a a _ t 3 . a . a e h D. a D. .l
a e t e n t h d d 5 O 5 r. t u D. u n
r C e t O f E n n . . . O o m 0 do
3 y .0 a .l e .1 a a 3) Au )4. C «I T O r .1 1
a a b t C t 11 r .1. h )9 In 11 S 0 do C 05 S

S

‘1
U

._1

P1

was set

‘

cence

{

.L

conf
e resu'ts

4?"

.L

O

.L

1
VA;

‘

-_

e leve
s of

4.11
,.
L111
.:
1

4.
L;

na1ys

h

J“.

O

perlmen

,
u

G)

‘V\ 'x4-‘Vy‘x ‘/\
L‘t: Vficeal

i

i
S

n

-Dat10n

—h

&

o
and

NY

I1

#71
UQCL
ore

‘

47-"
1

mg be

O
—n

.L

hrcw

4..
L:

m

a
g

P

v- v—s
Hfl
-:

Fourteen female

lacrosse class offered

$

epartment at Michiga

U

.L

r

1969 served as subjects

were tested

according t

'! 1‘54.
161C

eye;

0 1 ‘-_
rignt

on the pre—test scores.

consisted of ten trials

(a

a tar

lacrosse ball at

m

Hits were considered su

C NMZNDATIONS

in the

C):

N

tne Woman'

by

State

‘7‘
.L

m

m’a — 4— 1
inc pre-test

in which she was to throw a

W

04

v.
AL

“5
W

dist ce of ten

{3)

et a yards.

CC'ssful or unsuccessful,

kl

F4)
d.
(D
*3

depending on the area struck, and were recorded a
each trial.

All subjects took art in a training program for

’0

six weeks which involved various drills utilizing th
overhand throw.

After six weeks all subjects were re-tested usihg
the same target and procedures that were used in the

pre-testing period. All of the pre—test and post—test

 

data were then analyzed using non—parametric statistics.
Conclusiors
The following conclds;on was rade:
l. The training prograr utilized in this study had

"5

no signizicant effect on tle ability of any

5

subiect to throw a lacrosse tall for accuracy.

U

 

T —.—‘ m - r: 4—~r~’ (- :w..' 4-‘1 I f"- .,
1t 1s recommended that a s1 liar study oe made w1tn

larger samples and greater control.

L43

111....“

SlSLIOGRAPHY

 

 

 

SOCKS
“- I" f“ I‘W m. A ‘R ”'1' Av Zrl-x q ' wnl‘" 3 . ha ‘
b1au, Abfanam. ine master “and. Researcn Monograon
\j‘wvrbew V \-"'1r V’h‘r’a'r- -'.r\ 'x'rv- 'n- "Y‘ n"’ithf‘ f‘ v”: ‘r—V“ n
A LAiL U- . $5CIIV .LU- 1‘1. J—LJe 1".J..e-L—LCC.A$ U$ -AUprCllJ—av‘ LV
0 . I 'T'_ ’f
Ass001ation, inc., 1940.
J— ?“ . 4- 'r‘ y 1p. q - h ‘ 'I '3 . r Y
Cratty, Dryant J. Psyc1o1ogy and Phys1cal Activity.
:v"l ‘ ”"Dnn- pwrv+'n : 7‘ i‘f”
galé EWOOC. b11113 . 116.1vlve .1; 1.1., 1y05.
v.1- p ‘ 1 w '2 'r '2. 1 P 1
rlttS, Paul M., and Posner, m1cnae1 u. hdman PerformanCe.
1‘ 1w firfl'fl "f; 5., A W “-3.“,11‘ A
melhont, calizornla rOOks Cole ruolisning Co.,

1967.

 

‘, T W I" ‘ “A‘I 1‘ ‘ ‘ :fif‘. ‘N‘— w v
hoerr korman and Oso1 Arthur eds. 11akis.o1's Rev
3 ) 3 3
..', ‘1' 1 7‘: 4..- ., ‘7 . V 1 1,! ’w ,1 ":"n
GOuld Meo1cal u1cu1ora1/. Aew York mCufaW*h111,

 

1955.

