ABSTRACT EVALUATING MOTOR PERFORMANCE OF TRAINABLE MENTALLY HANDICAPPED BOYS AND GIRLS, AGES EIGHT THROUGH TWENTY-ONE BY David Allen Fuller The two basic purposes of this study were: 1. To establish the utility of a test battery for evaluating the motor performance of a sample of trainable retardates, ages eight through twenty- one. 2. To select specific environmental and organic factors which appear to produce differential effects on performance of the motor tasks in the test battery. The eighty-eight subjects who provided data for 'this study were enrolled in school programs for the 'trainable mentally retarded, in one of the two cities of Lansing, or East Lansing, Michigan. An evaluation of individual motor performance was curtained with a fourteen-item motor test battery, which iJuzluded seven gross motor fitness tasks and seven basic David Allen Fuller game skills. The tests included several motor tasks selected from the literature, and some new tests devised especially for the stated purposes of this study. Eight factors were selected for investigation: the two environmental factors of type of activity program, and parent education level; and the six organic factors of age, sex, IQ, dominance, etiology, and growth. Each of the selected factors was chosen on the basis that it had been considered a possible influence on motor performance, in studies with normal, educable, or trainable groups. Data collected for each subject was recorded on individual CDC 3600 computer cards, and the one-way analy- sis of variance with unequal number of replications permitted (UNEQl routine) was used in the data analysis. If the F ratio showed overall significance within the .05 level, the Scheffé test was used to determine which pairs of category means were significantly different. Results of the study indicate that the test battery used with this sample is a useful instrument for evaluating motor performance levels of trainable retardates, ages eight through twenty-one. The exclusion of the arm hang test, and modification of the catching tasks would be recommended as possible adaptations of the battery used. Further investigation of the squat thrust, ball shooting, catching a ball on the bounce, and batting tests as to reliability with trainable subjects, would be prerequisite to the retention of these items in the test battery. David Allen Fuller Results indicate that there are some factors which should be considered essential for certain aspects of activity programming, and for constructing TMR performance standards, or norms. In construction of standards, it appears that age is an important consideration for es— tablishing performance levels on game skill tests, while sex and etiology are more important considerations for categorizing gross motor fitness performance levels. Further work is required before final conclusions can be made regarding performance groupings, for the several factors investigated. Additional data which might be derived through multivariate analysis, will be essential for future efforts related to the construction of motor performance standards for the trainable mentally retarded. EVALUATING MOTOR PERFORMANCE OF TRAINABLE MENTALLY HANDICAPPED BOYS AND GIRLS, AGES EIGHT THROUGH TWENTY-ONE BY David Allen Fuller A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Special Education 1971 DEDICATION To Barbara and our children, for all the hours I had to spend with this instead of with them. To the children of Beekman Training Center, for all that they have taught me. To Dr. Janet A. Wessel, for her efforts toward the provision of physical education experiences for all handicapped children. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express his gratitude to Dr. Donald Burke, Dr. Janet Wessel, and Dr. Rex Carrow for their direction and helpful comments in the development of this study. An additional note of appreciation is extended to Mr. John Breaugh and the staff of Community School, and Mrs. Mary Sandborn and the Towar School staff, for their great cooperation during the testing at those schools. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . 8 Importance of the Study . . . . . . . 8 Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . 10 Definition of Terms. . . . . . . . . ll II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE. . . . . . . 13 Incidence and Classification. . . . . . l3 Etiology . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Care and Treatment . . . . . . . . . 18 Trends in Programming . . . . . . . . 20 Motor Performance . . . . . . . . . 28 Motor Tests . . . . . . . . . . 40 Factors Related to Motor Performance . . . 44 Age and Sex . . . . . . . . . . 46 IQ . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Parental Education . . . . . . . . 60 Activity Program. . . . . . . . . 65 Etiology . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . 9O Dominance . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 III 0 PROCEDURES 0 O O O O O O O O O O I 103 . . . 103 . . . 104 . . . 108 Sample . . . . . . . . . Personal Data. . . . . . Motor Performance Test Battery . Reliability of the Tests . . . . . . 110 Testing Arrangements . . . . 113 Treatment of Data . . . . . . . . . 114 iv Chapter IV. RESULTS Main Main Main Main Main Main Main Main Effects: Effects: Effects: Effects: Effects: Effects: Effects: Effects: Discussion of V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND Conclusions. Recommendations BIBLIOGRAPHY. APPENDICES Appendix A. Appendix B. Age . Sex . IQ. . Etiology. . . . . . Parent Education . . . Dominance . . . . . Growth Activity Program . . . Findings . . . . . . RECOMMENDATIONS. Page 115 116 122 126 130 136 142 143 158 171 174 178 182 184 199 215 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. LIST OF TABLES Levels of Mental Retardation . . . . . Age Results. . . . . . . . . . Comparison (Scheffé) of Significant F Means: Age 0 C O I O O O O O O O . Number of Subjects by Age and Sex . . . Sex Results. . