A STUDY {3? THE EFI’ECTg OF A SPECiFlC EDEUCATICDNAL THERAPY ON LANGUAGE Dfl’ELOPMEHT, WfiUAL P’ERCEPTEQN DEVELOPMENT, {NTELLECTUAL FUNSTLQHSNG AND ACADEMEC AIILI‘FY 0F CHELDIREN CLASSIFEED AS EQUCAELE MENTALLY REUKRDED Thesis For “10 Dag-mo of Eé. D. MECHGAN ST TE UKWER LY? Wifl‘iam Eugene Rice 1967 Thimfi This is to certify that the thesis entitled A STU DY CF 'I‘IIA' EFF LCIQ‘ OF A .J Lu] IC FDUCR TICII IL TMAIY ON L NGUAGD DDVELOII‘IJSNT, VIoU 1L IERCL I‘OTI W DDVJLCIIIAI T, IIITDIL- CTU L FUIICTICIIIIIG J ‘IJ AC.» D.D“‘IC ABILITY OF uII EDUCILB 'LB PI'JFIJ. LLY RJJL-..LLDJ_JD CI ILJDQIDT presented by wILLIm EUGENE RICE has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for EdoDo degree in Education (fr professd‘u l 3,3" I" Date October 26, 196? 0-169 I ‘ . 11:13.53" ,:‘ ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF A SPECIFIC EDUCATIONAL THERAPY ON LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT, VISUAL PERCEPTION DEVELOPMENT, INTELLECTUAL FUNCTIONING AND ACADEMIC ABILITY OF CHILDREN CLASSIFIED AS EDUCABLE MENTALLY RETARDED By William Eugene Rice The primary purposes of this study were to in— vestigate the effects of a classroom-organized program for the specific educational training of mental functions of educable mentally retarded students placed in public school special classes. Effects were measured in four areas: (1) Language Ability, (2) Visual Perception Ability, (3) Intellectual Functioning and (4) Academic Ability. The Specific Educational Therapy (SET) used in this study consisted of two commercially available programs for classroom use: (1) The Peabody Language Development Kit, Level 1 and (2) The Frostig Program for the Development of Visual Perception. SET was pre— sented in two instructional modes: (1) using specialist— teachers and (2) using classroom—teachers. Eighty—two educable mentally retarded students placed in ten primary and early elementary classrooms were divided into two experimental groups and one control group. For the first experimental group SET was taught by teacher—specialists; for the second experimental William Eugene Rice group SET was taught by clasfirccr_ teachers and SET was not used with the control group. The therapy pro— gram spanned a six and one—half month period. The three groups were statistically matched on twenty~one variables operationally defining the four areas investigated. These variables were derived from the subtests and summary scores of five psychological tests: (1) Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Ability. (2) The Frostig Developmental Test of Visual Perception. (3) Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. (4) Lee-Clark Reading Readiness Test. (5) Wide Range Achievement Test. For each of the twenty-one variables, the follow- ing two independent hypotheses were evaluated on the basis of an analysis of covariance, planned comparisons technique. Ho:l There will be no differences in the post- test (dependent variable score) between the combined experimental groups and the control groups after means are adjusted for initial variance as measured by pre— test scores. Or symbolically: (Ml + M2) = 2 MC. Ho:2 There will be no difference in the post— test (dependent variable score) between William Eugene Rice the experimental—specialist-teacher and the experimental classroom-teacher groups after means are adjusted for initial variance as measured by pretest scores. Or symbolically: (M1 = H2). Within the limitations imposed by the nature of the sample and the procedures used in this investigation, it was concluded from the data gathered that: 1. A specific educational therapy program as taught by either teacher-specialists or classroom teachers to educably mentally retarded classes can result in significant improvement of the classes‘ language ability. The relative effectiveness of a teacher- specialist's as compared to a classroom teacher's presentation of a specific educational therapy program was supported. That a specific educational therapy program effects visual perception development, intellectual functioning or academic ability cannot be supported or denied by the evi— dence of this study. A specific educational therapy program tends to reduce disparity between language ability and intellectual functioning of educable mentally retarded classes. A STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF A SPECIFIC EDUCATIONAL THERAPY ON LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT, VISUAL PERCEPTION DEVELOPMENT, INTELLECTUAL FUNCTIONING AND ACADH’lIC ABILITY OF CHILDREN CLASSIFIED AS EDUCABLE HENTALLY RETARDED By William Eugene Rice A THESIS submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION Department of Counseling, Personnel Services and Educational Psychology 1967 Q LNWW ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It is difficult, near the end of what has seemed an arduous and lengthy period, to adequately express my thanks to the many who have extended a helping hand. Dr. Gregory A. Miller, my advisor throughout my graduate period and thesis chairman, provided counsel, encouragement and professional direction that was sorely needed. Dr. James W. Costar, Dr. Carl F. Frost and Dr. Peter G. Haines, served on this committee and also con- tributed uniquely to a greater extent than they know to getting it all started and keeping it going. To the Ingham Intermediate Board of Education, administration and professional staff, I am thankful for unmeasurable support, endless patience and encouragement and the time to complete the work that was required. Grateful appreciation is also extended to the administra- tion, staff and students of the school districts who granted permission to pursue this investigation. For the many countless hours of typing, proof- reading and companionship I am particularly thankful to my wife, Margaret. Without her efforts and encouragement this study could never have been attempted. Finally, I offer my special thanks to Dr. Clessen Martin and Mr. David J.’Wright. Their help with the technical aspects and the statistical analysis were crucial to the completion of the study. ii DEDICATION To the Ingham Intermediate Board of Education, Administration and Professional Staff iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii DEDICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . v LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . in Chapter I. THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Background Statement of the Problem Hypotheses to be Evaluated Definition of Terms Organization of the Study II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . Pl Educational Objectives for the Educable Mentally Retarded Consequences of Special Class Placement Educational Concept and Diagnosis of the Educable Mentally Retarded Learning Disabilities and Educational Therapy Summary III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Experimental Design Statistical Hypotheses Statistical Analysis Sample Procedure Peabody Language Development Kit Frostig Program for the Development of Visual Perception iv IV. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS. . . . . . . . . . . . 7O Hypotheses Hozl, 2 . . . Ho:lj, 23 Hypotheses Ho:5, # . . . Hc:5e, 4e Hypotheses Ho:5 . . . Hozl2 Summary V. SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Discussion of Results Conclusions Implications for Education Limitations of the Study Implications for further Research BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 APPENDICES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O 126 Table 1-1. 3~l. 4—0. 4-1. 4-1.1. 4—2. 4—2.1 4—5. 4.3.1. 4-4. 4.4.1. 4—5. 4.5.1. 4’60 4—6.1. LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Summary of Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . Statistical Description of Experimental Groups and Control Groups on the Do— pendent Variables . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Data for all Variables . . . Language Quotient Comparisons . . . . . Language Quotient Adjusted Group Means Auditory—Vocal Automatic Comparisons . Auditory-Vocal Automatic Adjusted Group Means . . . . . . . . . . . . . Visual Decoding Comparisons . . . . . . Visual Decoding Adjusted Group Means . Motor Encoding Comparisons . . . . . . Motor Encoding Adjusted Group Means . . Auditory-Vocal Association Comparisons Auditory-Vocal Association Adjusted Group Means . . . . . . . . . . . . . Visual-Motor Sequencing Comparisons . . Visual—Motor Sequencing Adjusted Group means 0 C O O O O O O O O O O 0 Vocal Encoding Comparisons . . . . . . Vocal Encoding Adjusted Group Means . . Auditory-Vocal Sequencing Comparisons . Auditory—Vocal Sequencing Adjusted Group Means . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi 78 79 79 80 81 81 Table 4—9. 4‘9010 4—10. 4—10.1. 4-11. 4-11.1. 4-12. 4—12.1. 4—13. 4-15.1. 4—14. 4—14.1. 4—15. 4—15.1. 4—16. 4—16.l. 4—17. 4-17.1. 4-18. 4-18.l. 4—19. 4-19.1. 4—20. Visual—Motor Association Comparisons . Visual—Motor Association Adjusted Group Means . . . . . . . . . . . Auditory Decoding Comparisons . . . Auditory Decoding Adjusted Group Means Perceptual Quotient Comparisons . . Perceptual Quotient Adjusted Group Means Eye-Motor Comparisons . . . . . . . Eye-Motor Adjusted Group Means . . . Figure-Ground Comparisons . . . . . Figure—Ground Adjusted Group Means . Shape Constancy Comparisons . . . . Shape Constancy Adjusted Group Means Position in Space Comparisons . . . Position in Space Adjusted Group Means Spatial Relations Comparisons . . . Spatial Relations Adjusted Group Means Intelligence Quotient Comparisons . Intelligence Quotient Adjusted Group Means Reading Readiness Comparisons . . . Reading Readiness Adjusted Group Means Spelling Comparisons . . . . . . . . Spelling Adjusted Group Means . . . Arithmetic Comparisons . . . . . . . vii 94 95 Table 4—2001. 5—1. 5—2. Figure l. Arithmetic Adjusted Group Means . . . Combined-Experimental x Control Group Comparisons on ITPA Variables . . . Pretest Post—test Comparisons of Intelligence Quotient and Language Quotient . . . . . . . . . . . . . Experimental 1 x Experimental 2 Group Comparisons on ITPA Variables . . . Combined-Experimental x Control Group Comparisons on DTVP Variables . . . Experimental 1 x Experimental 2 Group Comparisons on DTVP Variables . . . Combined—Experimental x Control Group Comparisons on LCRRT, WRAT, WICS . Experimental 1 x EXperimental 2 Group Comparisons on LCRRT, WRAT, WISC . The Clinical Model for the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities . . . viii Page 104 105 106 107 108 110 111 137 LIST OF APPENDICES Heterogenity of Regression . . . . Michigan Placement Recommendations for Educable Mentally Retarded . . School Districts . . . . . . . . . Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . ix PAGE 126 128 150 152 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Background In public school special education programs for the educable mentally retarded, there has been a marked shift away from.the specific educational training of mental functions. The omission of such training seems based, in.part, on the assumption that the educable mentally retarded's learning abilities are more similar to, than different from, his normal peers. ,Acting on this assumption, there has been general agreement that educational goals for the retarded should.be the same as for noneretardates but at a lower level and with less academic emphases. Research assessing the consequences of special class placement for the educable mentally retarded has, most frequently, failed to support the educational expectations that such placement results in better academic performance or improved social or personal adjustment. In fact, research in the area of the efficiency of such programs has been characterized by negative findings over the past thirty years. Recent research findings in the area of learning _ 1 _ disabilities have in effect, challenged the assumption that the educable mentally retarded's learning abilities are more similar to, than different from, his educationally normal peers. Such findings have suggested that many children diagnosed as educable mentally retarded could be more accurately described as having developmental dis- orders of learning and language functions, which commonly occur without any impairment of intelligence. Such re- search has also suggested that standardized intelligence test scores can be particularly misleading in the learning and language disordered child. Additional findings in this area of research have supported the belief that learning disabilities are found among children who are otherwise average in intelligence as well as among children who are below average or superior in intelligence. One possibility that these research findings seem to suggest is that many children placed in special educa— tion classrooms for the educable mentally retarded may have normal abilities in some areas and markedly limited abilities in other areas. Because of this, such children may give the appearance of mental retardation but training of the limited functions may even successfully remove some of them from the educational classification of mental retardation. In other words, the learning potential of the educable mentalIy retarded group may be quite different than previously assumed. -3- Research is noted then in four different areas: (1) the present curricular emphases, educational goals and objectives of public school special education class- rooms for the educable mentally retarded: (2) the academic, social and personal consequences of special class place- ment for the retarded: (5) educational concept and diagnosis of educable mental retardation and (4) learning disabilities and educational therapy.‘ Taken as a whole, this body of research seems to have something important to say about the understanding and education of the educable mentally retarded. The implications are not clear, however, since several interpretations can reason- able be generated from this number of variables and the wealth of data. One possible interpretation is that the negative findings associated with special class educational programs result, in part, from an interaction of the goals, ob- jectives and curriculum of such programs, with the learning abilities and training needs of the educable mentally retarded. On this basis it is reasonable to speculate that special class placement has been educationalry disappointing because of the omission of specific educa- tional training of functions from the curriculum of pupils Whose basic learning needs include such training. There is a need then to investigate educational and psychological consequences of including specific educational training of functions in the curriculum of special classes for the educable mentally retarded. To the extent the situation approaches that described, it suggests certain educational implications: A. A possible need to modify the educational concept of the learning potential of certain children classified as educable mentally retarded and re-evaluate educational curriculum objectives and goals. B. A possible need to modify the current role of the school diagnostician that emphasizes psychological assessment for the purpose of classification and educational placement, to give more emphasis to psychological assess- ment for the purpose of estimating the de— velopment of cognitive-perceptual-motor functions and the need for and nature of appropriate educational therapy. C. A possible need to modify the present in- telligence quotient based classification of educable mental retardation. Statement of the Problem This study investigates certain consequences of specific educational therapy on language development, visual perception development, intellectual functioning -5— and academic ability of children classified as educable mentally retarded and educationally placed in public school special classes. The question considered is whether or not commercially available, classroom-oriented versions of materials for the specific educational training of mental functions are relatively more effective than the traditional materials which minimize or omit such training. A second question relevant to the problem is considered. There are, presently, two possible ways of introducing the specific educational therapy into the curriculum, i.e., the classroom teacher and specialists such as speech therapists and teachers of the physically handicapped. The additional question considered is whether or not there are differential consequences, resulting from the classroom teacher or teacher specialists using the specific educational therapy. The recent publications of a language development program1 and a visual perception deveIOpment program2 have provided the opportunity to study their effects when training is provided in the classroom. If . Lloyd.M. Dunn and James O. Smith. Peabogy Len e Develo ment Kits, Level 1. American ui ances ServIces, Inc., MinneapoIis, 19657 aflarianne Frostig and David Horne. ‘The Frostig Pro ram for the Development of Visual PerceptIEn. FoIIet't Pfi‘ElI's‘fiing Company, Chicago, 1964. The effects of the specific elucational therapy on language development will be assessed by a standardized measure of language, the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities (ITPA).5 The nine subtests and summary score of the ITPA will provide an opportunity to investigate any differential effects of the therapy. The effects of the specific educational taerapy on.visual perception development will be assessed by a standardized measure of visual perception, the Develop— mental Test of Visual Perception (DTVP).4 The five sub- tests and summary score of this test will, also, provide an Opportunity to investigate any differential effects of the therapy. The influence of the specific educational therapy on the intellectual functioning of the subjects will be measured by a standardized test of intelligence, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children.(WISC).5 The influence of the specific educational therapy on the academic ability of the subjects will be measured v3dames J. McCarthy and Samuel A. Kirk. The Illinois Test of Ps cholinguistic Abilities (Experi- mental EditionJT' e University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 1961. IMarianne Frostig, D. E. Lefever and J. R. B. Whittlesey. The Marianne Frostig Developmental Test 2;. Visual Percetion.‘CbnsuIting sychOlogist Press, Palo o, 1965. 5David‘Wechsler, Hechsler Intelli ence Scale for Children, Psychological Corporation, New York, TABLE l-l SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESES Combined _ Specialist E erimental Teacher Variables xp x x Classroom Control Teacher ITPA Ho: Ho: Language Quotient l 2 Auditory-Vocal Automatic la 2a Visual Decoding 1b 2b Motor Encoding lc 2c Auditory-Vocal Assn. 1d 2d Visual—Motor Sequencing 1e 2e Vocal Encoding lf 2f Auditory-Vocal Sequencing lg 2g Visual-Motor Assn. lh 2h Auditory Decoding lj 2j DTVP Perceptual Quotient 5 4 Eye-Motor 3a 4a Figure-Ground 5b 4b Shape Constancy 3c 4c Position in Space 3d 4d Spatial Relations 5e 4e WISC Intelligence Quotient 5 6 LCRRT Reading Readiness 7 8 HEAT Reading 9 10 Spelling ll 12 Arithmetic 13 14 by a standardized reading readiness test, the Lee—Clark Reading Readiness Test (LCRRT),6 and a standardized achievement test, the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT).7 Hypotheses to be Evaluated There are four sets of major hypotheses in two areas to be evaluated. These are stated in the form of null hypotheses. (see Table 1-1) The first set of major hypotheses are related to language development as assessed by the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Ability: Ho:l There will be no differences in the post— test Language Quotients between the experi- mental and control groups after means are adjusted for initial variance as measured by pretest scores. Ho:2 There will be no differences in the post- test Language Quotients between the experimental-specialist—teacher and experimental-classroom—teacher groups after means are adjusted for initial vari- ance as measured by pretest scores. 6Murray Lee and Willis W. Clark. Lee-Clark Reading ‘Readiness Test (1962 Revision). California Test Bureau, Monterey, I930. 