 

 

Oxendine, uoseph B. Ptyccologv of Notcr Learfiing. New
, ‘ n1 .. 19.11 fifif"
York AppthOA-bcntury-Crulbo, 1306.
Articles
.- a - n “111-- n .11 a 1 n1”. 1
Crider, Blake. A battery 0. Tests .or the av 1nant
“a H T __ 7‘“ A. f“. ”by?” f A - a - 1r‘ri’ '. \
Lye. cournal o: ue1e1a1 PoyCCC1C;E, AA.I (l94h/,
179-190.
1 7 .-- 7,. ”*3 1, ‘1 ,.;_:, .:. .1”
CroSs Kenneth De ha‘ne. no1e 0: Practice 1h Perce tual
3
f“ . M ', Wf“ -. - (‘1 D “1“ (V. '-
Motor Learn ng. inerlc.n Journal o- Pufolcai

 

Medicine, XLVI (1967), 487-488.

Crovitz, Herbert F., and Zenner, Karl. ”A Group Test
for Assessing Hand and Eye Dominance." American
T . q 1. r" -— ”‘7'”—
uournal of Psychology, SXXV (1903), 270—270.

 

dness."
llAQ'HI)
K 3.)" 3

Cuff, Noel

O
l’g
%
V
x
k£Q
<(D

Downey, J. E. "Dextrality Types a d ."
Twenty—seventh Yearbook of the Na
t I

the StUdy of Education, Par‘

the Preschool Child
t onal Society for
928.

MA

/ Greenburg, George. "Eye Dominance and Head Tilt."
American Jorrnal of Psychology, LXXIII (I960),

 

1A9-151.

 

 

 

Hildretn, Gertrade. “Tie Development and Training of
Hand Domi.ance." Part I. Journal of ”enetic
Psychology, L”IV (I949), l97—232, (a).
. "The Development and Training of Hand Dominance.“
Part II. Journal of Genetic Psychology, LXXV

 

 

 

Hm' “ ‘ vx ~ e ‘ . Inn.“- 0 " m° A ,. 1
. lne bevelooment and Training oi nand DOmlRafipe.r
0" ‘- TT ~~~ r‘ 0 ~’ 4 v A M7 . "
Part Ill. JOufugl of Genetic Peycnologr, EXXV
r—r‘ n ‘—
(19L9), 233—d7l,(0).
"m‘h T‘A y-x ‘— r‘ ‘l (3-: ‘yfi‘w Jr“ ‘ T‘ -. rs
. inc beveloo-ent and Training of Land nonlnanCe.”
Part iv. Joilnal of Genetic Psycnology, LXX’I
was; '3 ‘no >
(43J0)) 39—J- b,<d- 0
"m -'r'\ w n ‘ - -‘ 4 ~ " ’n ‘ ‘ n- Y
. lne Develop.ent GHQ Tra_nlng 0: hand Dominance.‘
P rt V. JOLTKEl of Genetic Psychology, LXXVI
- P 1’”, . , F..\
(I930), ul-lAH,(o/.
~r- " -—1- " H-.. 9—,,“ -;- .. n
hull, Catnerlne d. SbuOy Ol Eaterality Test Items.
T .. p“. a raw. :m. h a“... n'—: - '7 ."
colrnal oi ;lscr_ment:l EQuCablO , lV (1956).

 

 

Irwin, Leslie W. ”A Study of the “elationship of Domi-
nance to the Perfornance of Physical Education
Activities.” Pesearch Suarterly, II (1938), 9d—ll9.

e-Merrill, David J. ”ion? of e and Hand." Enran

Biologi, XXIX (1957

Miles, W. L. "Cccu a a ce
scious Signting." J urnal
X I l —l

chology,

nstrated by ‘ncon-

U
Xrerinental Pew—

k, .. .h- 4..
A

.L

O U
"’9 (D

"I
[1] O

 

~ O'Connell, Alice L., and Gardner, Elizabeth B. ”Ingred-
ients of Coo;dinate Movement." Ameri an Journal
of ngsical ledicine, XLVI (I967) 34 ' 5.

 

~ Ojemann, R. A. ”Studies in ma ed
for testing unim nual handed
bimanual handedness.” Jo rr Ed
Psychology, XXI (1930), 597-oll, 695-70

 

 

-Palmer, Robert D- ”DevelODKent of a Differentiated
Handedness.” Psychological Bulletin, LXII (19C'),

 

257—272.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PrOVins, K. A. "Handedness and Skill.“ Quarterly Jo rnal
of Eiperinental Psychology, VIII (1956), 79—93.

Rife, D. C. "heredity and Handedness." Science Monthly,
LXXIII (1951), 316-323.