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Mean Scores on Three Fitness Tasks for Normal, Educable and Trainable Samples . . . . . . . . . . . IQ Results . . . . . . . . . . . Factor Relationships--Number of Subjects in IQ Categories Relative to Age Level and Etiology. . . . . . . . . . . Etiology Results . . . . . . . . . Comparison (Scheffé) of Significant F Means: Etiology. . . . . . . . . . . Etiology of Retardation and Related Sample Infomation. O I I O O O O I 0 Parent Education Results . . . . . . Factor Relationships: Parent Education, Etiology, IQ . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Percentage Distribution in Parent Education . . . . . . . . Dominance Results. . . . . . . . . vi Page 15 117 118 120 123 125 127 129 132 133 135 137 139 140 144 Table 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. Page Dominance Categories--Number of Subjects, by Age Level . . . . . . . . . . . 146 Growth Results . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Comparison (Scheffé) of Significant F Means: Growth 0 O O O O . O O O O O O O 151 Growth Category Assignment--Height and Weight Data for Boys . . . . . . . . 154 Growth Category Assignment—-Height and Weight Data for Girls . . . . . . . . 155 Subjects in Growth Categories, By Age Level. . 156 TMR Subjects in Height and Weight Categories, As Compared to EXpected (Normal Curve) Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 Number of Subjects in Activity Program, by Age Level . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 Activity Program (8 & 9) . . . . . . . . 161 Activity Program (10--12). . . . . . . . 163 Activity Program (l3—-15). . . . . . . . 165 Activity Program (16--18). . . . . . . . 167 Activity Program (19——21). . . . . . . . 169 vii Figure 1. Age Results . . Sex Results . . IQ Results . . Etiology Results LIST OF FIGURES Parent Education Results. Dominance Results . . Growth Results--Average Weight Categories Growth Results--Weight Extremes Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Program Program Program Program Program Results Results Results Results Results viii (8 & 9) (10-12) (13-15) (16-18) (19-21) Page 119 124 128 134 138 145 152 153 162 164 166 168 170 VI 5"}. ... CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The literature of the last few years bears witness to the tremendous surge of interest related to the area of motor development of mentally handicapped children. As recently as five years ago, published material on this subject was relatively scarce. The American Association of Health, Physical Education and Recreation (AAHPER) has been among the leading influences in recent efforts to fill this vacuum of desired materials. In 1968-69, AAHPER published several guides concerned with physical activities for the mentally retarded, prepared by people experienced in the field. Professional interest has been generated not only because Of the fundamental physical and recreational bene— fits derived from activity programs, but also because of the extraordinary effects some programs have had on the scxdal, emotional, and mental development of retarded cfluildren. Satiation of this prevailing interest requires HHJCh additional research, and the publication of pertinent findings . One emergent danger in this area, is the growing tendency to consider physical movement as the panacea for problems among the retarded population. Such comprehensive claims for motor activities, while welcomed by some, eventually may result in a back-lash in special education programs. . . . Motor activities may help some children remediate certain visual— perceptual distortions, but they are not a cure for all perceptual deficits in all children.1 While the effects of structured activity programs may indeed demonstrate dramatic results in many instances, there remains at this time numerous "blind spots" in the total picture of motor function in mental retardation. Several training programs (activities for perceptual-motor development, etc.) have been publicized, and some recent studies have indicated the efficacy of a few specified exercises for increasing certain gross physical abilities among retardates. Unfortunately, most of these materials provide little information on the techniques of evaluation on an individual basis, and very often, give little direction in prescribing and sequencing activities relative to individual needs. A basic requirement in this area now is the infor- mation needed for greater understanding of the factors, both environmental and organic, which most influence certain aspects of physical development. This information ‘— 1Bryant J. Cratty, Motor Activity and The Education QigRetandates (Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, 1969), p. 2. "v w- c.- could provide knowledge not only of each particular factor alone, but also of the effect of certain combinations of factors on one's motor performance. If it is possible to define the influence of such factors (or combinations), we could better explain certain related deficiencies in motor ability, and could begin to isolate the most efficient treatment (activities) for individual "motor syndromes" common among mentally handicapped children. Research in the subject of physical activity for normal children has provided a good deal of basic data, with sufficient test norms (basically fitness items) so that the physical education teacher may compare results (evaluate programs or individual ability) of his groups with the scores of youngsters of similar ages. Only recently, have such "norms" been published (Francis and Rarick; AAHPER) for educable mentally retarded (IQ range approximately 50 to 80) children. These studies indicate that for most test items, the average educable youngster (ages eight through eighteen) scores two to four years below normal children of the same chronological age. Many have cited these findings and similar results from.their own research in reaching a conclusion that the retarded should not be placed in physical education Programs with normal children: "Therefore, the implication is that the policy of placing Educable Mentally Retarded boys with their CA peers for physical education is open to » s . .