7J. F. Jastak and S. R. Jastak, The Wide Range Achievement Test, Guidance Associates, WIImington, 1655. -9- The following sub—hypotheses result from the sub- tests of the Illinois Test of Psycholingustic Abilities and provide a further basis for investigating effects on language development: Hozla Ho:2a Ho:lb Ho:2b There will be no differences in the post— test Auditory-Vocal Automatic Scores between the experimental and control groups after means are adjusted for initial variance as measured by pretest scores. There will be no differences in the post— test Auditory-Vocal Automatic Scores between the experimental-specialist—teacher and experimental-classroom—teacher groups after means are adjusted for initial variance as measured by pretest scores. There will be no difference in the post- test Visual Decoding Scores between the experimental and control groups after means are adjusted for initial variance as measured by pretest scores. There will be no differences in the post- test Visual Decoding Scores between the experimental—specialist-teacher and experimental-classroom teacher groups after means are adjusted for initial vari— ance as measured by pretest scores. Hozlc Ho:2c Ho:ld Ho:2d Ho:le _ 10 _ There will be no differences in the post— test Motor Encoding Scores between the experimental and control groups after means are adjusted for initial variance as measured by pretest scores. There will be no differences in the post- test Motor Encoding Scores between the experimental-specialist-teacher and experimental-classroom-teacher groups after means are adjusted for initial vari- ance as measured by pretest scores. There will be no differences in the post— test Auditory-Vocal Association Scores between the experimental and control groups after means are adjusted for initial variance as measured by pretest scores. There will be no differences in the post- test Auditory—Vocal Association Scores between the experimental-specialist—teacher and experimental—classroom-teacher groups after means are adjusted for initial variance as measured by pretest scores. There will be no differences in the post— test Visual-Motor Sequencing Scores between the experimental and control groups after means are adjusted for initial variance as Ho:2e Ho:lf Ho:2f Hozlg Ho:2g _ 11 _ measured by pretest scores. There will be no differences in the post- test Visual-Motor Sequencing Scores between the experimental-specialist-teacher and experimental-classroom-teacher groups after means are adjusted for initial variance as measured by pretest scores. There will be no differences in the post— test Vocal Encoding Scores between the experimental and control groups after means are adjusted for initial variance as measured by pretest scores. There will be no differences in the post- test Vocal Encoding Scores between the experimental-specialist-teacher and experimental-classroom-teacher groups after means are adjusted for initial“ variance as measured by pretest.scores. There will be no differences in the post- test Auditory—Vocal Sequencing Scores between the experimental and control groups after means are adjusted for initial variance as measured by pretest scores. There will be no differences in the post- test Auditory-Vocal Sequencing Scores between the experimental-specialist— Ho:lh Ho:2h Hozlj Ho:2j _ 12 _ teacher and experimental-classroom-teacher groups after means are adjusted for initial variance as measured by pretest scores. There will be no differences in the post- test Visual—Motor Association Scores be- tween the experimental and control groups after means are adjusted for initial variance as measured by pretest scores. There will be no differences in the post— test Visual-Motor Association Scores be- tween the eXperimental-specialist-teacher and experimental-classroom—teacher groups after means are adjusted for initial variance as measured by pretest scores. There will be no differences in the post- test Auditory Decoding Scores between the experimental and control groups after means are adjusted for initial variance as measured by pretest scores. There will be no differences in the post- test Auditory Decoding Scores between the experimental-specialist-teacher and experimental-classroom-teacher groups after means are adjusted for initial vari- ance as measured by pretest scores. The second set of major hypotheses are related to _ 15 _ visual perception development as assessed by the Frostig Developmental Test of Visual Perception: Hozfi Hoz4 There will be no differences in the post- test Perceptual Quotients between the experimental and control groups after means are adjusted for initial variance as measured by pretest scores. There will be no difference in the post- test Perceptual Quotients between the experimental-specialist teacher and experimental-classroom-teacher groups after means are adjusted for initial variance as measured by pretest scores. The following sub—hypotheses result from the sub— tests of the Frostig Developmental Test of Visual Per- ception and provide a further basis for investigating effects on visual perception develOpment: Ho:5a Ho:4a There will be no differences in the post- test Eye—Motor Scores between the experimental and control groups after means are adjusted for initial variance an; measured by pre— test scores. There will be no differences in the post- test Eye-Motor Scores between the experimental-specialist—teacher and experimental-classroom—teacher groups _ 14 _ after means are adjusted for initial variance as measured by pretest scores. Ho:5b There will be no differences in the post— test Figure-Ground Scores between the experimental and control groups after means are adjusted for initial variance as measured by pretest scores. Hoz4b There will be no differences in the post— test Figure-Ground Scores between the experimental-specialist-teacher and experimental-classroom—teacher groups after means are adjusted for initial variance as measured by pretest scores. Hoz3c There will be no differences in the post- test Size Constancy Scores between the experimental and control groups after means are adjusted for initial variance as measured by pretest scores. Ho:4c There will be no differences in the post— test Size Constancy Scores between the experimental-specialist—teacher and experimental—classroom—teacher groups after means are adjusted for initial variance as measured by pretest scores. Ho:5d There will be no differences in the post- test Position in Space Scores between the experimental and control groups after means are adjusted for initial variance as measured by pretest scores. Ho:4d There will be no differences in the post— test Position in Space Scores between the experimental-specialist-teacher and experimental-classroom-teacher groups after means are adjusted for initial variance as measured by pretest scores. Ho:5e There will be no differences in the post- test Spatial Relations Scores between the experimental and control groups after means are adjusted for initial variance as measured by pretest scores. Ho:4e There will be no differences in the post— test Spatial Relations Scores between the experimental—specialist—teacher and experimental—classroom-teacher groups after means are adjusted for initial variance as measured by pretest scores. The third set of major hypotheses are related to intellectual functioning as assessed by the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children: Ho:5 There will be no differences in the post— test Intelligence Quotients between the experimental and control groups after means _ lg _ are adjusted for initial variance as measured by pretest scores. Hoz6 There will be no differences in the post- test Intelligence Quotients between the experimental—specialist-teacher and experimental-classroom—teacher groups after means are adjusted for initial variance as measured by pretest scores. The fourth set of major hypotheses are related to academic ability as assessed by the Lee-Clark Reading Readiness Test and the Wide Range Achievement Test: Ho:7 There will be no differences in the post— test Reading Readiness Scores between the experimental and control groups after means re adjusted for initial variance as measured by pretest scores. Hoz8 There will be no differences in the post- test Reading Readiness Scores between the experimental—specialist-teacher and experimental-classroom-teacher groups after means are adjusted for initial variance as measured by pretest scores. The following hypotheses result from the three tests of the Wide Range Achievement Test: H09 There will be no differences in the post- test Reading Scores between the experimental Ho:10 Ho:11 Ho:12 Ho:14 _ 17 _ and control groups after means are adjusted for initial variance as measured by pretest scores. There will be no differences in the post— test Reading Scores between the experimental— specialist-teacher and experimental—classroom« teacher groups after means are adjusted for initial variance as measured by pretest scores. There will be no differences in the post— test Spelling Scores between the experimental and countrol groups after means are adjusted for initial variance as measured by pretest scores. There will be no differences in the post— test Spelling Scores between the experimental- specialist-teacher and experimental- classroom~teacher groups after means are adjusted for initial variance as measured by pretest scores. There will be no differences in the pest- test Arithmetic Scores between the experiu mental and control groups after means are adjusted for initial variance as measured by pretest scores. There will be no differences in the post—test J-‘ Arithmetic Scores betw3:n one experimental~ specialist—teacher and experimental~classroom~ teacher groups after means are adjusted for initial variance as measured by pretest SCOI‘GS . Definition cf Terms The terms specific education therapy, language abilipy, visual perception development, academic abiliti, academic ability development and educablymentally retarded are operationally defined for purposes of this study. Specific Educational Therapy, the independent variable, refers to the treatment used and will be com— prised of the Peabody Language Development Kit (PLDK) and the Frostig Program for the Development of Visual Per- ception (FPDVP). The PLDK will be used daily for approxi— mately thirty minutes. The FPDVP will be used three times a week for approximately thirty minutes. Language Ability refers to the ability to under— stand what others communicate and in expressing thoughts, ideas or wants, at any point in time. For this study, language ability is operationally defined as the scores received on the ITPA. Language DevelOpment is Operationally defined as 'the improvement of scores from pretest to post—test on the ITPA. It refers to an improvement in both the ability to _ 19 - understand what others communicate and in expressing thoughts, ideas or wants. Visual Perception Abilitquill refer to the ability to recognize and discriminate visual stimuli and to interpret these stimuli by associating them with previous experiences, at any point in time. For this study, visual perception ability is operationally defined as the scores received on the DTVP. Visual Perception DeVelopment is operationally defined as the improvement of scores from pretest to post— test on the DTVP. It refers to an improvement in both the ability to recognize and discriminate visual stimuli, and to interpret those stimuli by associating them with previous experiences. Academic Ability refers to achievement in those abilities most important in learning to read, in pre— requisites of numerical thinking and in the sensorimotor control required in learning to write, at any point in time. For this study, academic ability is Operationally defined as the scores received on the LCRRT and the WRAT. Academic Ability_Development is operationally cdefined as the improvement of scores from pretest to jpost-test on the LCRRT and the WRAT. It refers to an improvement in achievement in those abilities most im— Lportant in learning to read, in prerequisites of numerical 'thinking and in the sensorimotor control required in _ 20 _ learning to write. Educable Mental Retardation (EMR) refers, in general, to the two levels of measured intelligence designated as "Mild" and "Borderline Mental Retardation" by the American Association on Mental Deficiency. This includes an I.Q. range of 50—85. Organization of the Study The general plan of this study is to present in Chapter II a review of research related to educational objectives for the EMR and consequences of special class placement, educational concept and diagnosis of EMR and learning disabilities and educational therapy. In Chapter III the design of the study will be described with reference to experimental design, statistical hypotheses, type of analysis, sampling procedure and method of treatment. The results of the analysis are reported in Chapter IV. Chapter V includes the summar‘, conclusions, discussion and recommendations. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The literature included in this review is organized under four subsections: 1. Educational objectives for the educable mentally retarded. 2. Consequences of special class placement. 5. Educational concept and diagnosis of educable mental retardation. 4. Learning disabilities and educational therapy. Educational Objectives for the Educable Mentally Retarded In public school special education classrooms for children educationally classified as educable mentally retarded, it has been traditional to place curricular emphasis on life adjustment programs. A study by Stevensl also reveals that over the past quarter century there has 'been general agreement that educational objectives for such students should include: tool subjects, making a living and using one's leisure time wisely. Stevens also lGodfrey D. Stevens, "An Analysis of the Objectives for the Education of Children with Retarded Mental De~ ‘veIOpment", American Journal g§_Mental Deficiency, 63: No. 2, September,1958. _ 21 _ 99.. writes that there has been general agreement that the educational goals for the retardate should be the same as for all learners, but at a lower level. These educa— tional assumptions have apparently resulted from a con- ceptualization of the mentally retarded child as more similar to, than different from, his normal peers. As a further consequence of this characterization, according to Stevens, there has been a marked shift away from the specific educational training of mental functions which represented the influence of European physiologically oriented workers. Sparks and Blackman2 have observed that there appears to be increasing emphasis on special class place— ment and special preparation of teachers for the educable mentally retarded. This they note is occurring despite the lack of empirical evidence that differences actually exist in regard to special class teacher techniques, materials or content. Simches and Bohn3 have reported on their study of major curriculum guides for the EMR. They concluded that existing programs for the mentally retarded did not differ appr«eciably from those offered 2H. L. Sparks and L. S. Blackman, "What is Special about Special Education Revisited: The Mentally Retarded", gfixceptional Children, 31: 242-47, January 1965. SGabriel Simches and Raymond J. Bohn. "Issues in Curriculum: Research and Responsibility". Mental Retardation, I: 84—87, 115-17, 1965. _ 25 _ normal groups. In their review of research in the area of special classes for the mentally retarded, Blackman and Heintz4 concluded: "Special educators are still faced with the task of developing educational methodologies which, when applied to the mentally re- tarded, will prove superior to methods currently in use". The special education classrooms in Ingham County also reflect the philosophical and curricular effects of the national trends as reported by Stevens and others. In particular, the conceptualization of the educable mentally retarded child and his educational needs has C been consistent with general trends reported above.” Consequences of Special Class Placement Research assessing the consequences of special class placement, however, has frequently failed to support the expectations that such placement results in better academic ,- . . . . t, performance or improved social or personal adjustment. (Fine' aLeonard S. Blackman and Paul Heintz, "The Mentally Retarded", Review 9§_Educational Research, 56: 5—56, February 19 . 5Personal conversations with administration and professional staff of the Ingham Intermediate School Board. 6Marvin J. Fine, "Security Patterns of Educable Mentally Retarded Boys in Relation to Special Class Placement" (paper read at Annual AAMD Convention, Chicago, May 1966 . no .4: I Sparks and Blackman,7 Johnson,8 Kaplang). After re~ viewing research related to the consequences of special class placement, Johnson10 has observed that educable mentally retarded pupils placed in such classrooms achieved significantly less than comparable pupils placed in regular classrooms. This has obtained in spite of small class size, specially trailuad teach3r and disproportionately higher costs. Johnson further stfi. ed that even advantages in terms of pers onal and social development which might result from special group— ing appears slight and probably not pazrticularly Leaningful. Johnson tends to attributed these consequences to teacher training programs stressing the inability of the retarded and the stress placed on establishing good mental hyg: iene pr ogrea ms. tudies in this area have not been unanimously 17Sparks and Blackman, o . cit. 8Orville G. Johnson. "Special Education for the Mentally Retarded—A paradox". Exceptional Children, 29: 62—69, October 1962 9Marvin S. Kaplan, "An Investigation of the Anxiety Levels of Mentally Handica.pped Children with Special Consideration of the Effects of Special Education Classes" (Unpublished Ph.D.D1°ser.at1on Michi State University 1961). ll negati‘e. Kern and Pfaeffle report finding cvirence of better social adjustment for retarded students 2 'L‘(‘\ q specially placed, than for retarced students placed in regular classes. In spite of such occasional findings, however, the trend seems overwhelming and is clearlv . . l2 , . . stated by Blackman and Heintz. In their rev1ew of Goldstein, Moss and Jordan's research on the education of the mentally retarded, they stated: It is the Opinion of the reviewers that this methodologically sophisticated study of t e efficiency of special class s for the mentally retarded blends into the long line of negative findings which have characterized this area of research for the past thirty years.15 Educational Concept and Diagnos'. of 7" :s the Educable Mentally Retarded One of the consequences of the research generated by the interest in determining the role of language and visual perception development on functioning in school, has been to seriously question the present educa icnal 11William H. Kern and Heinz Pfaeffle, "A Com- parison of Social Adjustment of Mentally Retarded Children in Various Educational Settings," American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 67: 407-15, November 1962. ‘— l2 Blackman and Heintz, on. cit. 13Herbert Goldstein, James W. Moss and Laura J. Jordan, The Efficacv of S ecial Class Traininrr on the Development of MentalI— Retarded Children, U.g{_” Department of HeaIth, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, Cooperative Research Project No. 619 (Urbana: Institute for Research on Exceptional Children, University of Illinois, 1965). con cptualization of children classified as educably l4 mentally retarded. Laneer made one of the strongest statements when he asserted that the dia Q-nos is of mental retar datien in noninstitutiono lized children is incorrect in 85 to 90 percent of cases. . . Most of these children have develo emcntal disorders of learning and la n5ua5: function "which commonly occur without air imp_irment of intelligence". Amon5 lezrnin5 and lan5ua50 disorders, Dr. Lampert included problems in reading that prevent word recognition and the comprehension of word meenin in printed, written or spoken spe cech and in expression. (a "The greatest sin5le cause of mi ediag nosis of mental retardation is failure to separate intelligence from language, speech, sensory, motor and spatial modalities with respect to tes in5", he maintained . . . The standard intelligence tests are "notoriously misleadin5" in the lanb ua 5re disordered individual, he cont 'inued, in part because of associated problems in behavior, spatial rele ationships and motor function. In a statement before the Ad Hoc Committee on the Handic capped, Sen Dstock, National Association for Retarded Chi ildren, Inc., stated: 1DmDiagnosis of Retardation Said to Cftzn Wrong", Medical Tribune. Report on 31 addre 5iven by Dr. Morris H. rampert Before th section on n3urelc5y and psychiatry: it the Annual Meetin5 cf the Southern Medical Association, December 1, 1965. (I) 0‘ {0 Co ‘ _ 27 _ It is predictc d th1t by 1975 there will be 75 million h_ildren in our schoolna3e yopuletion. . . of theseC Quillion will be handicapped. Within this handicapped population, it is 3stimeted that there IJill be somue three millio n n311t3117 retarded (cons ind ring a precise definition of this disebi lit? e1t‘rorV) und enother tlr::e million 'itn specific learnin3 di s1bility which 1.ill repressent a functional rete:d tio1 unless strut ic Speci1l interv; ntion r.\,\.l\ .0. UV‘JO‘. {3.11:3 UTLCLCeo In his statement before the Sen1te Succeunjt e. on Education, Kirk also made reference to this situation: These children are in our schools and are in general failin 3, particularly in some aspect of behavior or communication . . . Actually this igroup of children cuts 1cross varicus d.ir aoility 3r: U.pin3s Thus; le1rnin,3 diSLfl oilities are found mcng c,hildren who are otherJJise 3ve1:aje in inte lli33nce as well as among children who 1re below 1ver333 or superior intelligence. . . M3n3 sUch children . . . are diagnosed es mentally retdrcled but (who) are better in classified as learning disabilities since they fave normal abilities in somr 1rees 11d wnwh~fllv 1i 31 abilities in other aieas giVin3 the eipg1r1nc: of men ntal ret1rd1tion. R3redi1tion pre3r1”3 f“r sane of these el:ildren will greetssfully remO're the" fror aka... the clessifieution of mental retardatiern *2 R3v1ou11 recent resave 1eh in mental recgrdutfer involving the structure of intelligence, classif 3 tion .L ,. ' . - .L. 1‘, C11 .... 