Sinclair, Caroline B., and Edith, Inez n. "'aterality in
Swimming and Its Relationsnip to Doxinance of Hand,
Eye, and Foot.” Pesearch Quarterly, XXVIII (1957),
" ll
595—902.

Van Buss, Wayne D.; Albrecht, L; Nelson, R.; and Hagernan,
R. ”The Efzect of Overload Warmup on the Velocity
and Accuracy of Throwing.” Research Quarterly,
XXXV (1962), L72— A75.

Vogel, O. H. ”The Relationship of Dominance to Acts of

““ n all A”, :— / n— n

' Sfilll." desearcn uuarterly, V1 (193:), 15-16.

Walters, C. Etta. "Int raction if the Body an”2 Its
Segments.” American Journal of Physical Medicine,

_ .1- ,f (\f/
XLVI (1907), too.

Waterland, Joan C. "The Supportive Framework for Willed
Movement. Anerican Journal of Pn‘sical XediCine,
XLVI (1967), 260.

Way, E. .. ”Relationship of Lateral Dominance to Scores
on Not r Ability and Selected Skills Tests.‘

.. r - mp Ar /.
Research Quarterly, ‘XIX (1950), 300—309.

 

 

Adams, Gary Lynn. "Effects of Eye Dor.inance on Baseball
Batting." Unpublished Master's thesis, University
of Califo ornia, PiverSide, 1964.

Benedict, Graham E. "Comparative Effects of Three
Experir iental Warm Up Con‘itions Lpon Accuracy.”
Unpublished Master's thesis, University of British
Columbia, Vancouver 1966.

Frasek, Judith. ”An Investigation of Lominance as
Measured by the Factors of Balance, Dexterity, and
Strength." Unpuol is hed Master's thesis, Smith

College, 1961.

U7

Kinser, Jay. "Effect of Practicing with Varied Weights
of Basketballs on Free Throw Skills." Unpublished
Master's thesis, Southwest Missouri State College,
Springfield, 1966.

wMancini, V. H. "Study of the Relation of Hand Dominance
to Performance Time." Unpublished Master's thesis,
Springfield College, 1964.

McHenry, Jeannine. "The Development of Shoulder and Arm
Strength and Its Effects Upon Accuracy of Long
Distance Shooting in Girls Basketball." Unpublished
Master's thesis, rkansas State College, 1966.

Poindexter, M. Coleen. ”Unilateral and Crossed Lateral
Eye Hand Dominance and Performance on a Perceptual
Motor Task." Unpublished Master's thesis, University
of California, Berkley, 1965.

-Ries, Susan Carol. "Dominance, Discrimination, and
Accuracy in Fencing." Unpublished Master's thesis,
University of California, Los Angeles, 1962.

Robinson, Edwin Nelson. "A Comparison of Laterally
Dominant to Crossed Dominant Individuals in Tests
of Reaction Time and Hand Eye Coordination."
Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Cali—
fornia, Santa Barbara, 1965.

Sander, Carolyn Marie. "Development of Kinesthetic
Awareness in the Non Preferred Arm of College
Women." Unpublished Master's thesis, University
of Washington, 1967.

Severino, William R.’ "Effect of Warmup Upon Accuracy in
Football Passing." Unpublished Master's thesis,
Illinois State University, 1966.

Silsor, Robert Gordon. "Speed and Accuracy of Overarm
and Sidearm Throwing.” Unpublished Master's thesis,
University of California, Los Angeles, 1959.

Straub, William F. "Effect of Overload Training Pro—
cedures Upon the Velocity and Accuracy of the
Overarm Throw." Unpublished Master's thesis,

University of Wisconsin, 1966.

Thoden, James S. "An Investigation of Overarm Throwing
Accuracy Before and After Heavy and Severe Treadmill
Exercise." Unpublished Master's thesis, University

of Wisconsin, 1966.

{A

-‘
‘8

--\
‘i.J.L

\ .

(l Ta .—
-/ a
11.; .L ._a..

’rrrrr‘vc,‘ '7 —~, *‘6
Lu...) OSLD .LA

1 .
an .5

1+9

APPENDIX A

DIRECTIONS FOR AND ITEMS USED IN

CRIDER'Sl EYE DOMINANCE TESTS

Sit at a table facing each other squarely. The
room should be well lighted. Tests should be out of
sight of the testee. After use each test should be
returned so that it is out of sight. On the table should
be a score sheet and a pencil. If the examinee wears
glasses, tests should be given once with and once with-
out. No mention that the tests are to determine the
dominant eye should be made.