- serious question if the assumption underlying the program is that the two groups' motor performance is comparable." 2 Such research generalizations should not be used as an excuse to separate normal and retarded children, in one of the few school areas where they could perform together. This type of general conclusion--based on averages of group performance--fails to consider these important points: 1. In any group of educables, there are several who may be as capable or better in physical ability than some of their normal peers. Retarded children who have been denied regular physical activity and who score very low on fitness tests, have improved dramatically with structured physical education programming. (Many into the normal range, upon retesting.) Perhaps the greatest oversight--the retarded group would not perform as a group, but as individuals within the normal physical edu- cation class. By mixing normals and retardates to form equal teams, an instructor could insure that some of the retarded children would naturally be on the winning side, too! 2Wayne L. Sengstock, "Physical Fitness of Mentally Retarded Boys," The Research;guarterly, 37:113-120, 1966. ..-v a .. Iv- no‘ r... u.‘. s Most important, physical education class offers one of the few social situations where the retarded child can interact with and be accepted as an individual by his more intellectually capable peers: The class organized for work in the three R's and other scholastic work need not be kept intact for athletic, social, mechanical, artistic and other pursuits. . . . Membership not only in one group--as often happens for the several years of a grammar school career--but with many groups would perhaps . . . build a finer foun- dation for effective participation in the many sided activities with all varieties of people which life in a democracy demands.3 In the last decade, many new programs have been instituted for more severely retarded or "trainable" children. The trainable individual is considered less capable than the educable retardate and more capable than the "custodial" (severe-profound retardation) individual. The trainable retardate (TMR) may be further described using the three criteria of development, education, and prognosis: Development. His general developmental progress is at a rate of one-third to one—half of a normal child, With an intelligence quotient (as determined by test) roughly between thirty and fifty. Education. While he is incapable of being edu- cated through ordinary classroom procedures, the trainable ¥ 3Arthur I. Gates, "The Nature and Educational Significance of Physical Status and of Mental, Physiologi— cal, Social and Emotional Maturity," The J. of Educational Egychologyu 15:358, 1924. ... — - no. ’ u.. . u u ‘C- . -.. u, I - §.__. .. . 5 I. ‘. ~ ., ' n '\ . ~ . .9 I. . u . u child can benefit from training carried out in a special school program designed to further his social adjustment and develop his potential for performing useful tasks in a home or sheltered environment. Prognosis. Indicates that, while he may never be academically educable, with adequate training, his po- tentialities of self-care and economic usefulness may be developed for community living under family supervision. Although their need for physical activity has been widely recognized and a variety of activity programs utilized, there remains one great deficiency—-the availa— bility of adequate norms (derived from a trainable sample). Studies done with large samples of educable children have smown the inadequacy of regular norms for judging the motor abilities of retardates. Likewise, it would be unrealistic to apply educable norms to TMR samples: In view of the confusion which exists because of differences in results of several individual studies, it seems advisable to examine studies of the motor proficiency of normal, severely retarded, and moder- ately retarded groups. This will permit some general conclusions about relationships which exist within these groups, as well as between them.4 While research indicates that intelligence does ROt appear closely related to motor ability in the normal Population, the studies done with educable level retardates does show a correlation between these variables. It seems ‘— . . 4Leslie Malpass, "Motor Skills in Mental De— ficiency," Handbook of Mental Deficiency, ed. by N. R. E1118 (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1963), p. 620. ..p logical that this relationship between intelligence and physical ability would continue (or increase) in more severely retarded groups. In fact, a basic premise of this study is the idea that the specific effects of certain organic (intelligence, etc.) and/or environmental factors would be more related to motor performance in a group of trainable retardates than in higher functioning retarded, or normal children. In testing this theory, the trainable level individual is most appropriate, because he can generally perform selected motor tasks at a measurable level, whereas lower functioning (severe to profound) retardates could not. Most studies done with mentally retarded subjects use a single measure of motor performance to differentiate among retardates, or between retardates and normals, through a correlation with some particular factor. (In many cases, it is the specified factor which is considered primary, and the motor performance is used only to quantify its effect.) Unfortunately, the evaluation of motor performance is usually limited to one item (i.e. rotary pursuit, balance, etc.), and relationships found in this Single measurement may not hold for the same individuals When evaluated in many other motor skills. If one hopes to generalize test scores in terms of motor performance, it seems reasonable that a variety of nmtor tasks should be examined. Following this line of 4' .os reasoning, it would also be more valuable to consider the effects of several organic and environmental factors with the experimental sample, if one wished to examine the influence of each factor upon selected motor tasks. It appears that this kind of approach is not only the