1 $6 - . '_. reoems and achievenunu, B ‘ 31:- nd Hie intz Cornenp 1 .1. - P ‘ q - ' not. : ° J-,-. \-'-.‘.-° . - - . A3. the meanirga U31»1U 3nd interpretutlon fron the “eseurch are conflicting. However= the stud1e in S« 1 Kirk. "Statemeh e on Educ1tio n", A i 1nd Lelrnitig 1835i ities, 19o . Subcommit on Legis l "u d" CI (0 lffifi“ J“;jr\ 1‘3 ‘ww’r‘nl 6*“.11 ’.V\ \,-\'Yfi fi'r\‘:".f‘)fi J‘Tm-,j; 9 b3 .3 L'lwull .....O.L1-.r_1. .. --1. .L;_‘ I g, 4. C .14: U l‘- l ’ (1,. . . 4.: . . '~— -.° — A - .- fornatlon and retention. They Conclufle with the uggestion that he future in (Pucati - ~ '4. ,r 1 .1... .19- -._-4_ researcn Wluh the mentally Iotiroed noilos evaluati n aid development of his psycho—e ducaticnal abilities, disabilities an: school tasks so Bo; looting the current confusiio education are lie confl:r.cting positions 17 l "'3 .1... t w ‘JL and Stiskin. attm son' takes the position Chould be encouraged to place pujils in Ct |._! t: (D l J l ‘1 d- 4 J t: (b C) $13 01 C, D) g D“ (T) H O (D .J ) ‘1 O f ,4. l-' O H excep' "\n v- . A . 1 P.- \ ,»- fi. . . ./ LaV be requirco. Taling the op90site pOSiti that these special by Patter r 4—”-.. ., ‘fi 1 1’ "I 'l‘ 1.1.4,. "u S ulnflu 1 .; rc3ul r class rccns aivocatcs extending special education to the 15 to 18 percent of the schoo jcpulation considerel Io ekexs the 1m ition that such :u3ils need "slow learners". more special~ ized attention rather than the regular school work pre~ sented at a slower rate. roblem areas as including coordination, C‘ 5.)“ “'1 ‘tiskin identifies the learning oech and language, memory and ottc1tion span and ability to abstr: ' w - . -. 1. 4. , ,_ ,. M It is clear, however, tnao even anon“ re tarded students not all have the same 17?. L. Patterson, "The Norm ality of Exczttionil Children," R‘hlbllltetlofl‘lfl Canada, l2: Winter) 19CE— 1966 '_—‘”‘- lS Yeshiva," -Ii3h Paren 9"“1-4: inentally Hershel H. Stiskin, "The Slow Learner and th: t '9 1?: 8~lO, October 19¢: a]. \I .1- I - 29 _ difficulty in learning school material, nor similar learning blocks where the degree of learning handicap is equivalent. Because of this, it is to be expected that any two seemingly similar educable mentally retarded students could have totally different experiences in any educational entironment, be it a special class or a regular classroom. This situation.makes it difficult to know whether Patterson and Stisken are in essential agreement or disagreement, if the learner and the learning situation were defined along different dimensions. This may well be more at the root of confusion in special education than anything more patently philosOpical. One possible set of different dimensions are those used in the area of learning disabilities and one advocate of using these dimensions is Hirsch.19 She questions the educational value of current approaches to homogeneous grouping based on chronological age and IQ. These approaches are described as inefficient be- cause they are not educationally meaningful. A learning disability approach is described as having more educational meaning. The dimensions of learning disabilities, the "Disability Groupings", would permit a diagnostic Vlgister Hirsch, "Another Approach to Homogeneity in the Mentally Retarded”, New Frontiers in §pecial Education, Selected papers TEBm.tEe 53rd ua convention, Portland, Oregon, April 20-24, 1965. (Hashing— ton, D.C., Council for Exceptional Children, no date), PP. 57-60- _ 30 _ approach to instruction based on psychological estimates of the student's level of functioning in each possible cognitive area. Such diagnostic information would pro- vide a bases for the teacher to structure each child's instruction to provide for maximum individual growth. Blackman?O too, proposes an approach to the education of EMR students based on those psychoeducational char- acteristics of the student that may be relevant to academic achievement. He suggests that instructional procedures could then make allowances for and accomodate such characteristics. As defined by Blackman, the unique purpose of special education is to train retarded pupils to the highest possible levels of academic competence. He maintains this can best be accomplished by considering their specific learning abilities in relation to the re- quirements of the material to be learned. In this way, he predicts, classroom education for the EHH can.become based on a blend of psychology, education and computer science. Learning Disabilities and Educational Therapy As recently as 1966 Bateman21 has written that 20Leonard S. Blackman, "The Brave New'World of Special Education” (paper presented at the 90th annual meeting of the American.Association on.Mental Deficiency, Chicago, Illinois, May 10-14, 1966). 21Barbara Bateman, "Learning Disorders," Review 2; Educational Research, 36: 95-119, February 1966. _ 51 _ none of the major survey textbooks deals specifically with learning disabilities as such. Noting the in- creasing interest, however, she points out that the Review g£_Educational Research has now included a chapter in this area for the first time; that a tabula— tion of the sessions of the 1965 Annual Convention of the Council for Exceptional Children revealed that learn- ing disability was second only to mental retardation in the number of sessions and papers presented; and that, the entire December 1964 issue of Exceptional Children was devoted to this topic as was the April 1965 issue of Mental Retardation. She attributes this upsurge of interest, in part, to two things. First, to the deve10p— ment of a broad educational movement toward a more scientific approach to learning situations which is based on a psychoeducational philosophy. Secondly, to the recent emergence of new diagnostic philosophies and instruments having rather direct educational implications for curriculum and educational therapy. According to Bateman, in order to include all problems currently labeled as such, it is necessary to describe learning disabilities as "those deviations in the learning pro- cesses which are associated with an educationally significant discrepency between apparent capacity for language or cognitive behavior and actual level of language or cognitive performance". _ 52 _ As recent as this upsurge in interest in learning disabilities appears to be, it clearly has its roots as far back as the eighteenth century. Itard revealed an interest in a sensory motor approach to learning and describes such training in his Wild Boy 2£_Aveygon (1849). Montessori modified these early methods as she applied them to teaching the retarded (1912). More recent literature has expressed an interest in the role of both language development and sensory motor development on school achievement. Kephart focusing on sensory motor develOpment has written: Many children are coming into our schools lacking in basic perceptual-motor skills. As a result of this basic lack, they are less able to participate in the formal educational activities which are arranged for them and they are less able to learn from these activities. They become slow learners in the class- room. . . we may have to bring the equivalent of ladders to climb, fences to walk, or horses to ride into the classroom and help the child to build up the sensory-motor skills which are required by the more comBlex activities of reading, writing and arithmetic. 2 . In the area of language development Speidel23 has recommended the need for a systematic program of language instruction. His investigation of the listening, speaking, reading and writing skills of 209 retarded, special class students revealed that listening com- prehension was their least deve10ped skill, followed 22Newell C. Kephart, "The Slow Learner in the Class- room", Columbus: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1960, p.17. 25E. B. Speidel, "Language Achievements of Mentally Retarded Children", Dissertation Abstracts, 19; 3180, 1958. -55.. by speaking. Speidel believed language training would lead to the develOpment of these deficient skills and provide a base for developing competence in the tool subjects. More recently, McCarthy and Scheerenburger24 summarized the recent research on language development and wrote: ". . . there appears to be ample justification to regard language development and remediation as an integral part of the academic curriculum for retardates, since tool subjects and content studies assume minimal linguistic adequacy." In concluding their overall review the authors, like iBateman, note a remarkable growth in studies on education and learning problems. They additionally suggest, however, that continued develop- ment will require, in part, a greater utilization of public school programs for research purposes. Myklebust and Boshes25 have delineated areas of dysfunction as seen in children with what they term "language disorders" and "perceptual defects" and make recommendations for scientifically oriented educational 2[flames J. McCarthy and Richard C. Scheerenburger, "A Decade of Research on the Education of the Mentally Retarded", Mental Retardation Abstracts é: flgl, October - December 1966. 25Helmer R. Myklebust and Benjamin Boshes, ”Psychoneurological Learning Disorders in Children", Archives of Pediatrics, New York, June 1960. -54 _ therapy based on specific knowledge of the area of dysfunction. 26 has investigated visual and motor Frostig aspects of perceptual functioning and has found signifi— cant correlations existing between deficit functioning in visual perception and poor school performance. In a study of the effectiveness of the Frostig program for developing visual perception, Allen27 used sixteen educable mentally retarded children. He placed ten students in his experimental group which was trained for one semester with Frostig materials and six students were placed in a control group that received no specialized training. The Frostig Developmental Test of Visual Perception was administered to both groups before and after the experimental group had received the specialized training. Allen's analysis of the gain scores lead him to report that the specialized training had improved three of the five tested visual perceptual skills. In another study of the Frostig program, <26harianne Frostig, "The Frostig Program for the Development of Visual Perception," Chicago: Follett Co., 1964. 27Robert M. Allen, Isadore Dickman and Thomas D. Haupt. "A Pilot Study of the Immediate Effectiveness of the Frostig-Horne Training Program with Educable fetardates," Exceptional Children 35: 41-42, September 966. -35.. Rosen28 explored the effects of a specific visual per- ception training program on achievement in reading. He used a much larger sample but a shorter training period. In his study he used a stratified random sample consisting of twenty—five first grade classrooms of 703 pupils. The experimental classes received Frostig training for a twenty-nine—day period. During this same period the control classes received fifteen minutes more time over and above regularly scheduled reading instruction. Dif- ferences in pretest Frostig perception scores as well as the other criterion scores among groups were found to be unreliable, demonstrating equivalence of groups prior to training. Analysis of variance of post-test scores re— vealed improvement in perceptual abilities trained but the improvement was not reflected in comparable superior per— formance in the reading measures. In fact, in some in- stances the control classes excelled in a task involving reading comprehension. Rosen summarized his study with the following conclusion: Within the various limitations of this study, which include the time and nature of the training program, the specific measuring instruments, and differential teacher effects, it appears evident that the training of certain visual perception capabilities by means of the specific adoptation of the Frostig program for undifferentiated groups 28Carl L. Rosen, "An.Experimental Study of Visual Perceptual Training and Reading Achievement in First Grade,” Perceptual and Motor Skills, 22: 979-986, 1966. of first grade pupils, did not result in signficant improvement in reading scores. Barsch29 has developed a functional organization scale for evaluating organic children which includes many items related to visual perceptual functioning. He emphasized that the primary concern is with the manner in which the problem interferes with learning and that the level of learning therapy needs to be based on the child's primary learning problems. Kephart}O under controlled conditions, has observed that there are visual perception correlates of learning that are amenable to specific training. Llorens,51 Gese1132 and Winter Haven}; among others, have all reported educationally significant improvement following visual perceptual therapy for children retarded in visual perception develOpment. 29Ray H. Barsch. "Evaluating the Organic Child: The Functional Organization Scale," The Journal ngthe Genetic Psychology, 100: 345-354, 1962. 5°Newe11 c. Kephart, "Visual Skills and their lRelation to School Achievement," American Journal gf thhalmoloqn 56: 794-799, 1953- 31Lela A. Llorens and others. "Training in C:0gnitive-Perceptual—Motor Functions," American Journal .EEQ Occupational Therapy, 19, 1964. 32A. Gesell and L. B. Ames. "The Development <31? Directionality in Drawing," Journal 3; Genetic Psychology, 68: 45—61, 1946. 33Procedure Guide to Perceptual Forms, (Clinical §gfiiition), PublicationJCommittee, Winter Haven Lions Club, «.0. Box 1045, Winter Haven, Florida, 1962. -37- Painter54 investigated the effects of a rhythmic and sensory motor activity program on body image, perceptual motor integration and psycholinguistic competence of kinder- garten children. She divided the twenty lowest functioning students into an experimental and control group. The experimental group was given a systematic rhythmic and sensory motor activity program based on nine movement areas of Barsch's theory and on suggestions from Kephart. Signifi- cant mean gains were made by the experimental group in the areas of remediation. This study demonstrates the value of a group approach within a public school setting for the amelioration of certain types of learning disabilities. Kephart?5a Purdue University psychologist, has studied children reported to lack readiness for language ;processes such as reading. His suggestions for therapy included teaching such skills as lateral dominance, <1irectional knowledge, smooth eye movements, manual «dexterity and eye-hand coordination. Students with learning disabilities were given specialized therapy based on Kephart's recommendations in a study reported 5iGenevieve Painter, "The Effect of a Rhythmic and Sensory Motor Activity Program on Perceptual Motor Spatial Abilities of Kindergarten Children," Exceptional Children, 33: 113-116, October 1966. 55Kephart , _2. cit. _ 58 _ by Halgren.56 The gain of the group receiving the special- ized therapy was described as approximately twice as great as that for a control group receiving traditional remedial reading. Halgren also reported observing an upward shift of seven IQ points for the experimental group. A similar study reported by Rutherford37 was also described as pro- ducing significant results. Getman38 has described six basic deveIOpmental processes. He describes these as: general movement (creeping); Special movement (manipulative skills); eye movement; communication; visualization and visual per— ceptual organization (reading). Among the activities suggested for developing skills are stomach rolls, ballon tossing, ocular pursuit, sound identification, tactual identification of objects and the counting of objects left to right. Getman's methods were studied by McKee39 who 836M. R. Halgren, "Opus in See Sharp," Education, 81: 569-371, February 1961. 57W. L. Rutherford, "Perceptual-Motor Training and Readiness,” a paper read at the annual meeting of the International Reading Association, Detroit, 1965. 38G. N. Getman, "The Visumotor Complex in the Acquisition of Learning Skills," Learni Disorders, Vol. 1, Jenrome Hellmuth, editor, Seattle: Specia%CEfl'd'P1—i'Eli- ‘ c38L't2ions, 1965, pp. 49—76. 11 59G. W. McKee., et.al., "The Physiology of eadiness," Minneapolis:P. A. S. S., 1964. -59.. reported his experimental group's gains in reading comprehension was significantly greater than those of the control group. Kelly4O used 213 students in his study of the relationship between scores from a visual screening test and reading ability. Referring to Getman's stress on visual factors, Kelly reported a close relationship between these variables and a lesser but still important relationship between test scores and school grades. Lyons and Lyons41 have also supported Getman's position when reporting measurable intellectual growth for children who have undergone visual training. There has been some criticism of visual training and the emphasis placed on it by some educators. Hardesty42 denies that any study in the literature defi— nitely establishes a correlation between faulty eye co- ordination and reading problems. Gordon calls visual training worthless and Goldberg rates it as of no value. lBrandon takes the position that faulty reading is a —_¥ 1 400. R. Kelly, "Visual Screening and Child Devel- f Three Experimental Designs Employing a Concomitant ‘Tariable', _§ychometrika, 23: 4, December 1958. aMerle H. Tate, Statistics in Education, New York: John Uiley and Sons, Inc., 1955, p.723. . 5Uldis Smidchens, Bureau of Educational Research, M:Lchigan State University. _ 56 _ of groups are compared by a modification of analysis of covariance. The technique employs a separate analysis for each specific planned comparison.4 In this study two planned comparisons were made for each variable. The F statistic computed will be evaluated by the following decision strategy: At the .05 level of significance with (l, 78) degrees of freedom, F.95 (1, 78) = 5.98, consequently: A) for obtained F values greater than 3.98 the null hypotheses will be rejected and it will be concluded that the data supports the alternative hy- potheses, otherwise for obtained F values equal to or less than 3.98, B) the null hypotheses cannot be rejected and there is not enough evidence to warrant the conclusion that mean differences truly exist among treatment groups. Sample The primary and early elementary Type A special education students of Ingham County, Michigan (excluding ILansing School District) constitute both the population fend.the sample for this investigation. These educable Inentally retarded (EMR) students were educationally g inWilliam L. Hays. Statistics for P cholo ists, (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963; pp. HES-82. -57- placed in ten classrooms according to Michigan standards (see Appendix B). The classrooms were in eight school districts. The various school districts making up the sample represent a socioeconomic and cultural population ranging from rural to urban, village to city and agrarian to academic (see Appendix C). Even though a variety of school districts are included the sample cannot be con- sidered wholly representative. For instance samples from "central city” schools are not included. Addition— ally, instead of choosing subjects at random, all students placed in the Type A classrooms were used. Clearly then, the deficiencies in randomization place limitations on generalization since the sample cannot be described as representative of the EMR population in general. The focus of this study is the classroom, however, and the lack of randomness and the restrictions placed on gen- eralizing do not appear as severe a limitation as would ‘be the loss of the integrity of the functioning class- room. The variables most closely observed are IQ, :perceptual quotient, language quotient, academic ability and chronological age. Inasmuch as the total sample :source was initially included in the study, such variables sis sexg race and socioeconomic status are indirectly (zontrolled through the actuality of educational placement - 58 _ in the special education rooms. This investigation represents an attempt to study effects of actual class- room procedures and therefore direct control of the teacher variable was avoided because it would significantly change the focus of the study.5 In order to observe any differential effects of classroom-teachers or teacher-specialists using the specific educational therapy, two experimental groups were established. Classrooms were randomly assigned to the treatment and control groups. As it turned out, it was necessary to drop two of the classrooms from the control group. One classroom was dropped because of extremely atypical6 enrollment and a second because it went on a half-day attendance basis. Eight additional students were lost between pretesting and post-testing because of moving out of the county. Descriptive statistics for the eighty-two stu— dents remaining are presented by treatment group in Table 5-1. The differences among the groups on the dependent variables were analyzed by use of analysis of variance. The small differences among groups were not reliable for the major variables: IQ, perceptual quotient, 5Tate,lgp. cit., p. 524. 