1. We have here some simple tests for dis—
covering your best eye. It will take about five
minutes to go through them. You must listen care-
fully to the instructions which I shall give you

with each test so that you can do the tests
exactly as I tell you.

2. In these tests you must always keep both
eyes open. Never close one eye to take a test
because this will throw the results off.

3. Be sure to look at my nose first and then
bring the test up so you can see my nose through
it. Be sure to keep both eyes opened.

 

lBlake Crider, "A Battery of Tests for the Dominant
Eye," Journal of General Psychology, XXXI (1944), 170—
190.

50

51

 

Figure A-l.--Ring test.

The ring is constructed of a wooden curtain ring
60 mm. in diameter. A wood screw 60 mm. in length is
attached to serve as a handle.

Demonstrate and say:

A. I want you to take the handle of this ring
in one hand and look at my nose through the ring.
Look at my nose first, then hold the ring at arms
length and look at my nose through it. Be sure
to keep both eyes open.

Place ring in front of examinee directly in the

mid-plane of the body with the handle toward him. As
soon as the examiner can note the eye used by the

examinee he says:

5. That's fine; now put the ring down.

m5
£2

(Ring Test——Cont.)

C.

.l.
r

the

hold

"e

O
‘1
V .g .1.

Cu
.5;
S

“U

/0

h
.rb
U
3 O
.C r
S .8
T t
.: t
«I e
S
e O
S n
C
K Na
K
Vu
m t
a
C
a K
0
Pa 0
AU 7..
C
. 4 A.
w... .
a T.
. e
.C D. C.
n u C
a
.w” 7.0 S
n e
w; .1 y
e W. e
.3
4; AC ‘64.
O h to
.3 C
e D
.6... 3
t F. D.
.l e
n T e
:+ .nU K
g n
n e .
.1 .n t
r t .l

and takes

53

 

Figure A—2.-—Card test.

Three cards are made measuring 7.6 cm. by 23 cm.
One is covered with black paper, one with blue paper, and
one with green paper. In the center of the green card is
a round red spot, on the black a gold spot, and on the blue
a red spot. The spots are the size of the unsharpened
end of a pencil. Three other cards of the same colors
are made. These measure 6.0 cm. by 17.5 cm. In the
center of these cards there is a round hole through WhiCh
a round pencil will fit snugly.

The examiner takes the black card with the hole in
the center and holds it momentarily about six or eight

inches in front of his eyes and says at the same time:

5A

(Card Test-—Cont.)

8. Hold this card in both hands and look
through this hole.

He then hands the card to the examinee. The
examiner then picks up the black card with the spot on
it and holds it in front of his face just below the eyes
so the spot is about even with his nose:

9. Now I want you to look at the spot on

this card. Look at the spot first then bring
your card up in front of your face about six

or eight inches in front of your eyes as I did.
Keep both eyes open and look at the spot through
the hole.

The examiner should determine quickly the eye used
for sighting the spot. The minute the observation is

made the examiner says:

10. Put your card down and do the same thing
with this card.

The examiner hands him the blue card and takes the
other blue card.

11. Look at this spot through the hole in
your card and be sure to keep both eyes open.

The directions are repeated for the third card. The
score is not counted on the first card since this is used

to get the examinee adjusted to the test.

55

 

Figure A-3.——Box test.

A box 5 cm. by 7 cm. by 12 cm. was made out of
cardboard. The ends of the box were left open. A white
pipe clearner, 6 cm. long, was inserted at one end. At
the other end a black pipe cleaner of the same length
was inserted. The distance between the two pipe cleaners
was 9.6 cm.

The examiner holds the box about six or eight inches
in front of his eyes without definitely aligning it with
either eye. At the same time he says to the examinee:

12. I want you to hold this box in your two

hands as I am doing. Hold it about six or eight
inches in front of your face so that you can line

up the black string with the white string. Keep
both eyes open while you do this.

(Box Test—-Cont.)

The examiner then hands the box to the examinee.
The instant the sighting eye is observed the examiner
says:

13. That's fine; now put the box down.

As soon as the box is placed on the table the
examiner turns it around so the other end is toward the
examinee and at the same time says:

1A. Now I want you to do the same thing for

me again--try to align the two strings. Keep
both eyes Open.