61 psychotic child; 1 brain damaged child; 2 severely handicapped children. -59.. .popos mmflshmzeo mmoand pephomeh one moHoom endpqmpmc mm.m W mw.m mm.e .c.c Macao i mam. ma.ca M oc.ms . mm.ma m ccq mm.u . Ho.u NN.© .c.m unoflposd mam. sm.mm m om.mm ‘cm.ac m cmmswcsq b m¢.mH m am.HH Hm.oH .c.c pqcapcsd smm. mo.Hs M om.su sm.mm m Hespccchcm m _ A Hm.w . mm.B Om.OH .©.m v How. so.ms om.mu mm.mu m @H h# mm H z i Amm n z A #N u 2% HHHQMQOHW Hmflowme PmHHmfiow m m gronw aoonmmsHOV Honommev manwflsm> Honpnoo @5090 @5096 . Hangmaflnomxm Hmpnoawhomxm *.mmndem45 Hzmnzmmflfi mus 20 mmbomw HomBZoo 924 mmbomw H Hospsoo macaw adouw Hopsoafisomxm HmpnmSasomxm c.8essflpqOo Hum mqmde - 61 _ language quotient, academic ability and chronological age. There were reliable differences, however, for some of the variables defined by the subtests of the ITPA, DTVP and.WRAT. All students were administered the following tests:7 (1) Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities. (2) Frostig Deve10pmental Test of Visual. Perception (3) Vechsler Intelligence Scale for Children or Stanford-Binet. (4) Lee-Clark Reading Readiness Test. (5) Wide Range Achievement Test (1965 revision). During the six weeks ending October 14, 1966, before the beginning of training, both experimental and control sub- jects were administered the above tests with one exception. Stanford-Binet or WISC results less than nine-months old ‘were considered as current for the pretest purposes. All subjects were poSt—tested with the W180. All pretesting and post—testing was done by five qualified school diagnosticians including the investi— gator.8 All pretesting and post-testing with the ITPA 'was performed by the investigator and one of the 7Test descriptions, reliability and validity data sure reported in Appendix D. 8 Ingham Intermediate School District School Iliagnosticians: Ray Gillham, William Rice, John.Wallen, Robert Wells and Kenneth Woodring. (El I‘ll I.“ _ 62 _ diagnosticians. The remaining tests were administered by the other diagnosticians, each of whom were assigned an equal number of subjects. Each subject was pretested and post-tested by the same examiner. Post-testing was completed during the six weeks ending June 9, 1967. Procedure All subjects were pretested and post-tested on each of the dependent variables, as previously detailed in this chapter. During the period of pretesting, the purpose of the research and the classroom assignments were explained to the school superintendents concerned for their approval. Interest in the study and cooperation ‘was unanimously given. Subsequently, meetings were held 'with the building principals, classroom teachers and teacher specialists concerned to explain the study and ‘their roles. Extended meetings were held with the ex- ;perimental teachers to explain not only the treatment quograms but also the models and educational assumptions Irelevant to the treatment programs. Also, during this IPeriod all of the necessary materials were acquired and IQIaoed in the hands of the teachers. In this way, the theachers were familiar with the materials and instructional Irrocedures in advance of introducing the treatment to ‘blieir students. Throughout the treatment period the iIrvestigator was available on a consultant basis to the _ 65 _ teachers administering the treatment. By October 17, 1966 the pretesting was completed, the experimental teachers were familiar with the treatment materials, the treatment instructional procedures were integrated into daily lesson plans and treatment was initiated with the experimental students. The specific educational therapy treatment consisted of the Peabody Language Development Kit, Level 1 (PLDK), and the Frostig Program for the Development of Visual Perception (FPDVP). The PLDK was used for about thirty minutes every day. The FPDVP was used for about thirty minutes three times a week. For the experimental— specialist—teacher group the PLDK was administered by a qualified speech therapist and the FPDVP by a qualified teacher counselor for the physically handicapped. Both the PLDK and the FPDVP were administered by the classroom teacher for the experimental-classroom—teacher group. There was no intervention in the classroom procedures of the control group. Post-testing was initiated on May 1, 1967 and completed by the week of May 29. The Peabo e Development 513, Line? _- (PIER) The PLDK was initially developed by J. O. Smith Who designed, taught and tested the effectiveness of thirty—three language development lessons with eight to _ 64 - ten year old EMR children.9 The lessons were developed according to the Osgood model (described under ITPA) with the three-fold purpose of: (A) stimulating overall language facility of the disadvantaged and retarded; (B) developing verbal intelligence through training and ultimately (C) enchancing school progress.10 The original lessons were developed further by others and expanded and put into kit form by the staff at the Institute on Mental Retardation and Intellectual Development at George Peabody College in 1964. In addition to planning activities for stimulating the psycholinguistic abilities assessed by “the subtests of the ITPA, activities for stimulating jproductive thinking and memory were developed. From a 19001 of some 1000 activities, those judged most appro— xpriate were put in groups of from three to five to form 2200 daily lesson plans. These lesson plans were then c>rganized to control for difficulty and to provide for ssequential development of the various language abilities. flflbis experimental kit was field tested by over 100 teachers (irtring the 1946-65 school year. The final kit as used in M 9James O. Smith, "Effects of a Group Language 13€rve10pment Program Upon the Psycholinguistic Abilities <>iT Educable Mental Retardates." Peabody Colle e Special dhication Research Monograph Series, 0. . eorge Peabody CoIIege for Teachers, Nashville'- Tennessee, 1962. 101.10 d M. Dunn and James 0. Smith, ”Peabody ];eUDguage Deve opment Kits Manual for Level #1, Minneapolis: American Guidance Service, inc., 1965, p. xv. _ 55 - this study was developed and published in 1965.11 Level #1 is designed for children who are intellectually be- tween four and one—half and six and one-half years of age. In addition to EMR and grade one disadvantaged children, the material is also appropriate for stimulating normal kindergarten students and slower pupils in first grade.12 The PLDK Level #1 contains the following materials. (1) a manual with 180 lesson plans, (2) 450 picture cards, (3) ten 11" x 18" picture cards, (4) 350 plastic color chips, thirty—five of each of ten different colors, ‘which interlock to allow sequencing (5) two soft hand gpuppets, "Peabo" and "Telsie," (6) a tape recording con— ‘taining six favorite fairy tales and songs and music for :introducing and concluding "Language Time." The lesson jplans include activities in vocabulary development, des- <3ribing items, following directions, productive thinking, Inemory and listening. The activities are systematically Igresented in a sequential order with numerous opportuni- tzies for repetition and review to provide for over— ldearning. The manual includes detailed instruction for 15 I?INssentation, organization and use of all materials. lllbido, pp. XVi‘XViio 12Ibid., p. iv. lBIbide, pp. Vii“iXo _ 66 _ The Frosti Pro ram for the DevelOpment ‘9: Visual Perception (FPDVP) The development of the materials for training visual perception was based on findings made with the help of the DTVP. The Frostig test provided information on which the present specific program for training visual perception is based. The organization, instructional materials and methods were clinically derived by the staff of The Marianne Frostig Center for Educational Therapy. The present FPDVP includes "workbook" exercises for 'visual perceptual training in each of five visual per- ceptual areas and a program of physical exercises for gross and fine muscle coordination, training eye movements and enhancing body image and concept.14 The physical exercises are in every case meant to precede the workbook exercises. Detailed explanations and illustrations are jprovided for each visual perceptual area. The "workbook" eaxercises provide pencil-and—paper training having the :following general objectives: A. Motor Coordination: These exercises help to develop printing, writing and drawing from point to point, completing patterns and duplicating patterns and figures. Visual and kinesthetic methods are employed ]? 1”Marianne Frostig and David Horne, "The {Pro stig Program for the Development of Visual Perception - eacher's Guide", Chicago: Follett Publishing Company, 1964. _ 67 _ t: and eye-hand coordination is significant.l’ Figure-Ground Perception: Isolation and identification of overlapping, intercepting, or hidden figures help to develop the child's ability to correctly identify a word or letter on a printed page. The object of these exercises is to deve10p the child's facility in reading without running words together, or seeing words distinctly without confusing them with other words around them. This skill is important in such activities as using a dictionary or finding specific items in a table of contents or an index, as well as reading.16 Perceptual Constancy: Exercises in this category develop the child's perception and identification of forms, regardless of differences in color, size, texture, position, background or angle of viewing. In other words, these exercises develop the child's ability to generalize with regard to visual materia1--for example to recognize a word if if occurs in an unfamiliar context or type 15Ibid., pp. 17-28. 16 Ibid., pp. 31—55. -68... face, or if it is printed entirely in capital letters, or to recognize that 5 means essentially the same as 5+5 = 8.1'7 Perception.g£ Position 32 Spaggz These exercises are designed to develop the child's recognition of the formation and directionality of figures and characters. This ability relates to reading and writing skills in such areas as distinguishing "5" from "E", "p" from "q" or "on" from "no" and "saw" from "was."18 Perception 3: Spatial Relationships: The object of these exercises is to develop the child's ability to perceive positional relationships between various objects or points of reference-~for example, the order of letters in a word or of digits in a number, or the arrangement of material on a page. This ability has a direct bearing on the child's performance in reading, especially with longer words and in computations since 19 he must remember the arrangement of numbers. 171bid., pp. 56—59. l8Ibid., pp. 45-75. l91bid., pp. 76-85. _ 69 i The FPDVP is generally intended for children who are in the stage of maximum perceptual develOpment, ages three and one—half to seven and one—half years.20 More specifically, the program is thought to be of benefit to (1) all children in kindergarten and first grade, (2) children of any grade level whose visual perceptual de— velOpment has been impaired, (5) children of culturally deprived backgrounds, (4) deaf and blind children and (5) :mentally retarded children. In regard to this latter category Frostig writes: For these children (EMR), perceptual training is most important with regard to their later social and vocational adjustment, since employment opportunities can be open to them if they are perceptually proficient. There are many occupations that require perceptual skills but little in the way of higher intellectual functions, such as abstract thinking. Progress with the work sheets is slower, however, with these children than with children who are not mentally retarded.21 2olbid., p. 15 21Ibid., pp. 13—15. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF RESULTS Because of the lack of independence between pretest and post-test scores and the need to introduce statistical control of the data by making allowance for initial differ- ences among the groups, an analysis of covariance design 1 analysis of covariance :is used. As pointed out by Tate, :is appropriate in any situation where it is reasonable 1:0 consider controlling a variable experimentally by equal- figzing groups on the basis of that variable. It ordinarily 57 JJeads to more precise results. This design allows signifi- cuant mean differences to be attributed to experimental ‘tzreatment rather than to initial differences or sampling .filuctuations. McNomar2 also comments on the use of analysis €31? covariance. He advocates this design whenever it seems Cleasirable to correct a difference on a dependent variable Jicxr a known difference on another variable which could Iicrt be controlled by matching or random sampling procedures. :IIJ .faot, it is McNemer's position that: The use of covariance adjustment technique is far i_~___ 7“ if ‘Merle W. Tate, Statistics in Education, New <>lfla: The Macmillan Co.,*l955, p. 522. 3? 2Quinn McNemar, Ps cholo ical Statistics, New 0391:: John Wiley and Sonm, p. 544, p. 554- - 71 _ superior to attempts at pairing individuals from the intact groups on the basis of one or more un- controlled variables, a procedure which inevitably leads to a reduction of sample size and also runs astride a regression difficulty. In order to establish that the data was appro— priate for analysis of covariance, a test for hetero- genity of regression of each post—test on its pretest was performed. With the exception of variable 9 (Reading subtest of the WRAT) all dependent variables were within the allowable limits. (see Appendix A) A further consideration in the choice of design resulted because an over-all analysis of covariance and F test would give only an indication of the existence of ggy systematic effects. In this study, however, there is interest only in the particular differences among pOpu- lation means corresponding to answers to the two following questions: (1) Do the experimental groups as a whole tend to differ from the control group? (2) Is the effect of the specialist-teacher presentation different from the effect of the classroom-teacher presentation? According to Hays, 5 in this circumstance the evidence relevant to each question results from combining the sample means in a special way. The evidence for 3William L. Hays, Statistics for Psychologists, New York: Holt Rinehart andeinston, I953, PP. 461-62. _ 72 _ question 1 involves the difference between the mean for group 5 and the average of the means for groups 1 and 2: 2MB difference between the means for groups 1 and 2: M1 - M2 = O. - (Ml + M2) = 0. Question 2 evidence comes from the This "Planned Comparison" modification of the analysis of covariance model is employed in this study because the interest is in answering the two specific questions posed rather than in the over-all existence of treatment effects. The questions have been stated symbolically for both the null hypotheses and alternate hypotheses in Chapter III. The null hypotheses for each dependent variable have been stated verbally in Chapter I. The data relevant to each variable under the null hypotheses are presented in summary form under Table 4-0. To study the effects of Specific-educational- therapy on language ability, each of the nine subtests and the summary score (language quotient) of the ITPA were evaluated independently for both research questions. The relevant data and F ratios are tabled under the .Analysis of Planned Comparisons. The adjusted post—test group mean scores for each variable are also tabled to indicate trend. Tables 4-1, 4-2, 4-5, 4~4, 4—5, 4-6, 4_7, 4-8, 4-9 and 4-10 present the summaries of the analysis for hypotheses Ho:l, Ho:2, Ho:1a, Ho:2a, Ho:1b, lHoz2b, Ho:10, Ho:2c, Ho:1d, Ho:2d, Ho:1e, Ho:2c, Ho:1f, :chzr, Ho:1g, Ho:2g, Ho:1b, Ho:2b, and Ho:1j, Ho:2j _ 75 _ gonads oaonz pmoamms op oocsdoa mohsmfim HH<+ - Hc>cq Ho. pm pcmcaummaMkh, 11 as as as m a sfl.ma mm on me o o ma.aa mm as an o a m.a an we as m o m.m mm me we a .c cc.mm mm on or H N ©¢.©m on we mm .m a c¢.cm we mm mm o o od.om mm m0 m0 0 ed wiowm on as me o H a.m am mm mm .a .s em.ma Hm mm rm 0 m nm.na on ow mm m ..m mm.ma mm mm so 0 ccmm MN.HH mm mm or so ccmH owned #5 mm mm H «swm dmava mm mm mm i¢ sim 0N.OH mm om mm o a nu ma mm mm em .0 cs mmnsH mm NB mm *m eswm N H Hoapsoo aoommmsao pmwasfloomm m N m D N m .o mace: pmopupmom copmsncd modam> m . m capmempaaa mmaaammm mmosficmom mswcsom psofiposd oonowwaaopGH mhcapmacm seepage oommm ma soapflmom hoswmeOO ommnm canonwlonswflm Hopozlohm psofipomd Heapmoomom msflcoomn muopfloss .smm< Hopozrassmfi> wsaoqoSUow Hsoo>nhnopwc5< msflcoosm Hsoo> wswososdmm HopozzawSma> .Qmmd Hsoo>uhaopacs¢ mnacoonm Hopes wsweooon Hmsma> owpmaopd4 Hmoo>lhuopacsd pqowpodd ommsmqsg Hosea m0. at psmofimaqmfiMu .tti. e +mmqdem4> 99d mom dedn ho HMdZSEm Old mgm4a _ 7le - TABLE 4-1 LANGUAGE QUOTIENT Analysis of Planned Comparisons Source SS df MS F Between Groups adjusted 5991.59 2 Comparison: 1 5402.16 1 5402.16 27.57 2 589.25 1 589.25 4.78 Covariate 5282.92 1 Error within groups 62 .O 28 125.40 Totals 18899.58 81 o = 0 F. = o F 95 1,78 5 98 99 1,78 7 01 TABLE 4-1.1 LANGUAGE QUOTIENT Post-test Group Means Adjusted for Pretest Differences Experimental (Specialist-Teacher) 79.18 Experimental (Classroom-Teacher) 72.24 Control 62.59 —‘-r~.~ a .w-. Mw— ** ”—3 —-—.—~ -.- TABLE 4-2 AUDITORI-VOCAL AUTOMATIC Analysis of Planned Comparisons Source SS df MS F Between Groups adjusted 2195.58 2 Comparison: 1 848.50 1 848.50 4.07 2 1545.08 1 1545.08 6.46 Covariate 6591.10 1 Error within groups 16251.00 .28 208.55 Totals 3095 1,78 = 5098 -—...¢_. 24855.48 81 F.99 1,78 = 7.01 —‘ -- TABLE 4-2.1 AUDITORY-VOCAL AUTOMATIC Post-test Group Means Adjusted for Pretest Differences IExperimental (Specialist—Teacher) Experimental (Classroom-Teacher) Control —_— 85.55 88.09 75-50 76 TABLE 4—; VISUAL DECODING Analysis of Planned Comparisons Source SS df MS F Between Groups adjusted 578.15 2 Comparison: 1 292.29 1 292.29 1.55 2 85.84 1 85.84 .40 Covariate 2778.57 1 Error within groups 16551.55 '28 217.55 Totals 20108.05 81 F.95 1,78 = 5.98 3.99 1,78 = 7.01 TABLE 4-5.1 VISUAL DECODING Post-test Group Means Adjusted for Pretest Differences Experimental (Specialist-Teacher) 92.68 Experimental (Classroom-Teacher) 90.04 Control 87-47 -77- TABLE 4—4 MOTOR,ENCODING Analysis of Planned Comparisons Source SS df MS F Between Groups adjusted 1606.17 2 Comparison: 1 1077.76 1 1077.76 8.92 2 528.41 1 528.41 4.57 Covariate 8556.68 1 Error within groups Totals 9425.18 732 120.84 19568.05 81 3.95 1,78 = 5.98 F099 1,78 = 7.01 TABLE 4-4.l MOTOR.ENCODIHG Post-test Group Means Adjusted for Pretest Differences IExperimental (Specialist-Teacher) 92.99 jEmperimental (Classroom-Teacher) 86.42 Control 81.70 ____ AUDITORY—VOCAL ASSOCIATION TABLE 4-5 78 - Analysis of Planned Comparisons Source SS df F Between Groups adjusted 5442.29 2 Comparison: 1 3550.75 1 5550.75 25.75 2 91.56 1 91.56 .70 Covariate 9458.82 1 Error within groups 10158.29 .28 150.24 Totals 25059.90 81 F.95 1,78 = 5.98 F.99 1,78 = 7.01 TABLE 4—5.l AUDITORY—VOCAL ASSOCIATION Post-test Group Means Adjusted for Pretest Differences Experimental (Specialist-Teacher) Experimental (Classroom—Teacher) Control 85.55 88.09 73-50 _ 79 _ TABLE 4—6 VISUAL-MOTOR SEQUENCING Analysis of Planned Comparisons Source SS df MS F Between Groups adjusted 2026.55 2 Comparison: 1 1457.48 1 1457.48 15.44 2 589.07 1 589.07 6.55 Covariate 2859.58 1 Error within groups 2264.41 28_ 95.15 Totals 12150.54 81 F095 1,78 = 3098 F099 1,78 = 7.01 TABLE 4-6.l VISUALAMOTOR SEQUENCING Post-test Group Means Adjusted for Pretest Differences Experimental (Specialist-Teacher) 88.74 Experimental (Classroom-Teacher) 81.80 Control 76.55 TABLE 4—7 VOCAL ENCODING Analysis of Planned Comparisons Source SS df MS F Between Groups adjusted 4069.54 2 Comparison: 1 4041.75 1 4041.75 56.47 2 27.59 1 27.59 .25 Covariate 6445.51 1 Error within groups 864 .4 28’ 110.81 Totals 19158.50 81 3095 1,78 = 3098 F099 1,78 = 700.]. TABLE 4-7.l VOCAL ENCODING Post-test Group Means Adjusted for Pretest Differences Experimental (Specialist-Teacher) Experimental (Classroom-Teacher) Control 94.24 92.74 78-75 TABLE 4-8 AUDITORY-VOCAL SEQUENCING Analysis of Planned Comparisons Source SS df MS F Between Groups adjusted 1155.16 2 Comparison: 1 879.70 1 879.70 8.88 2 275.46 1 275.46 2.76 Covariate 16989.85 1 Error within groups 2225.51 2§, 99.04 Totals 25868.50 81 F095 1,78 = 5098 F099 1,78 = 7001 TABLE 4-8.1 AUDITORY-VOCAL SEQUENCING Post-test Group Means Adjusted for Pretest Differences Experimental (Specialist-Teacher) 84.60 Experimental (Classroom-Teacher) 79.87 Control 75.51 O) ('0 TABLE 4—9 VISUALAMOTOR ASSOCIATION Analysis of Planned Comparisons Source SS df MS F Between Groups adjusted 580.02 2 Comparison: 1 579.25 1 579.25 1.87 2 . .77 1 .77 .00 Covariate 5159.29 1 Error within groups 15818.29 28' 202.80 Totals 21558.10 81 F095 1,78 = 3098 F099 1,78 = 7001 TABLE 4-9.1 VISUALeMOTOR ASSOCIATION Post-test Group Means Adjusted for Pretest Differences Experimental (Specialist-Teacher) 85.66 Experimental (Classroom-Teacher) 85.41 Control 81.05 TABLE 4—10 AUDITORY DECODING Analysis of Planned Comparisons Source SS df MS F Between Groups adjusted 1525.06 2 Comparison: 1 655.99 1 655.99 4.12 2 699.07 1 669.07 4.20 Covariate 1515.00 1 Error within groups 12422.22 .28 159.27 Totals 15260.78 81 F.95 1,78 = 5.98 F.99 1,78 = 7.01 TABLE 4—10.l AUDITORY DECODING Post-test Group Means Adjusted for Pretest Differences Experimental (Specialist-Teacher) 95.25 Experimental (Classroom-Teacher) 85.85 Control 85.65 _ 84 _ respectively. Inspection of these tables reveals that F values reached the .05 signfioance level for eight of the ten subtests under question 1 and for five of the ten sub— tests under question 2. 0n the basis of the decision strategy stated in Chapter III, null hypotheses are re- jected for all ITPA hypotheses except Ho:1b, Ho:2b, Ho:2d, Ho:2f, Ho:2g and Ho:1b, Ho:2h. The adjusted post-test group means reveal that with but one exception the means follow the trend of: Experimental-Specialist—Teacher :> Experimental-Classroom-Teacherg>»Control. To study the effects of specific-educational- therapy on visual perception ability each of the five subtests and the summary score (perceptual quotient) of the DTVP were evaluated independently for both research questions. Tables 4-11, 4-12, 4-15, 4—14, 4—15, and 4-16 present the summaries of the analysis for hypotheses Hoz5, Ho:4, Ho:5a, Ho:4a, Ho:5b, Ho:4b, Ho:5c Ho:4c, Ho:5d, Ho:4d and Ho:5c, Ho:4e respectively. Inspection of these tables reveals that F values reached the .05 significance level for two of the six subtests under question 1 and for one of the six subtests under question 2. On the basis of the decision strategy then, null hypotheses cannot be rejected for any DTVP hypotheses except Ho:5a, Ho:4c and Ho:5e. The effects of specific-eduoational-therapy on TABLE 4—11 PERCEPTUAL QUOTIENT Analysis of Planned Comparisons Source SS df MS F Between Groups adjusted 128.55 2 Comparison: 1 102.75 1 102.75 1.56 2 25.60 1 25.60 .54 Covariate 9061.61 1 Error within groups 8 4.4 28 75.51 Totals 15064.59 81 F095 1,78 = 5098 F099 1,78 = 7001 TABLE 4—ll.l PERCEPTUAL QUOTIENT Post-test Group Means Adjusted for Pretest Differences Experimental (Specialist-Teacher) 72.81 Experimental (Classroom-Teacher) 74.25 Control 75.85 TABLE 4-12 EYE-MOTOR Analysis of Planned Comparisons Source SS df MS F Between Groups adjusted 1064.74 2 Comparison: 1 1057.17 1 1057.17 4.58 2 7-57 1 7.57 .05 Covariate 2160.60 1 Error within groups Totals F.95 1,78 = 5.98 18809.64 2g 241.15 22054.98 81 F.99 1,78 = 7.01 TABLE 4—12.l ENE-MOTOR Post-test Group Means Adjusted for Pretest Differences Experimental (Specialist-Teacher) 67.60 Experimental (Classroom-Teacher) 68.58 Control 75.49 TABLE 4—15 FIGURE-GROUND Analysis of Planned Comparisons Source SS df MS F Between Groups adjusted 114.55 2 Comparison: 1 93-74 1 95.74 .35 2 20.59 1 20.59 .07 Covariate 8470-95 1 Error within groups 22428.55 28 287.54 Totals 51015.61 81 F.95 1,78 = 5.98 F.99 1,78 = 7.01 FIGURE-GROUND Post-test Group Means Adjusted for Pretest Differences k * ExDerimental (Specialist-Teacher) 75.02 EXperimental (Classroom-Teacher) 77.51 Control 77-78 —_ TABLE 4-14 SHAPE CONSTANCY Analysis of Planned Comparisons Source 53 df ms ' F Between Groups adjusted 1665.66 2 Comparison: 1 202.47 1 202.47 .72 2 1465.19 1 1465.19 5.17 Covariate 5860.08 1 Error within groups 220 6. 4 Z§_ 285.29 Totals 29622.28 81 F.95 1,28 = 3.98 F.99 1,72 = 7.01 TABLE 4—14.1 SHAPE CONSTANCY Post-test Group Means Adjusted for Pretest Differences Experimental (Specialist-Teacher) 67.48 Experimental (Classroom-Teacher) 78.41 Control 69.70 TABLE 4—15 POSITION IN SPACE Analysis of Planned Comparisons Source SS df MS F " Between Groups adjusted 599.18 2 Comparison: 1 456.66 1 456.66 1.76 2 162.52 1 162.52 .65 Covariate 4128.07 1 Error within groups 1 82. 1 28, 248.50 Totals 24109.96 81 F.95 1,78 = 5.98 F.99 1,78 = 7.01 TABLE 4-15.1 POSITION IN SPACE Post-test Group Means Adjusted for Pretest Differences Experimental (Specialist-Teacher) 79.85 EXperimental (Classroom—Teacher) 76.19 Control 75.01 .0.- -..-O - _ 90 - TABLE 4-16 SPATIAL RELATIONS Analysis of Planned Comparisons Source SS df MS F Between Groups adjusted 972.75 2 Comparison: 1 824.15 1 824.15 5.61 2 148.60 1 148.60 1.01 Covariate 12658.49 1 Error within groups 11455.75 Z§_ 146.84 Totals 25084.97 81 F095 1,78 -_,- 3098 F099 1,78 = 7.01 TABLE 4-16.1 SPATIAL RELATIONS Post—test Group Means Adjusted for Pretest Differences Experimental (Specialist-Teacher) 78.45 Experimental (Classroom—Teacher) 74.96 Control 85.19 _ 91 _ intellectual functioning was assessed by the Full Scale intelligence quotient of the W180. The effects on academic ability were assessed by the LCRRT and the Reading, Spell- ing and.Arithmetic scores of the WRAT. Tables 4-17, 4—18, 4-19 and 4—20 present the summaries of the analysis for hypotheses H025, Ho:6, Ho:9, Ho:10 and Hozll, Ho:12 respectively. As noted earlier, the data from the reading subtest of the WRAT were not appropriate for analysis of covariance and significance tests were not computed. How- ever, inspection of the data suggests only random changes in individual pretest to post-test scores. Additionally the unadjusted group pretest and post—test means were nearly equal. Inspection of the tables reveals that the F values for treatment effects on intellectual functioning and academic ability did not reach the .05 significance level under either question 1 or question 2. 0n the basis of the decision strategy, the null hypotheses cannot be re- jected for either intellectual functioning or academic ability. Summary of the Results The significant results of this study are summarized as follows: 1. There is considerable evidence supporting the alternative hypotheses that treatment effects _ 92 _ TABLE 4-17 INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENT Analysis of Planned Comparison Source SS df MS F Between Groups adjusted 200.25 2 Comparison: 1 12.72 1 12.72 .14 2 187.55 1 187.55 2.05 Covariate 5095.27 1 Error within groups 2212.24 28 92.47 Totals 12506.06 81 F095 1,78 = 3098 F099 1,78 = 7001 TABLE 4—17.1 INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENT Post-test Group Means Adjusted for Pretest Differences Experimental (Specialist-Teacher) Experimental (Classroom—Teacher) Control 74.25 78.16 77.06 _ 95 _ TABLE 4-18 READING READINESS Analysis of Planned Comparisons Source SS df MS F Between Groups adjusted 16.62 2 Comparison: 1 16.51 1 16.51 .75 2 .11 l .11 .01 Covariate 1548.00 1 Error within groups 1225.44 28_ 22.10 Totals 5088.06 81 F095 1,78 = 5098 F099 1,78 = 7001 TABLE 4—18.1 READING READINESS Post-test Group Means Adjusted for Pretest Differences Experimental (Specialist-Teacher) 74.15 Experimental (Classroom-Teacher) 74-25 Control 75.12 TABLE 4-19 _ 94 _ SPELLING Analysis of Planned Comparisons m , ' Source SS df MS F Between Groups adjusted 15.10 2 Comparison: 1 1.15 1 1.15 .05 2 11.97 1 11.97 .55 Covariate 1291.64 1 Error within groups 2295.21 28 55.84 Totals 4099-95 81 F095 1,78 = 3-98 F099 1,78 = 7001 TABLE 4-19.1 SPELLING Post—test Group Means Adjusted for Pretest Differences Experimental (Specialist-Teacher) Experimental (Classroom-Teacher) Control 74.65 75.62 74.86 _ 95 _ TABLE 4-2O ARITHMETIC Analysis of Planned Comparisons Source SS df MS F Between Groups adjusted 112.47 2 Comparison: 1 28.17 1 28.17 .55 2 84.50 1 84.50 1.60 Covariate 2490.94 1 Error within groups 4112285 28_ 52.72 Totals 6715.56 81 F095 1,78 = 3098 F099 1,78 = 7001 TABLE 4-20.1 ARITHMETIC Post-test Group Means Adjusted for Pretest Differences Experimental (Specialist—Teacher) 74.07 Experimental (Classroom-Teacher) 76.69 Control 76.70 ---‘ vv do exist between experimental and control groups on the dependent variables associated with language ability. Inspection of adjusted group means reveals that this difference in~ variably favors the experimental group. There is some evidence supporting the alter— native hypotheses that treatment effects do exist between experimental-specialist and experimental-classroom-teacher groups on the dependent variables associated with language ability. Inspection of thses ad— justed group means reveals that this difference favors the experimental-specialist-teacher group in every case but one. There is very little evidence supporting the hypotheses that treatment effects exist between experimental and control groups on the dependent variables associated with visual perception ability. Inspection of adjusted group means reveals that where differ— ences do exist they favor the control group. There is even less evidence supporting the hypotheses that treatment effects exist be- tween experimental—specialist and experimental- -97.... classroom teacher groups on the dependent variables associated with visual perception ability. There is no evidence supporting the hypo— theses that treatment effects exist between any of the groups on the dependent variables associated with intellectual functioning and academic ability. CHAPTER V SURNARY The primary purposes of this study were to investi— gate the effects of a classroom—organized program for the specific educational training of mental functions of ed— ucable mentally retarded students placed in public school special classes. Effects were measured in four areas: (1) Language Ability, (2) Visual Perception Ability (5) Intellectual Functioning and (4) Academic Ability. The specific-educational-therapy (SET) used in this study consisted of two commercially available programs for U classroom use: (1) he Peabody Language evelopmert Kit, Level 1 and (2) The Frostig Program for the Development of Visual Perception. SET was presented in two instructional modes: (1) using specialist—teachers and (2) using class- room—teachers. Previous research concerning both language develop- ment and visual perception development programs has in— dicated that accelerated improvement in deficient mental functions is frequently associated with participation in various specific educational therapy programs. Add- itionally, significant gains in both academic ability and intellectual functioning have occasionally been _ 98 _ -99.. reported. This research has involved children of broad age ranges who have been educationally placed in clinics, regular classrooms as well as classrooms for the educable mentally retarded. Therapy used in treatment has in— cluded clinically—derived programs and programs in their experimental forms. The instruction has variously been given by specialists in the schools, classroom teachers and clinical specialists. None of the studies, however, have investigatethhe effects of commercially available materials used as a part of classroom activities on the entire class enrollment. None of the studies have utilized both language development and visual perception development materials; nor have the studies directly compared the relative effects of using teacher—Specialists and classroom teachers as instructors. Eighty-two educable mentally retarded students placed in ten primary and early elementary classrooms were divided into two experimental groups and one control group. For the first experimental group SET was taught by teacher—specialists, for the second experimental group SET was taught by classroom teachers and SET was not used with the control group. The therapy program spanned a six and one—half month period. The three groups were statistically matched on twenty-one variables operationally defining the four areas investigated. These variables were derived from the subtests and summary scores of — lOO — five psychological tests: (1) Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Ability (ITPA). (2) The Frostig Developmental Test of Visual Perception (DTVP). (5) Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC). (4) Lee—Clark Reading Readiness Test (LCRRT). (5) Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT). For each of the twenty-one variables, the follow— ing two independent hypotheses were evaluated on the basis of an analysis of covariance, planned comparison technique. Ho Ho :1 :2 There will be no difference in the post~ test (dependent variable score) between the combined experimental groups and the control groups after means are adjusted for initial variance as measured by pretest scores. 0r symbolically: (Ml + M2) = 2 Mo’ There will be no difference in the post— test (dependent variable score) between the experimental-specialist-teacher and experimental classroom-teacher groups after means are adjusted for initial variance as measured by pretest scores. 0r symbolically: (M1 = M2). The first ten variables were associated with language ability as measured by the summary score (language quotient) and nine subtests of the ITPA: null hypotheses Ho:l, Ho:2 . . . Ho:1j, Ho:2j. F values exceeded the .05 significance level for eight of the ten variables under the first null hypotheses (combined— experimental x control), and for five of the ten variables under the second null hypotheses (experimental 1 x experi— mental 2). Additionally, adjusted post-test group means revealed that with but one exception the means fell into the pattern: experimental—specialist—teacher :’experimenta1— classroom-teacher 7 control. The next six variables were associated with visual perception ability as measured by the summary score (perceptual quotient) and five subtests of the DTVP: null hypotheses Ho:5, Ho:4 . . . Ho:5e, Ho:4e. F values exceeded the .05 significance level for two of the six variables under the first null hypotheses (combined—experimental x control), and for only one of the six variables under the second (experimental l x experimental 2). Adjusted post—test group means re— vealed that, generally, the means tended to follow the pattern: control‘>'experimental-classroom—teacher ;> experimental—specialist-teacher. The next four variables were associated with intellectual functioning and academic ability as measured by the WISC, LCRRT and WRAT: null hypotheses Hoz5, Hoz6 . . . Ho:15, Ho:14. F values failed to reach the .05 significance level for any of these variables. Tae ad— justed post-test group means were so similar that no trend was evidenced. The significant results of this study are briefly summarized: 1. When the combined-experimental and control groups were compared on post—test measures of language ability there was considerable evidence of differences found favoring the combined-experimental groups. 1.1 When the two experimental groups were compared on post-test measures of language ability there was some evidence of differences found favoring the specialist- teacher group as compared to the classroom— teacher group. There was very little evidence of differences on post—test measures of Visual perception ability between either the combined— experimental and control roups or between the two experimental groups. These differ— ences that were found favored the control group in the first comparison and the classroom— teacher group in the second. 5. There was no evidence of differences between any of the groups found on post—test measures of intellectual functioning and academic ability. Discussion of Results Hypotheses: l . . . lj are associated with the dependent variables that operationally defined language ability, i.e., the summary and nine subtest scores of the ITPA. This group of hypotheses compared the combined— experimental groups with the control group on each of these ten dependent variables. As shown in Table 5—1, null hypotheses were rejected on eight of the ten variables. This means that when the post—test means of the three groups were adjusted for individual differences in pretest scores, the difference between the mean scores of students who had received SET and the mean scores of those who had not received such therapy was so large that it undoubtedly was not caused by a sampling accident. Presumably, for these eight variables, the differences can be attributed to the presence or absence of SET in the classroom curriculum. Inspection of the adjusted post-test means revealed that these students who had received SET were TABLE 5—1 COMBINED—EXPERIMENTAL x CONTROL GROUP COMPARISONS ON ITPA VARIABLES . Null . Not Variable Hypothesis Rejected Rejected Language Quotient Ho:l X Auditory-Vocal Automatic Ho:1a X Visual Decoding Ho:1b X Motor Encoding Ho:1c X Auditory-Vocal Association Hozld X Visual-Motor Sequencing Hezle X Vocal Encoding Hozlf X Auditory-Vocal Sequencing Ho:1g X Visual—Motor Association Ho:1h X Auditory Decoding Ho:1j X favored. Hence it can be concluded that insofar as language development is a function of improved ITPA scores, language development was a function of SET in this investigation. As observed from Table 5—1, it seems noteworthy that the only two subtests on which differences were not found involved visual skills primarily, rather than auditory skills. McCarthy1 (1964) has reported consistently signifi— cant correlations between language ability and mental age for school-age children. He has speculated about a possible causal relationship such that an increase in linguistic ability may produce an increase in intellectual ability. _1James J. McCarthy. "The Importance of Linguistic Ability in the Mentally Retarded." Mental Retardation, 2 (April, 1964) 90-96. -105- The results of this study do not support a "causal relation- ship hypothesis.” Inspection of group means, however, does suggest that SET resulted in.reduced disparity be- tween language ability and intellectual functioning. This information is presented in Table 5-2. It can be observed that the difference between these variables dropped from 15 to O for the experimental groups but remained constant at 15 for the control group. TABLE 5—2 PRETEST POST-TEST COMPARISONS OP INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENT AND LANGUAGE QUOTIENT Variable Pretgggeringtftest PretesgontroPost-test 133333532“ 75 76 74 77 mg 60 76 59 62 Difference 15 0 15 15 The results of this study support, in part, the findings of Dunn and.Muoller reported by Dunn and Smith in.tho manual for the PLDK. The results also support Ensminger's (1966) hypotheses, but not his findings. The Forgnone (in preparation) study reported significant gains in visual perceptual skills but not in language - 106 - ability following training. These results are just the opposite of the data of this study although apparently significance tests were based on pretest-post-test gain scores. The preschool project at Indiana University employed an.AnaLysis of Variance design and their interim results are supported in part and particularly the substudy reported by Stearns (1966). Hypotheses: 2 . . . 23 compared the specialist-teacher experimental group with the classroom? teacher experimental group on the ten variables that operationally defined language ability, i.e., the post-test summary and.nine subtest scores of the ITPA. TABLE 5—3 EXPERIMENTAL 1 erXPERIMENTAL 2 COMPARISONS ON ITPA VARIABLES Null Not Variable Hypotheses Rejected Rejected ‘Linguage Quotient ‘Hb:2* 7X Auditory-Vocal Automatic Ho:2a X Visual Decoding Ho:2b X Motor Encoding Ho:2c X Auditory-Vocal Association Ho:2d X VisualeMotor Sequencing Ho:2e X Vocal Encoding Ho:2f X Auditory-Vocal Sequencing Ho:2g X VisualéMotor Association Ho:2h X Auditory Decoding Ho:23 X _ 107 - As shown in Table 5—5, null hypotheses were rejected on five of the ten variables. Presumably, for these five variables the differences can be attributed to the presence or absence of a teacher-specialist in the presentation of SET materials and lessons. Inspection of the adjusted.post-test means revealed that the teacher- specialist group was favored. Hence it can be concluded that there is some evidence that teacher-specialist presentations of SET materials was more effective than classroom-teacher presentations. Hypotheses: 5 . .‘. 5e are associated with.the dependent variables that operationally defined visual perception ability, i.e., the summary and five subtests scores of the DTVP. This group of hypotheses compared the combinedpexperimental groups with the control group on each of these six dependent variables. TABLE 5-4 COMBINED-EXPERIMENTAL X CONTROL GROUP COMPARISONS ON DTVP VARIABLES Null . Hot Variable Hypotheses Reaected Rejected Perceptual Quotient Ho:§ X Eye-Motor Ho:3a X Figure-Ground Ho:3b X Size Constandy Ho:5c X Position in Space Ho:3d X Spatial Relations Ho:5e X - 108 - Hypotheses: 4 . . . 4e compared the specialist-teacher experimental group with the classroom— teacher experimental group on the ten variables that operationally defined visual perception ability, i.e., the summary and five subtest scores of the DTVP. TABLE 5-5 EXPERIMENTAL l x.EXPERIMENTAL 2 COMPARISONS ON DTVP VARIABLES Null Not Variable Hypotheses Rejected Rejected Perceptual Quotient Hoz4 X Eye—Motor Ho:4e X Figure-Ground Ho:4b X Size Constancy Ho:4e X Position in Space Ho:4d X Spatial Relations Ho:4e X As shown in Tables 5-# and 5-5, null hypotheses were rejected in only three instances out of a possible twelve. Where differences were found they favored the control group on the one set of comparisons and the classroom-teacher group on the second set of comparisons. No differences were found between the Perceptual Quotient means on either comparison. In discussing such.minima1 evidence as this, one - 109 - possibility is to attribute the significant findings to random events that are a function of the number of significance tests computed. Supporting this possibility is the further evidence that while all three F values exceeded the .05 level of significance, none of them reached the .01 level. On this bases it is concluded that there is more evidence of random maturational effects on visual perception development than of systematic effects attributable to either the absence of SET or the mode of its presentation. The results of this study than have not supported the findings of Allen2 (1966) andPainter5 but have supported in part the findings of Rosen4 (1966). These results also suggest the need to give serious consideration to the effects of normal develop— mental maturation on perceptual abilities. This appears particularly necessary when dealing with.extreme scores where both regression and maturation can elevate post-test 2Robert M. Allen, Isadore Dickman and Thomas D. Haupt. "A pilot Study of the Immediate Effectiveness of the Frostig-Horne Training Program with Educable Re- tggdates," Exceptional Children 53: 41-42, September 1 6. 