Make the observation as soon as possible and say:

15. That's fine; hand me the box now.

57

 

Figure A-A.--Cone test.

The cone is similar to the one used by Miles2 except
that it is longer. From the forehead to the end of the
cone the distance is 9 cm. The small opening is 1.5 cm.
in diameter. The large opening is 25.5 cm. long.

The examiner holds the tube over his own eyes as
he gives the directions:

16. I want you to look at my nose through this

tube. First, look at my nose and then bring this
tube up to your eyes as I am doing so you can see

my nose through the end of the tube. Be sure to
keep both eyes open.

 

52W. L. Miles, "Occular Dominance Demonstrated by
Unconscious Sighting,” Journal of Experimental Psychology,
x11 (1929), 113-126.

U1
0»

(Cone Test-~Cont.)
The examiner hands the tube to the examinee and

repeats briefly the direc ions. The examiner notes

(“t

quickly which eye the examinee us s for sight

’10

ng and
then says:

D. m‘ r6»!
.L o Lnab S

w

o
‘1 Y\
is.

(D

3 put your tube on the table.
Tnen the examiner says:

18. I want you to do this once more for me.
Look at my nose, bring the tube up to your eyes
and look at my nose through it. Be sure to
keep both eyes open.

59

 

Figure A—5.--Opthoscope

A 6 cm. by 7 cm. mirror was covered on both sides
with cardboard. In the center of the cardboard on each
side a round hole was cut so as to expose the mirror.

A 6.5 cm. by 2.0 cm. tube was inserted in each hole and
fastened securely. The total length between the ends of
the tubes was approximately 14.0 cm.

The examiner holds the opthoscope by its sides (the
mirror) and demonstrates the test while he gives the
directions:

20. I want you to hold this tube in both hands

and bring it up to about six inches away from your

eyes. Keep both eyes open. Look in the tube and
find an eye.

5
e
a

V

minee

L. '1’"
the GAG

‘I-a
UV

AU
iv

e

)

Jtnosc0p

L.

\
.)

Cont
s t

han

7-
pa
3.

Opthoscope—-

(

x

U

ays

C

to keep both eye

then

and

61

 

Figure A-6.--Spot test.

A 6.5 cm. by 7.5 cm. mirror had all the silver
removed except for a round piece about the size of a
twenty—five cent piece.

The examiner holds the test about six inches from
his face while he says:

22. I want you to hold this test in both hands

about six inches in front of your face so that
you can see your nose in the mirror. Keep both
eyes open.

As soon as the sighting eye is observed the examiner
says:

23. That's fine. Let's see if you can do the
same thing again.

62

 

Figure A—7.——Mirror test.

A round mirror 6.0 cm. in diameter was obtained.
A nickel was held to the surface so that a circle of that
size was scratched on the mirror, in such a way that the
circle was located in the middle of the mirror.
The examiner holds the test in both hands about
six inches in front of his face as he says:
2A. Hold this mirror about six inches in
front of your face. I want to see if you can
get your nose in the ring. Be sure to keep both
eyes open.
The examiner takes the test the moment he can

serve [sic] the sighting eye.

Exxvhq'
k...’ fiPEA‘LJ—LX D

17'7“ Q "‘"‘t:‘C§“““/\\'Vn* "1 “8““ ”‘H‘ m:
aAUuLJ U WUuV—LA—VA\¢¢[‘..LALL U LU .LIN .LA.
“T‘F‘I"""Nf‘.'."m"fi\' f‘.‘1 :fl‘fl'f" \in‘r
u;-:l...-.1.\A-io.\ o: nan-u DO..I..A..C2.

Ch
L))

[I]

-<
A.)

1
1X

I

":J'otfv"
L A. 4—1.\../

A

For?
.L .l...

v.\

my
Ugh.

A-vY—‘I‘qu-
>< \\‘
“Is/a...—

as

an

n A ‘f r \
lzbu.-..

-4 f. ‘ "D
..r.. ..J

'3

I

F
\4

Hm"n\*
.

p~— v
r. \
\.
n... ’ .
.;.A_-'.-*-‘-./-I

““mfi-‘fi
(7“ . —‘ I" u.
H.“‘

GCEI’I’LLCE

A
k\

LA
vv

«A-a_
'VC'Q’V

E.

S
5*

S
i

m.

J.