3Genevieve Painter, "The Effect of a Rhythmic and Sensory Motor Activity Program on Perceptual Motor Spatial Abilities of Kindergarten Children," Exceptional Children, 33: 115-116, October 1966. 4Carl L. Rosen, "An.Experimental Study of Visual Perceptual Training and.Reading Achievement in First Grade," Perceptual and.Motor Skills, 22: 979-86, 1966. - llO - scores even without treatment intervention. In their studies, both Allen and Painter based their significance tests on the gain scores of small samples of EMR students which may have confounded the data on which they based their conclusions. Hypotheses: 5, 7, 9, 11 and 15 compared the combined- experimental and control groups on the dependent variables that operationally defined intellectual functioning and academic ability, i.e., the LCRRT, WHAT and'HISC. TABLE 5—6 COMBINED EXPERIMENTAL x CONTROL GROUP COMPARISONS ON LCRRT, URAT, UISC . Null . Not Variable Hypotheses Rejected Rejected Intelligence Quotient 5 X Reading Readiness 7 X Reading 9 X Spelling 11 X Arithmetic 15 X Hypotheses: 6, 8, 10, 12 and 14 compared the specialist- teacher and classroom-teacher experimental groups on the five variables operationally defining intellectual functioning and aca- demic ability. - 111 - TABLE 5-7 EXPERIMENTAL l x EXPERIMENTAL 2 COMPARISONS ON LCRRT, WRAT, WISC . Null . Not Variable Hypotheses Rejected Rejected Intelligence Quotient 6 X Reading Readiness 8 X Reading 10 X Spelling 12 X Arithmetic 14 X As shown in Tables 5-6 and 5-7, none of the null hypotheses were rejected for any of these comparisons. Hence, it is concluded that SET has not had a measurable effect on either intellectual functioning or academic ability as defined in this study. This finding is con- sistent with the mainstream.of experimental evidence with classroom groups of EMR students.5 with occasional ex- ceptions, such studies have reported that training of specific mental functions is slow to generalize to in— tellectual or achievement measures. The findings of this study then do not support allegations that children with remedial developmental deficits are frequently placed in EMR classes by the public schools. In particular the results do not support yLeonard s. Blackman and Paul Heintz, "The Mentally Retarded," Review 2; Educational Research, 56: 5-56, February 1966. - 112 - speculation that specific educational therapy programs will significantly raise intellectual functioning levels or even academic achievement levels of these students over a single schoolfiyear training period. Conclusions Within the limitations imposed by the nature of the sample and the procedures used in this investigation, it was concluded from the data gathered that: 1. A specific educational therapy program as taught by either teacher-specialists or classroom teachers to educable mentally re- tarded classes can result in significant improvement of the classes' language ability. 2. The relative effectiveness of a teacher- specialist's as compared to a classroom teacher's presentation of a specific educa- tional therapy program was supported. 5. That a specific educational therapy program effects visual perception develOpment, in— tellectual functioning or academic ability cannot be supported or denied by the evidence of this study. 4. A specific educational therapy program tends to reduce disparity between language ability and intellectual functioning of educable mentally retarded classes. _ 115 _ Implications for Education Specific educational therapy as used in the class- room was shown to be more effective than traditional materials for language develOpment and probably as effective as traditional approaches for visual perception development. Insofar as instruction of classroom pro- grams is concerned, specialist-teachers were observed to be somewhat more effective than classroom teachers and consequently warrant first choice whenever their services qre available. As a group this pOpulation of eighty-two EMR students were initially more handicapped in language ability than in either intellectual functioning or visual perception ability (language quotient: 60; intelligence quotient: 75: perceptual quotient: 72). Even within the subtests of the ITPA, the group scored higher on the visual—motor channel tests than on the auditory-vocal channel tests. This relationship is consistent with retarded children who in general function below intell- ectual expectations in language ability. A similar re— lationship has been observed in the behavior of culturally deprived children. It would seem possible that intelli- gence tests are not so much "notoriously misleading" with language handicapped children as they are accurate in predicting slow academic progress. Of importance to education then is that this investigation has demonstrated —114— that the rate of language development can be increased within the classroom curriculum for language handicapped students. Another way of looking at the effects of specific educational therapy is to focus on the gains made by the experimental groups. The learning potential of language handicapped students in general and EMR students in particular has frequently been considered negligible by the schools. Where this expectation has not been voiced, the school's treatment of such students has generally made the attitude explicit. The learning response of the students to SET, however, implys a need to modify the educational concept of EMR pupil's learning potential. The results of this study have demonstrated that much can be accomplished within the classroom with a well organized specialized program for the entire class. This in no way denys that more intensive work out-of-class and with small groups may produce even better results. It does, however, provide an educational alternative. Within this context it would not appear necessary to radically modify the role of the School Diagnostician to include more refined individual psycho-educational descriptions. The demonstrated homogenity of eighty— two students across twenty psychological variables supports the integrity of present procedures for the educational placement of EMR students as practiced in _ 115 _ Ingham County. Tool subjects and content studies assume minimal linguistic adequacy. EMR and other language handicapped students have consistently been reported among the lowest achievers in school. The students in the present study made no measurable academic gains. Speidel6 has suggested that language training would lead to the development of deficient language skills and cumulatively provide a base for developing competence in the tool subjects. If Speidel is correct, then academic gains should perhaps be looked for in the future rather than within the time limits of this study. On this basis it is also reasonable to speculate that research on the efficiency of EMR classes has been consistently disappointing because of the consistent omission of specific educational training of functions from the curriculum of students who, of necessity, are academically limited without it. Idmitations of the Study A major lumitation of this study has been the time limitation. This is particularly true when dealing with children whose rate of learning has been historically slow and who are handicapped in basic processes and where training effects are measured with academic measures. 6E. B. Speidel, "Language Achievements of Mentally Retarded Children," Dissertation Abstracts, 19: 5180, 1958. — 116 — A longitudinal study that continued the training of these children over a three—year period would provide a more reasonable measure of the educational and psychological effects of SET. The results of this study must also be considered in the context of the sample. In this study the entire population constituted the sample and cannot be considered representative of EMR students in general. A further limitation is that the dependent vari- ables have been defined in terms of test scores. Inter- pretation of results then is limited by the extent to which the tests are valid measures of the dependent vari- ables to which they have been associated. The test scores themselves lack exactitude and are limited additionally by their own reliability characteristics. Implications for Further Research Previous studies have demonstrated that psycho— linguistic abilities of EMR students can be improved through utilization of individual diagnostic profiles to direct remediation of specific linguistic disabilities. 'This study has provided evidence that a classroom oriented program has effects across a broad spectrum of psycho- linguistic disabilities without utilizing individual diagnostic profiles. No answer has been found to the question of whether _ 117 _ a classroom oriented program for EMR students can have measurable effects on visual perception disabilities. Similar investigations should be conducted then to de- termine if the current results can be replicated in those areas of weakness. Language ability has been philoSOphically and statistically associated with intellectual functioning on theoretical and test~construction levels. The present study joins a growing body of studies that have not pro- duced empirical support for this association. Further investigation of the relationship between these two variables is needed, particularly where longer periods of time can be devoted to training efforts. There has been similar and perhaps more crucial speculation con— cerning the relationship between language ability and academic achievement. The present data lends some support to the validity of language ability as a pre- dictor of scholastic achievement. Left unanswered are questions concerning whether or not language ability is a prerequisite for scholastic functioning and, if so to what extent. Additional investigations are needed then to consider the relationships of these factors. Again, of prime importance is the need for studies spanning more than one academic school year. The extremely positive effects of SET on language — 118 - ability of EMR students raises questions concerning the effects on other language handicapped groups such as: culturally deprived kindergarten and nursery-age children; central city children; trainable mentally retarded and older EMR children and "slow learners." Studies investi— gating the effects of SET in their curriculum is of particu- lar current interest. Such studies would not only help establish the need for and priority of such training in the curriculum but also serve as a guide in the develop- ment of additional classroom programs. The present study with EMR students produced differential effects on language ability and visual per— ception ability. The particular strength of SET was in the language area. Additional research is needed to in- vestigage the effects of SET on other populations of child— ren. Of particular interest, in the present central city crises, is the effects of SET on culturally deprived popu- lations. Such students have been observed to have ITPA profiles similar to the profiles of the students in the current investigation. It would be both informative and timely then to study the effects of SET with this group. BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, Robert M., Dickman, Isadore and Haupt, Thomas D. "A Pilot Study of the Immediate Effectiveness of the Frostig-Horne Training Program with Educable Retardates," Exceptional Children 55: (September, 1966), 41-42. Ammons, Robert B., Arnold, Paul R. and Herrman, Robert S. "The Full-Range Picture Vocabulary Test: IV. Results for a White School Population," Journal “g; Clinical Psychology, 6 (April, 1950) IBE-Bg. Anastasi, Anne. Ps cholo ical Testin , Second Edition New York: TEe MacmiIlian Co., I96I, pp. $15-20. Anderson, James M. and Austin, Mary C. The Sixth.Mental Measurement Year Book. Edited by‘OscaEIKLBuros. New Jersey: TEe Grypfion Press, 1965, 855-57. Barsch, Ray H. "Evaluating the Organic Child: The Functional Organization Scale," The Journal of the Genetic Psychology, 100: (19625, 555-EE{__ Bateman, Barbara. ”Learning Disorders," Review of Educational Research, 56: (February, I966) 95-119. Blackman, Leonard S. "The Brave New World of Special Education." Paper presented at the 90th annual meeting of the American Association on Mental Deficiency, Chicago, Illinois, May lO_l4, 1966. Blackman, Leonard S. and Heintz, Paul. "The Mentally Retarded," Review of Educational Research, 56: (February 19667—5456. Blessing, K. R. "An Investigation of a Psycholinguistic Deficit in Educable Mentally Retarded Children: Detection, Remediation, and Related Variables." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1964. Buros, Oscar K. The Sixth.Menta1 Measurements Yearbook. New Jersey: THe GrypEon Press, 1965, 846. -119- - 120 - Dunn, Lloyd M. Manual, Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. American‘Guidance ServICe,*Inc.,IMEnneapo1is, I959. Dunn, Lloyd M. and Smith, James O. Peabody Lan- a e Development Kits Level 1. er can ui ce services,Inc.,jMinneapoIis, 1965. Dunn, Lloyd M. and Smith, James O. Peabo Language Develo ment Kits Manual for ve ._. American Guidance Service, Inc., I965, xv. Ensminger, Everett E. "The Effects of a Classroom Language Development Program on Psycholinguistic Abilities and Intellectual Functioning of Slow Learning and Borderline Retarded Children." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of Kansas, 1966. Fine, Marvin J. "Security Patterns of Educable Mentally Retarded Boys in Relation to Special Class Place- ment." Paper read at Annual AAMD Convention, Chicago, May, 1966. Feldt, Leonard S. "A Comparison of the Precision of Three Experimental Designs Employing a Concomitant Variable," Psyphometrika, 25:4 (December, 1958). Frostig, Marianne and Horne, David. The Frosti Pro ram for the Develogment‘gf Visual Percep on. Cgicago: FoIl'é'tt' BEBE—flung Company, I964. Frostig, Marianne and Horne, David. The Frostig Program for the Development of Visual Perce tion - Teacher's Guide. ‘ChIEago: FoIIett PfiBIishing Company, 1965. Frostig, Marianne, Lefever, D. E. and Whittlesey, J. R. B. The Marianne Frostig Developmental Test 2; VIEual Perception. Palo Alto: ConsuIting Psy— cHoIogist‘Press,l964. Frostig, Marianne, Maslow, Phyliss, Lefever, D. Welty and Whittlesey, J. R. B. "The Marianne Frostig Developmental Test of Visual Perception 1965 Standardization," Perceptual and Motor Skills, 19: Monograph Supplement24V19—T196ETT EEK. Gesell, A. and Ames, L. B. "The DevelOpment of Direction— ality in Drawing." Journal 3; Genetic Psychology, 68: (1946), 45—61. — 121 — Getman, G. N. "The Visumotor Complex in the Acquisi— tion of Learning Skills,” Learnin Disorders, Vol. 1. Edited bv Jerome HeIImutE. Seattle: Special Child Publication, (1965), 49-76. Goldstein, Herbert, Moss, James W. and Jordan, Laura J. The Efficacy of Special Class Trainin .93 the Development QETMentally Retarded ChiIEren, U.S. Department 0 ea th, Educati0n andfiWelfare, Office of Education, Cooperative Research Project No. 619. Urbana: Institute for Research on Exceptional Children, University of Illinois, 1965. Halgren, M. R. "Opus in See Sharp," Education, 81 (February, 1961) 569-71. Hardesty, H. H. et al., "Eye Exercises,” The Collected Letters of the International Correspondence gociefii'Sf O Ethalmolo iats and Otolaryngologists, eries 4 (NovemEer, I966). Hart, N. W. M. "The Differential Diagnosis of the Psy- cholinguistic Abilities of the Cerebral Palsied Child and Effective Remedial Procedures," S ecial Schools Bulletin, No. 2, Brisbane, AustraIia (I963). Hays, William L. Statistics for Ps cholo ists. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, I965. 575-82. Hirsch, Ester. "Another Approach to Homogeneity in the Mentally Retarded." New Frontiers in S ecial Education, Selected Papers from tfié‘45r ual CEC Convention, Port an , Oregon, April 20-24, 1965. gWashington, D.C., Council for Exceptional Children), 7’60. Hobson, James R. "Lee-Clark Reading Readiness Test," The Fifth Mental Measurements Yearbook. New Jersey: The Cryphoanress, 1959, 777-78. Jastak, J. F. and Jastak, S. R. The Wide Ran e Achieve— ment Test. Wilmington: Guidance Associates, I965. Jastak, J. F. and Jastak, S. R. "The WHAT Manual." Wilmington: Guidance Associates, 1965, 1. Johnson, Orville G. "Special Education for the Mentally Retarded-A Paradox," Exceptional Children, 29: (October, 1962) 62—69. Kaplan, Marvis S. "An Investigation of the Anxiety Levels of Mentally Handicapped Children with Special Consideration of the Effects of Special Education Classes." Unpublished Ph.D. disserta— tion, Michigan State University, 1961. Kelly, C. R. "Visual Screening and Child Development." N. Carolina: North Carolina State College, 1957. (mimeographed.) Kephart, Newell C. The Slow Learner in the Classroom. Columbus: Charles E. Merri II B60ks, Inc., I960. 17. Kephart, Newell C. "Visual Skills and their Relation to School Achievement," American Journal 2; thhal— mologz, 36: (1953) 79EL99- Kern, William H. and Pfaeffle, Heinz. "A Comparison of Social Adjustment of Mentally Retarded Children in Various Educational Settings," Americ Journal 'g£_Mental Deficiency, 67: (November, ' 407—15. Kirk, Samuel. "Statement before the Senate Subcommittee on Education." A. g. L. D. S ecial Re ort on Legislation and-LearnIng-Disa l l ies, 6'.— Krippner, Stanley. "Evaluating Pre-Readiness Approaches to Reading," Education, 87: (September, 1966) 12" 20 e Lampert, Morris H. "Diagnosis of Retardation Said to be Often Wrong," Medical Tribune. Report on an address given before the section on neurology and psychiatry at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Medical Association. December 1, 1965. Lee, Murray and Clark, Willis W. Lee-Clark Reading Readi- ness Test (1962 Revision). ‘MOnterey: CaIifornia Test Bureau, 1960. Lee, Murray and Clark, Willis W. Lee—Clark Reading Readi ness Test Manual. Monterey: CaIifornia est Bureau, I962. 2—5. Llorens, Lela and others. "Training in Cognitive— Perceptual-Motor Functions," American Journal 2; Occupational Therapy, 19 (I969). Lyons, C. V. and Lyons, E. B. "The Power of Visual Train- ing as Measured in Factors of Intelligence," Journal g; the American Optometric Association, (DecemBer, I95477_256:62. McCarthy, James J. and Kirk, Samuel A. The Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities (ExperimentaI— Edition?) Urbana: The University of Illinois Press, 1961. McCarthy, James J. and Kirk, Samuel A. The Illinois Test of Ps cholin istic Abilities, Examiners ManuaIT(Experimen%aI Editifin). ‘Urbana: Uni~ versity of Illinois Press, 1961. McCarthy, James J. and Kirk, Samuel A. The Construction, Standardization and Statistical CEEracteristics 6? the IlIinois Test of PschoIinguistic Abilities. Madison, Wisconsin: 'PEoto Press, Inc., 1965. 42. McCarthy, James J. and Olson, James L. Validity Studies on the Illinois Test of Ps cholin 'istic ABiIities. ‘UEbana: *University 0T_IIIinois Press, I964. McCarthy, James J. and Scheerenburger, Richard C. "A Decade of Research on the Education of the Mentally Retarded," Mental Retardation Abstracts, 5: (October—DecemBer, I966), ESI. McKee, G. W., et.al. "The Physiology of Readiness," Minneapplis: P. A. S. S., 1964. McNemar, Quinn. Psychological Statistics. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1955. 