.l

:L

e
t
a o

a;

o
I‘VE ‘f‘ _.
In...4..‘

.I‘
110

O

a...
.1

tne

you perform

0’1
11

i

you per-

D.

Y‘
.1

1
A

'l’le

T

A

on too?

. .-: g a +
0.". MCLCC 100v

hammer W31

‘

a

holds

fiaI’IC

g

Cf)

Ihi

a“

_ _ H
T u
3..“

cu

rs (shears;

KO

 

.1

S

8 .
.Cnu
.1 C/

C _
S C/
egv
m. 3.

y 3
Liu \. /

Jigu

U a
Luau

 

r0

l._.l

kn

|._..J
-4

19.

22.

T‘ ' ‘ ~ ‘ . Yr- r‘ '3 .V ' ‘
Wnicn eye remains open

one eye through

paper?
Which hand
them?

WulCd hand

blow
Which hand
Which hand
Which
Which hand
Which hand

Which hand

\ancn Alana

Which
your hair?
Which hand
Which hand
of ink?

With which

V

O.
H
U)
(1”
W

fiOlQS

your nose?

waves

m m
d U
W i“
H h
R w

s
H
5
a
(I)

,-
ho_cs

turis

takes

r‘

C\
kl!

E
W
(D
5
L5,
Q
S.
m
} I.
Ir)
:3
d
E
F"
(i
p

-‘ .
in

Q
.{1
M
w
0
m
L)
F +3

.,
r r\

v‘ - Ant-:~
‘hfi u uca in

H
“I
34

Q)

C?

0
w

m
m
d
O
U
m

A—

. L. r“ ._. _ ‘ - .q
s the thread tnr ugh tne

4; .
U

ne comb when you comb
the pages in a

the cork from a bottle

hand do you write?

m

m

m
t— I

m

t-i

[—4

L-‘l

[-1

[:4

['4

[1

N

M

H

U

M

m

r0
{C

A).

L
3

per?

TL
R

i

L

3

ml;

.L
R

A/_

r)

ture

.;
p

Tar:
& AU

hand tu

hich

W

29.

L

R

‘
r‘,
a 5

you

enny

rx
p
.5

up a

'CK

pi

you

do

Srf‘
\A. A“

. . .
h‘cp *
LA- A; ‘l

W

1th

,
i

AU

:u

i

”44

C
a

3
.1

ich

‘
,i
in;

~r
‘A

p

R

‘

W C)

Al-

DPOO

93

.L
.g
R

you rake?

en

1
V“
A.

‘1

Y
|

top

CE

W”;

lat—L

7‘

E)
«(J

3
TH

E

Q.

a
‘D

u SWihg a

co yo

‘

shoulder

ich

rom wh

W
.L

6.

l?

shove

wnen you

the

on

n;
.p

"T

wall?

as

SCORE

RAW

8

O\

 

TABLE c_1,__Tally of successful and unsuccessful scores before
and after a training pro ram by dominance groups.
Sub Pre—test Trials Post—test Trials

 

. - Dominance
Ject

l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

 

( 3
U)
C
U)
U)
U)
Q
U)
C‘
C}
L!
C3
C}
U)
G
C‘.
U)
U)
U)

l LH—RE U

2 LH-RE U U U U U S S S S S S U S U U U S U S U

3 LH-LE U S U S U S S S U U U U U U U U U U U U
H LH—LE U S U S U U S S b J U S U S S S S S S S
5 RH-RE U U S U U S S S U S S U S S U S U S S S
6 RH-RE S S S U U S U S S S S S S U U S S S S S
7 RH-RE U U S U S S U S S S U U S S S U S b S S
8 RH—RE U S S S S S S S S S S S U S U S S U U U

9 RH—RE U S U U S U U S S U U U U U S U U U U S

U)
U)
U)
U)
U)
U)

10 RH—LE U U U U S S U U S S U U U U

U)
U)

U U S

U)
C1
U)
U)
U)

12 RH—LE S U S S S S S S U S

13 RH—LE U U S U S S U U U S S U S S S S S U S U

U)
U)
U)
U)
L
U)
C!
C‘.
U)
U)
[/3
C4
C1
C1
U)
U)
U)

14 RH—LE U U U

 

   

HICHIGAN STATE UNFY. LIBRnfilES
(Hil"WIHHIWNNUIWIIIHIHWIUIHWM
31293009942172