544, 554. Myklebust, Helmer R. and Boshes, Benjamin. "Psycho- neurological Learning Disorders in Children," Archives 23 Pediatrics. New York: (June, 1960). Olson, Arthur V. "Relation of Achievement Test Scores and Specific Reading Abilities to the Frostig Developmental Test of Visual Perception," Perceptual and Motor Skills, 22: (1966) 179-84. Osgood, Charles, E. "Motivational Dynamics of Language Behavior," Nebraska Symposium on.Motivation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1957. Patterson, P. L. "The Normality of Exceptional Children," Rehabilitation ig_Canada, l2: Fall-Winter (1965- Painter, Genevieve. "The Effect of a Rhythmic and Sensory Motor Activity Program on Perceptual Motor Spatial Abilities of Kindergarten Children," Exceptional Childreni 55: (October, 1966) 115-16. —124— Rice, William E. and Suit, Donald T. "Perceptual Train— ing and Word Recognition." Unpublished Pilot Study, 1964. Rosen, Carl L. "An Experimental Study of Visual Per- ceptual Training and Reading Achievement in First Grade," Perceptual and Motor Skills, 22: (1966) 979-86. Rutherford, W. L. "Perceptual-Motor Training and Readi- ness," Paper read at the annual meeting of the International Reading Association, Detroit, 1965. Sievers, Dorothy J. "Development and Standardization of a Test of Psycholinguistic Growth in Preschool Children," Selected Studies on the Illinois Test of PS Cholinguistic Abilities. ‘Madison, Wisconsin: PfibtofiPress, Inc., (1965) 1-26. Simches, Gabriel and Bohn, Raymond J. "Issues in Curriculum: Research and Responsibility," Mental Retardation, 1: (1965) 84-87, 115-17. Smith, James 0. "Effects of a Group Language Develop— ment Program upon the Psycholinguistic Abilities of Educable Mental Retardates," Peabogy Colle e Special Education Research Mono ra eries i.e.l- as v1 1e, Tennessee: Peabody éoIIege or eachers, 1962. Sparks, H. L. and Blackman, L. S. "What is Special about Special Education Revisited: The Mentally Re- tarded," Exceptional Children, 51: (January, 1965) Speidel, E. B. "Language Achievements of Mentally Re- tarded Children," Dissertation Abstracts, 19; 5180, 1958. Spicker, Howard H, Hodges, Walter L. and McCandless, Boyd R. "A Diagnostically based Curriculum for Psychosocially Deprived, Preschool, Mentally Retarded Children: Interim Report," Exceptional Children, 55: (December, 1966) 215-20. Stearns, K. E. "Experimental Group Language Development for Psychosocially Deprived Preschool Children." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1966. _ 125 _ Stevete 3, Godfrey D. ”in Analysis of the Objectives for the Education of Children with Retarded Mental Develo ment, " American Journal of Mental Deficienci, 65: No. 2. (September, 19567. Stiskin, Hershel M. "Th qe Slox. Learner and th e Yeshiva," Jewish Parent, 1?: (October, 1965 ’% ~10. Tate, Merle W. Statistics in Education. New York: The Macmillan 00., 1955, 522. Wechsler, David. Wee Slcr Intelli.ence Scale for Children. New York: Psy choloJicsl Corporatie , 1949. Wechsler, David. WISC Manual. New York: The Psychologi- cal Cor WOT tion 1949. 1—6. Winter Haven Lions Clut. Piecedure Guide to lsror~+u 1 Forms, (Clinical Ldlticd,, winisr Haven, Fleiida: Public;tion Committee, 1962. APPENDIX A HETEROGENITY 0F REGRESSION (post—test on pretest) "126" _12"7 __ HETEROGENITY OF REGRESSION (post~test on Pretest) Variable F Probability Language Quotient .50 .74 Auditory-Vocal Automatic 1.55 .22 Visual Decoding .10 .90 Motor Encoding 1.51 .28 Auditory-Vocal Association .49 .61 Visual—Motor Sequencing 2.60 .08 Vocal Encoding 1.51 .25 Auditory—Vocal Sequencing 1.62 .21 Visual-Motor Association .52 .75 Auditory Decoding .55 .72 Perceptual Quotient .65 .55 Eye-Motor .12 .89 Figure—Ground 1.95 .15 Shape Constancy .81 .45 Position in Space .58 .56 Spatial Relations 1.89 .16 Intelligence Quotient 1.57 .21 Reading Readiness 1.19 .51 Reading 15.88 .00 Spelling .95 -59 Arithmetic 1.28 .28 Mental Age 1.52 .27 Chronological Age .85 .44 APPENDIX B MICHIGAN PLACEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EDUCABLE MENTALLY RETARDED " 128- - 129“ MICHIGAN PLACEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EMR Diagnostic Educational programs roviding for all types of mentally handicapped children must be based on a sound diagnostic study. Each child, to be eligible for a specific program placement, must be diagnosed as being educable mentally handicapped or trainable mentally handicapped by an approved school diag— nostician. Educational (a) (b) (C) ((1) Once diagnosed as mentally handicapped, place— ment in a particular program must be determined by a screening committee within the district of the child's residence. This committee should be composed of the diagnostician, the child's principal and teacher, the special classroom teacher and other appropriate professional or school personnel. Rule 1. A pupil shall be considered enrolled as a member of the program under this Act, as determined through adequate diagnostic study, if (a) he is mentally handicapped and potentially socially competent, (b) he is mentally handi- capped but prognosis is such that he may appear neither academically educable nor potentially socially competent but who may with training become at least partially self—supporting. (Page 240 of the 1956 Annual Supplement to the 1954 Administrative Code) Rule 2. Qualifications of persons providing diagnostic services under this Act must be approved by the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Rule. Qualification of persons providing consultant service under this Act must be approved by the Superintendent of Public Instruction. APPENDIX C SCHOOL DISTRICTS _ 130- .. 151- TREATMENT GROUP SCHOOL DISTRICT Experimental—Specialist-Teacher Holt Experimental-01assroom—Teacher East Lansing Waverly Control Haslett Leslie Mason Excluded Stockbridge Williamston APPENDIX D INSTRUMENTATION - 152- -155- INSTRUMENTATION The Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities (ITPA) The effects of the specific educational therapy on lan uage development was mea ured by the Illinois U) Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities (ITPA). The ITPA was developed by McCarthy and Kirk1 to assess psycho~ linguistic abilities and disabilities in children between two and one—half and nine yea s of age. This instrument was developed on the basis of a theoretical communication model by Osgood.2 The ITPA and the Osgood model have been 3 reviewed by Ensminger from whom the following discussion is taken with appropriate changes. Osgood's theoretical model provides for channels of communication, levels of organization and processes of acquisition and usage. (0 The channels of communication refer to the various node of stimulus input and response output. In the original model there were three major types of input (auditory, 1James J. McCarthy and Samuel A. Kiri . Illinois- Test of Ps cholineuistic Abilities, Examiners Manual, ExperimentaI Edition, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 1961. 2Charles E. Osgood. "Motivational Dynamics of Language Behavior," Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, 1957. 5Everett E. Ensminger. "The Effects of a Class— room Language Development Program on Psycholinguistic Abilities and Intellectual Functioning of Slow Learning and Borderline Retarded Children". (Unpublished Ed.D. Dissertation, University of Kansas, 1966). r _ 154 _ 4" visual and tactual) and t 0 major type s of output (vocal and motor). Since channels refer to ccmbinations of input and out: ut, tr e Channels were auditory- ~vocal, auditory— —motor, visual—vocal, vis anal-motor, ts ctual— vocal and tactual—motor. Three levels of organization are described. These three levels include a representational level, integration level and a projection level. The representa— tional level is consi: lered the highest level of language functioning which involves the mediation of lin gu:Lstic 1 symbols or the attaching of meaning and significance to these symbols. Automatic aspects of language or the more habitual activities of response chains and pre— diction of future events from past events are included at the integration level of linguistic abilities. The final level or organization in the Osgood model is the projection level which deals with innate physiolog cal processes. This level could not be altered by learning and was not considered in the develOpment of the ITPA.5 Processes of language organization and usage include decoding, encoding and association. Decoding is 4James J. McCarthy and Samuel A. Kirk. The Construction, Standardization and Statistical Character— istics ofIthe Illinois Test of_P§ycholinguistic IBiIities PEoto Press, Inc.,‘Madison,'WIsconsin,1965, p. I: SIbid. ..]_55.. considered the sum total of those abilities needed to acquire meaning from auditory or visual stimuli or the understanding of what is 3een<1rheard. Encoding on the other hand is the sum total of those abilities necessary to express one's ideas or thoughts or the ability to communicate meaning to others. The association process is essentially the sum.total of those abilities required to manipulate linguistic symbols or the ability to gather meaningful relationships between various linguistic symbols.6 The Osgood Model of communication has three levels (representational, integration and projection) with the integration level divided into two sublevels (aut natic and sequential), six channels of communication (auditory— vocal, auditory—motor, visual—vocal, visual—motor, tactual-vocal and tactual-motor), and three processes (decoding, encoding and association). With the test authors' definition of a psycholinguistic ability as ". . . a given process at a given level via a given channel,"7 the model provides for seventy-two psycho— linguistic abilities or seventy-two possible tests. By dropping the projection level and four channels (tactual— vocal, tactual-motor, auditory—motor and visual—vocal) a 6Ibid. p. 2 7Ibid. _ 155 _ total of eighteen possible tests still remained. A further reduction in tests was still desired and the final model includes six tests at the representational level involving two channels and three processes and two tests each at the automatic and sequential sublevels of the integration level. Efforts to include processes (decoding, encoding and association) at the integration level were abandoned in favor of ”whole tests" because of an inability to distinguish the processes psychometrically at this level. Attempts to develop a test involving the visual-motor channel at the automatic level failed, reducing the number of tests at the integrative level to three —-— one test at the automatic level and two tests at the sequential level. Because of a departure from the model in develop— ing tests at the integrative level, this level is referred to as the automatic—sequential level in the final battery.8 The final clinical model of the ITPA is presented in Figure l. The development of the tests covered a period of approximately ten years. The earliest version of the ITPA, the DLFT, was standardized on young children two to six years of age. Standardization and development 81bid. -157- FIGURE 1 THE CLINICAL MODEL FOR THE ILLINOIS TEST OF PSYCHOLINGUISTIC ABILITIE89 Association Meaningful Level E: 3 {:51 Decoding - ——————————————————————————————————— —Encoding Level Automatic—Sequen 'a If. (I :3] {El ‘Visual and Auditory Stimuli Vocal and Motor Responses Meaningful Level Automatic—Sequential Level 1. Auditory Decoding 7. Auditory—Vocal Automatic 2. Visual Decoding 8. Auditory—Vocal Sequential 3. Auditory—Vocal Association 9. Visual-Motor Sequential 1+. Visual-Motor Association 5. VOcal Encoding 6. Motor Encoding 9Ibid., p. 5. -158- 10in 1955 as a doctoral of the DLFT was reported by Sievers dissertation. The present experimental version of the ITPA was designed for children between the ages of two and one-half and nine years of age. Prior to the stand- ardization of the experimental version, the test was developed, field tested, analyzed statistically and re- vised three different times. Development of the final version covered four years of research.11 The standardization sample for the present ITPA battery included 700 children between two and one—half and nine years of age in the city of Decatur, Illinois. The standardization population was representative of the socio—economic level in the state of Illinois and the range of IQ was from 80 to 120 on the S—B. Children with severe physical or sensory defects and those of the Negro race were excluded from the standardization population.1 The numbers in Figure I refer to the nine subtests of the ITPA battery. In order to more adequately describe the various psycholinguistic abilities assessed by the ITPA, a brief discussion of each test follows. This loDorothy J. Sievers. "Development and Standard~ ization of a Test of Psycholinguistic Growth in Preschool Children." Selected Studies on the Illinois Test of LPs cholin istic Abilities, by—Dorothy J. SIevers 3? al. PHOTO Press, Inc., Madison, Wisconsin, 1963, pp. 1—26. 11McCarthy and Kirk. 2p, ci ., p. 6. lgIbid., p. 14. -139_ discussion is taken from McCarthy and Kirk with a few omissions and alterations. I. 15 Tests gt the Representational Level. Tests at this level assess some aspect of the subject's ability to deal with linguistic symbols: To understand the meaning of symbols (decoding), to express ideas in symbols (encoding), or to relate symbols on the basis of their meaning. (association). There are six tests at this level which involve the use of two channels (auditory— vocal and visual—motor) and three processes (decoding, encoding and association). A. The Decoding Tests Decoding is the ability to comprehend auditory and visual symbols; that is the ability to comprehend spoken words, written words and pictures. $2§3.l° Auditory Decoding is the ability to understand the spoken word. This ability is assessed by a "controlled vocabulary" test on which the subject is presented with a simple question, the answer to which depends upon his knowledge of the words involved more than upon the content (e.g., Do females slumber?). 13Ibid., pp. 6—15. 4- vmgyMfi-m was 1 '7." .‘fix-‘afizg- fi'ft. v‘. ... —140- A simple "yes" or "no" response, or a gesture response, is required of the subject. Since expression (encoding) is kept to a minimum, it is assumed that failure is due to an in— ability to decode. Test g. Visual Decoding is the ability to comprehend pictures and written words. This ability is assessed by a picture test. The subject is shown a stimulus picture which is then removed. Next he is shown a set of four comparison pictures of which one is per- ceptually, rather than physically similar to the stimulus picture. His task is to select the perceptually-similar or comparison picture. By a simple pointing response, the subject must indicate that he comprehends or t (D U) C? meaning rom he picture. The Association Tests. Association is the ability to relate visual or auditory symbols (which s an. for ideas) in a me-ning-ul way. Test :. Auditorerocal Association is the ability to relate spoken words in a meaningful way. This ability is assessel with a version of the familiar "analogies" test in which the subject must complete the DER-n . test statement bvr supplyine an analosous -A. u L) Q word (e.g., Soup is hot: ice cream is ). An attempt was made to construct each item in the test so that decoding and encoding re— level for which a given analogy was designed. Test 3. Visual—Motor Association is the % ability to relate visual symbols in a mean'ng- ful way. In this test, the subject is required to relate pictures of common objects either on a a transitional basis (sock goes with shoe) or on a substitutional basis (boys and girls are people). The subject must select from among four pictures the one "which goes with" a given stimulus picture. Decoding is kept simple by using familiar pictures and en- coding is accomplished by simply having the subject answer by pointing. The Encoding Tests. Encoding is the ability to put ideas into words or gestures. .2§§2.2' Vocal Encoding is the ability to express ideas in spoken words. In this test, the subject is asked to describe a simple object such as a block or ball. His score depends on the number of unique and meaningful _ 14.2 .. ways in which he characterizes a given test object. Test é. Motor Encoding is the ability to express one's ideas in meaningful gestures. In this test, the subject is shown a picture of an object and asked to SHOW ME WHAT YOU SHOULD DO WITH THIS. A few actual objects are included as a concession to the youngest subjects. Pictures and objects were those which could be identified by the youngest subjects so that decoding would not be a possible cause of'failure The Automatic Test. Our frequent use of a language with its abundant redundancies, leads to highly overlearned or automatic habits for handling its syntactical and inflectional aspects without conscious effort. We become so familiar with linguistic structure, that we come to expect or predict, among other things, the grammatical structure of what will be said or read from what has _ 143 _ already been heard or seen. There autoratie habits permit one to give conscious cttcrtien to the content of a message while the words with which to express that message seem to come automatically. Test 2, Auditorerocal Automatic ability permits prediction of future linguistic events from past experience. It is assessed by re— quiring the subject to complete a statement with an inflected word (e.g., HERE IS AN APPLE. HERE ARE TWO .) The nature of the inflection supplied will indicate the ability of the subject to predict what will be said. Pictures of meaningful and familiar objects are used as supporting visual stimuli in this test. The Sequencing Tests. Sequencing, as defined in these tests, is the ability to correctly reproduce a sequence of symbols; it is largely dependent upon visual and/or auditory memory and habits. Test 8. Auditory+Vocal Seqpencing is the ability to correctly repeat a sequence of symbols; it is a test of immediate auditory recall. This ability is assessed by the standard digit repetition test with the _ 144 _ following exception: 1) digits are uttered at the rate of two per second instead of the usual one per second; 2) a second presentae tion of the digits is permitted if the sub- ject misses the first presentation. .$2§2.2- Visual—Motor Sequencing is the ability to reproduce a sequence of visual stimuli from memor*. A set of small chips is used, each chip having a picture of geometric form. The examiner arranges the chips in a certain order, allows the subject to observe this order for five seconds, ixes the chips, and requires the subject to reproduce the sequence of chips exactly. (This test was designel as a visual—motor counterpart to the Auditory- Vocal Sequencing test and also permits the second presentation of a sequence if the first is failed and the same geometric forms are often used twice in a given sequence. Reliability data of the ITPA were reported by McCarthy and Kirk in 1965 in the same volume from which the above information was taken. The test authors have com— puted two forms of reliability; 1) internal consistency reliability for each su test, and 2) stability relia— bility by means of test—retest and split—half reliability coefficients for each subtest and the total test. _ 145 _ Since each test was designed to measure a given psycholinguistic ability, internal consistency reliability was computed to determine if the items within each test were testing the same ability. For the 700 subjects in the standardization population, internal consistency co— efficients of each test ranged from .89 on the Motor Encoding subtest to .95 on the Auditory-VOcal Association and.the Auditory Decoding subtests.14 A test-retest stability coefficient of a three month interval or greater for a restricted age range from six to six and one-half’years on the total ITPA was .70. An estimate of the full age range stability coefficient was .97. When split-half reliability co- efficients were computed, a reliability coefficient of .99 was obtained on the full age range for the ITPA total.15 An extensive validity study of the ITPA was re- ported by McCarthy and Olson16 in 1964. This study in- vestigated the concurrent, predictive, content, construct and diagnostic validities of the ITPA. Concurrent validity was determined by the degree iiIbid., p. 29. 15IBid., p. 14. 16James J. McCarthy and James L. Olson. Validigy8 Studies on the Illinois Test of P chol stic 8. university 0 IIIIEEIEjPress, TrBana, Iégg. — 146 — of correlation with criterion tests which were of a similar qualitative nature as the various subtests of the ITPA. These same criterion tests were readministered approximately three months later to determine the pre- dictive validity of the ITPA battery and the separate subtests. In general, the correlations between the ITPA battery and the criterion tests were in the predicted direction and magnitude expected with the exception of data concerned with ”mean-length of response" and "sentence complexity". The investigators were unable to explain the latter results. Concurrent validity correlations for all other criterion tests and the ITPA battery were from .34 to .50. The predictive validity or these same criter- ion tests three months later was found to be from .3# to .46.17 These correlations were interpreted as minimal estimates since they were based on a rather homogeneous age group with chronological ages between seven.years and eight-years—sixrmonths. The total ITPA was thought to possess adequate concurrent and predictive validity on the bases of the evidence presented.18 When concurrent and predictive validity of the individual subtests were analyzed the subtests fell into three distinct categories of l) adequate, 2) qualified 17lbid., p. 14. 181bid., p. 21. _ 147 _ and 3) Questionable or doubtful validity. The tests which appeared to clearly possess adequate concurrent and predictive validity were Visual Decoding, Visual- Hotor Association and Auditory-Vocal Sequencing. Another set of three subtests was considered to have questionable validity since they appeared to be measuring something in addition to what the test authors had intended. These three subtests were Auditory Decoding, Auditory-Vocal Association and Visual-Motor Sequencing. subtests of questionable or doubtful validity were Vocal Encoding, Motor Encoding, and Auditory-Vocal Automatic.19 It must be emphasized that the criterion measures employed were those which.McCarthy and Olson intuitively felt were assessing the same abilities as the tests upon which they were compared. Since the criterion tests were selected in much the same manner as the subtests and compounded with the almost impossible task of finding language abilities existing in their pure form, it appears that only tentative conclusions can be drawn from these studies at the present time. Content validity studies indicate that the items within each subtest are measuring the same thing. These studies also support the contention that each of the subtests are measuring different abilities from the low correlations between the individual subtests. A "logical 19Ibid., pp. 21—22. — 148 — analysis", by the authors', of the single ability char- acter of the subtests at the representational level indicated that: 1) some association ability contaminates the decoding tests, 2) decoding and encoding contaminate the association subtests although both these abilities are of much less difficulty than the association require- ment and 3) the encoding tests are relatively free of decoding and association abilities but some contamination exists between each test (Motor Encoding and Vocal En- coding).20 The influence of various factors on the ITPA was investigated to determine construct validity. Mental age was found to be highly related with ITPA scores. Social class, birth order and.number of siblings in the family were found to have small, but significant, negative correlations with ITPA scores. This finding applied to the total ITPA and to the subtests as well; however, the auditory-vocal channel was found to be affected most by these factors. Time as a factor involved in test-retest comparisons has not been found to greatly influence ITPA scores. This has been demonstrated by various studies on.normal, mentally retarded and cerebral palsied children over test-retest periods of three days to nine months.21 20Ibid., pp. 36-37. 21Ibid., p. 50. _ 149 _ An analysis of the subtests in each process, channel and level indicated that small but definite re— lationships do exist. This relationship was most evident between tests in the same channel and very slight between subtests with the same process.22 The final type of validity investigated was diagnostic validity---"the extent to which test results and clinical observations agree."25 Two techniques were used to determine the diagnostic validity of the ITPA: 1) teachers ranked children according to their assumed language abilities, and these rankings were correlated with the obtained ITPA scores; 2) ITPA "experts" classified six different types of children by inspecting the ITPA profiles of sixty children. Because of a faulty research design, the correlations of the teachers' rankings with ITPA scores could not be interpreted. EXperts were able to identify better than chance the profiles of six groups of children, with ten in each group from the following categories: normal, cerebral palsied, trainable mentally retarded, educable mentally retarded, deaf and speech defective. Although the four experts classified the sixty children in their respective categories on a better ~than chance basis, in no case were the classifications 221bid., p. 51. 23Ibid., p. 52. _ 15o _ Perfect.24 In summarizing the results of these extensive validity studies on the ITPA, McCarthy and Olson wrote: It is difficult, indeed, to make an overall judgment about the validity of the ITPA battery and subtests, for the qualitative—quanitative studies reported herein are not subject to simple summation. Generally, the data suggest the concurrent, construct, and predictive validities to be adequate, followed by the content and diagnostic. The chief cautions to the test users would be these: . . Our Data suggest that the Encoding subtests and especially, the Auditory-Vocal Automatic subtest, may deviate from the definition in the Examiner's Manual. It is particularly critical that, when a diagnosis or a prescription for remediation is based on the results of these subtests, ad hoc tests and clinical observation be used to confirm performance on them. Of the three, the Vocal Encoding subtest appears to be the most valid. if the above cautions are observed, the clinician .25 will find the ITPA, to be an adequately valid test. The Frostig Developmental Test of Visual Perception (DTVP) The effects of the specific educational therapy on visual perception deve10pment was measured by the DTVP. The DTVP was developed by Frostig in collaboration with ILefever and.Whitlesey26 to assess visual perceptual 2EIbidq p. 62. 25Ibid., pp. 66-67. 26Marianne Frostig, D. Velty Lefever and John R. 28. Whittlesey. The Marianne Frosti Developmental Test <1f Visual Perception. ‘Consulting PsyChologist Press, IEEIS'IIEE, 1964. _ 151 _ abilities and disabilities in normal children between four and eight years of age. This instrument was ieveloped on the basis of clinical observation of children referred to the Marianne Frostig School of Educational Therapy be- cause of learning difficulties.27 It was observed that most of these children were found to have visual or auditory perceptual disturbances. Disturbances in visual perception, however, were most frequently observed and seemed to con- tribute to the learning difficulties in the following way: A. Children handicapped by poor gygfmgtgr coordination had difficulty with writing. B. Children with disturbances in figgre—ground perception could not recognize words. C. Those thought to have poor fggm constangy had difficulty recognizing letters and words written in different sizes and words printed in upper-case when they were used to seeing them in lower-case. D. Children having difficulty perceiving position in space produced letters or words in mirror writing. E. Children having difficulty in analyzing 27Marianne Frostig, Phyllis Maslow, D. Welty ILefever and John R. B. Whittlesey, "The Marianne Frostig Developmental Test of Visual Perception 1963 Standardization", JPerce tual and.Motor Skills, 19: 465-99, Monograph EEppIement 2-V19, I965, p. 464. _ 152 _ spatial relationships tended to interchange the order of letters in a word and frequently were unable to read or spell longer words.28 Frostig believed that each of the above five abilities developed independantly of the others and that specific relationships should exist between them and the ability to learn. On this basis she constructed a test to explore these five specific areas of visual perception. The development of these tests covered a period of about five years. A pilot study was made in 1959 and following the indicated changes, a second Version of the test was prepared in 1960. The second edition was used on only a limited sample and led to further changes which were incorporated into the present version of the test. This present version was published in.March 1961 and is referred to as the third edition.29 One of the major innovations of the present test was the introduction of the concepts of "perceptual age" and "perceptual quotient”. Perceptual age level as used by Frostig, refers to a form of mental age defined in terms of the performance of the average child in the corresponding age group for the particular subtest.50 Consequently, the perceptual age is an estimate of the 28Ibid. 29Ibio. 301mm, p. 469. developmental level of a child. Like mental age, however, perceptual age lacks a chronological age referent and does not estimate ability to profit from regular instruction in public school. Perceptual quotient, as used by Frostig, is a deviation score obtained from summing the subtest scores after correcting for age variation. For each age group the perceptual quotient has a median of 100 and constant percentile points consistent with the IQ values of the W180. The perceptual quotient is not defined as a ratio, but rather in terms of constant percentiles above and be- low the median. Its value derives from providing a basis for comparing a particular child's level of visual per- ceptual ability with that of his peers.31 Standardization of the Frostig test was done on 2116 unselected school children at the nursery, first, second and third grade levels. The sample used was deficient geographically as well as socio-economically because it was drawn from a restricted area and socio— economic data was not available. The present standardi- zation sample is described as overwhelmingly middle class in nature excluding negro children.52 For purposes of discribing the five visual 311bid., pp. 478-79. 321bid., pp. 467—68. MGR-w "E ‘9' Inf-$1 _ 154 _ perceptual abilities assessed by the DTVP, a brief discussion of perception and each of the perceptual tests follows. This disucssion is taken from Frostig and 33 Horne. Perception is the ability to recognize stimuli. This ability includes not only the reception of sensory impressions from the outside world and from one's own body, but the capacity to interpret and identify the sensory impressions by correlating them with previous experiences. This recognition and integration of stimuli is a process that occurs in the brain, not in the re- ceiving organ, such as the ear or the eye. T§§§.l, Eye—Motor Coordination is the ability to coordinate vision with movements of the body or with movements of a part or parts of the body. Whenever a sighted person reaches for something, his hands are guided by his vision. In this way the smooth accomplishment of many everyday act— ivities depends upon adequate eye-motor coordina— tion. This ability is assessed by a test of eye- hand coordination involving the drawing of con- tinuous straight, curved and angled lines between boundaries of Various width or from point to 3jMarianne Frostig and David Horne. The Frosti §Efi§gggg for the Development of Visual Perception. FoIIett lS ing Company,Chicago,‘196fl. -155... point without guide lines. Egg: g. Figure-Ground Perception is the ability to select from the mass of incoming stimuli a limited number of stimuli, which become the center of attention. These selected stimuli form the figure in the person's perceptual field, while the majority of stimuli form a dimly per- ceived ground. The figure is the center of the observer's attention and when his attention is shifted to something else, the new focus of attention becomes the figure and the previous figure recedes into the ground. This ability is assessed by a test involving shifts in per— ception of figures against increasingly complex grounds. Intersecting and imbedded geometric forms are additionally used. Test 2, Perceptual Constancy is the ability to perceive an object as possessing invariant properties, such as shape or size, in spite of the variability of the sensory impression. For example, constancy of shape involves the ability to recognize two-and—three—dimensional forms as belonging to certain categories of shapes, irre— gardless of size, mode of presentation or the angle seen by the perceiver. Size constancy is the ability to perceive and recognize the _ 156 _ actual size of an object regardless of factors that may change its apparent size. Thrsability is assessed by a test involving the recognition of certain geometric figures presented in a variety of sizes, shadings, textures and positions {lau‘r in space and their discrimination from similar geometric figures. Circles, squares, rectangles, ellipses and parallelograms are used. Test fl. Perception 3; Position in Space is the .fi‘»‘ JILU «m- -!-s1m¥m1w V I . , ' 4 ' If ability to perceive the relationship of an object to the observer. Spatially, at least, a person is always the center of his own world and perceives objects as being behind, before, above, below or to the side of himself. This ability is assessed by a test involving the discrimination of reversals and rotations of figures presented in series. Schematic drawings representing common objects are used. Egg} 2, Perception 9: Spatial Relationships is the ability of an observer to perceive the position of two or more objects in relation to himself and in relation to each other. For example, a child stringing beads has to perceive the position of the bead and the string in re- lation to himself as well as the position of the bead and the string in relation to each other. -157- Since different parts perceived in relation to each other are not actually perceived simultaneously but rather in temporal sequence, and since these successive observations are integrated step—by- step into a total picture, a sequential- integrating process is thereby involved. This ability is assessed by a test involving the an- alysis of simple forms and patterns. These consist of lines of various lengths and angles which the child is required to copy using dots as guide points. Stability reliability of data of the DTVP is presented by Frostig in two forms: 1) test-retest re- liability and 2) split-half reliability.34 A test-retest stability coefficient of a two—week interval for two groups of thirty-five first graders and two groups of thirty- seven second graders was computed. The estimate for the entire sample was a .80 and subtest scale score test— retest correlations ranged from .42 (figure-ground) to .80 (form—constancy). An item analysis on all tests of children in the sample aged five years or older is reported. In general split-half reliability correlation coefficients for the total test decrease slightly with increasing age. Values range from a high at the five to six year age *34 PP 0 488-92 0 Ibid., Frostig, Maslow, Lefever and Whittlesey, _ 15g _ group of .89 to a low at the eight to nine year age group of .78. Validity has been studied through correlations between scaled scores (1961 standardization) and teacher ratings of classroom adjustment .44, motor coordination .50 and intellectual functioning .50. Product moment correlation coefficients were obtained between the perceptual quotient and the Goodenough IQ. These ranged from .52 to .46. A study reported by Appleton revealed the Frostig test to be "highly accurate" in identifying children who would not attempt to learn to read when ex- posed to reading material but not forced to use it.55 Olson investigated the predictive value of the Frostig test to general achievement in second grade and the relationships between Frostig test scores and estimates 36 He reports that while of specific reading abilities. the Frostig Test does not predict general achievement as well as some other tests, four of the subtests (excepting form constancy) showed significant relationships with specific reading abilities. The Frostig test has been reviewed in Euros by <35lbid. pp. 492—97. 36Arthur V. Olson, Relation of Achievement Test Scores and Specific Reading Abilities to the Frostig Deve10pmental Test of Visual Perception". jPerceptual and.Motor Skills, 22: 179-184, 1966. _ 159 .— Anderson and Austin},7 Anderson describes the primary use of the test as predicting learning success and notes that it contains types of items used in reading readiness tests. He acknowledges that "The authors of this test have a real contribution to offer to educators and psy— chologists alike. . ." However he believes the test was offered prematurely. In general he likes the concepts of perceptual age and perceptual quotient. He reports that both reliability and validity studies are "promising and even exciting though they are done on inadequate samples and on varying age groups." Austin believes the Frostig test to be "significant" for screening early elementary and pre-school children and as a clinical tool for children beyond first grade. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) The effects of the specific education therapy on intellectual functioning was measured by the W180. The ‘WISC is described as a downward extension of the adult- normed Wechsler-Bellevue. It consists of twelve subtests, two of which are designated as supplementary tests. The subtests are grouped into two scales designated as Verbal Scale and Performance Scale. Raw scores on each subtest are converted into normalized standard scores having a 37James M. Anderson and Mary C. Austin, The Sixth lflental Measurement Year Book, Oscar K. Buros, editOr, New Jerseszhe Gryphon Press, 1965, pp. 855—57. ~160- mean of 10 and a standard deviation of three points. These scaled subtest scores are added and converted into a de- viation IQ with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. The test yields Verbal, Performance and Full Scale IQ's which are computed by this method.58 The WISC was standardized on a total of 2200 cases and is evaluated as being more representative than any other sample employed for standardizing individual tests. Split—half reliability coefficients are reported for the three summary scores and they range from .86 to .96. Validity investigations of the WISC have found fairly high concurrent validity co- efficients between WISC scores and achievement tests. Comparison of W180 and Stanford-Binet IQ's have yielded correlations ranging from .60 to the .90's.59 The WISC has been reviewed in Euros on three occasions. (6:540), (5:416) and (4:563).4O Burstein, the most recent reviewer states: I In the nearly fifteen years since its introduction, it has not displaced the older Stanford—Binet, but has certainly come to rival its predecessor as an instrument of choice in the testing of school age children. 58David Nechsler, WISC Manual, New York: The Psychological Corporation, 1949. pp. 1—6. 39Anne Anastasi, P cholo ical Testing, Second Edition (New York: The MacmiIIian Company, I961) pp. 4OBuros, _p, cit., pp. 845-45. - 161 ~ Lee—Clark Reading Readiness Test (LCRRT) The effects of the specific educational therapy on academic ability was measured, in part, by the LCRRT. The 1962 revision of the LCRRT is identical to the pre— vious editions published in 1945 and 1951 except for the format changes and, in the concepts subtest, revision of all art work and half of the itemsf’rl The test's primary objective is predicting the ability to learn to read. The test has four subtests which yield three part scores and, when combined, a total score. The subtests include: Tegt l, a letter matching test; 22§2.§s a letter discrimination test;‘Te§§ i, an oral vocabulary test that also measures understanding of concepts, ability to follow instructions and knowledge of meanings; and Tegp 4, a similarities and differences test using letters and word I formations as stimuli.+2 Reliability coefficients ob- tained on split-halves by the Spearman—Brown formula range from .83 to .94 on the subtests with .92 for the total score. Research data reported show coefficients of correlation between LCRRT scores and other reading tests ranging above the .40's. Where the criterion reading test was also correlated with either teachers' ratings or aiOscar K. Euros, The Sixth.Mental Measurements Yearbook, New Jersey: the Gryphon Press, 1965, p. 846. 42.1. Murray Lee and Willis w. Clark, LCRRT manual, Monterey: California Test Bureau, 1962, pp. 2~5. group intelligence tests, the LCRRT most frequently yielded the higher coefficient. The LCRRT has been re— viewed in Euros, (5:678) and (5:517).43 According to Hobson, the LCRRT is evaluated as "a superior screening test with surprising reliability and validity for its purpose, considering its brevity." He also cauticns however that ". . . scores should not be interpreted too minutely and it should be followed up by additional diagnostic instruments." The Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT) The effects of the specific educational therapy on academic ability was also measured, in part, by the WRAT. The WRAT is an instrument for the study of the basic school subjects of reading (word recognition and pronunciation), written spelling and arithmetic computa— tion. The method of measuring the basic subjects was chosen to: (a) study the sensory-motor skills involved in learning to read, spell, write and figure; (b) to provide simple and homogeneous content; and (c) to avoid duplication with tests of comprehension. The WRAT has three independently scored subtests:44 43James R. Hobson, "Lee-Clark Reading Readiness Test", The Fifth Mental Measurements Yearbook, New Jersey:_TEe nyphon‘Press, 1959, pp. 777-78. MJ. 1?. Jastak and s. R. Jastak, "The mm Manual", Wilmington: Guidance Associates, 1965, p. l. n .«. "a: 2"“; use :3; flM‘AuLGT'. {N '41:: mm a. A. Reading is measured by recognizing and naming letters and pronouncing words. B. Spelling is measured by copying marks resembling letters, writing the name and writing single words to dictation. C. Arithmetic is measured by counting, reading number symbols, solving oral problems and performing written computations. Split—half correlation coefficients are reported by age group and by subtest for a sample of 200 subjects in each classification. 0f the forty—two coefficients reported, the lowest is .94.45 A rather extensive dis— cussion of validity is presented together with six different approaches to estimating the WRAT's validity.46 In every category the WRAT is reported to perform well. For ex— ample, coefficients that range from .74 to .95 are re— ported for comparisions of the WRAT with seven other achievement tests. The WRAT has not been reviewed in Euros, heweVer, references are reported. TASIbid., p. 13. 461tid., pp. 15-19. 151:“ m .2"; 3w