most reasonable, but is also most imperative in the area of physical education for the mentally retarded. For it is only through the insights which may be gained through such studies that the changes necessary for more effective educational programming will be realized. Purpose of the Study This study serves two basic objectives: 1. To establish the utility of a test battery for evaluating the motor performance of a sample of trainable retardates, ages eight through twenty— one. 2. To select specific environmental and organic factors which appear to produce differential effects on performance of the motor tasks in the test battery. Importance of the Study One important function of this study would be the translation of findings into suggestions relative to Physical activity programming for the trainable mentally retarded. In addition, this study could provide some guidelines for the testing of similar population groups, .1- .x by those who wish to contribute to the development of adequate motor performance standards for the TMR. The motor performance test battery used in this study would also be of value for evaluating progress of trainable individuals on these specific motor tasks, for the purpose of justifying the inclusion of physical edu- cation programs in the TMR curriculum: The need for normative data . . . in the field of special education is critical. If local boards of education . . . are to be expected to continue sup— porting and improving services and facilities for exceptional children, administrators must be able to provide reliable data as justification for expanded programs and expenditures.5 Information relative to the influence of certain organic or environmental factors may be used as the basis for further study. For example, only those factors which appear most constructive or most detrimental to motor performance would be selected for further analyses. The most esSential outcome of this study is its contribution to the continued development of procedures for modifying educational programming. In recent years, great strides have been made in promoting and developing better community programs for trainable children. Many workers have become aware of the value of physical activity for these youngsters and are 5G. Orville Johnson and Harriet Blank, Exceptional (flfildren Research Review (Washington, D.C.: The Council for Exceptional Children, 1968) , p. 312. '.vv 5 .I- 0 fi' ,. .- ... . in- v... o... - q—W 10 most eager to learn more concerning this important aspect of total development. Limitations of the Study The basic aim of the study was to construct a battery which could be used to evaluate motor performance levels of trainable retardates. This was to be ac— complished by investigating many different motor tasks and a large number of factors which might effect motor per- formance. This was considered an essential step in determining which of these variables may be worthy of additional research. The sample was restricted to all eligible trainable children in the immediate geographical area of Lansing and East Lansing. This restriction of total sample size proved to be a limiting factor, in that the small number of subjects in many categories effectively reduced significant results, and also restricted the possibilities of sta— tistical analysis. Use of multivariate analysis, for determining the interaction effects of several factors, would be a more valuable technique in this type of study, when.more adequate sampling procedures are feasible. The high degree of variance which is common among retardates at this level, coincidental with small numbers 0f subjects for some categories, also limited significant results. 11 The low reliability of some motor tasks included in the test battery was another limitation. Most involved (game skill items, which were chosen as representative of a variety of basic sports skills, and retained because no mm m m mabmcflmue oo.en on Ho.mn Hmlmm mumnmpoz. . oabmospm oo.m| on Ho.m| hmlmm UHflz 0 mm wHQMUSUm oo.m| 0» Ho.a| mmlmm ocflaumpnom m2 Hmuoa coflumofimwmmmau msHm> aim posflmlpnomcmum Hm>mq mmmucmoumm Hmcoflumoscm mmcmm mmcmm OH coaumpumumm .coflumonmumm Hmucmz mo mam>mq|a.a mqmca L..- :3: C 'a¢. “‘04 ‘v u .. . ~ ' . x w u . 16 ‘would be mildly retarded (educable); about 13,500 (0.3 per cent) would suffer moderate retardation (trainable); and approximately 4,500 (0.1 per cent) would be severe to profoundly (dependent) retarded. In a report by the President's Committee6 the mentally retarded population was classified: 89 per cent--mild, 6 per cent-—moderate, 3.5 per cent--severe, and 1.5 per cent-—profound. Kirk has estimated that in an average community, the prevalence of mental retardation for every 1,000 children (school—age) will approximate 25 educable, 4 trainable, and l totally dependent.7 Kirk defines these categories in functional terms, as follows: The Educable mentally retarded child is one, who because of slow mental development, is unable to profit to any great degree from the programs of the regular schools, but who has these potentialities for development: (1) minimum educability in reading, writing, spelling, arithmetic, and so forth; (2) capacity for social adjustment to a point where he can get along independently in the community; and (3) minimum occupational adequacy such that he can later support himself partially or totally at a marginal level. The trainable mentally retarded child is defined as a child who is so subnormal in intelligence that he is unable to profit from the program of classes for educable mentally retarded children, but who has potentialities in three areas: (1) learning self-care in activities such as eating, dressing, undressing, toileting, and sleeping; (2) learning to adjust in the home or neighborhood, though not to the total 6President's Committee on Mental Retardation, M (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967), p. 10 7Samuel A. Kirk, Educating Exceptional Children (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1962), p. 102. 17 community; and (3) learning economic usefulness in the home, a sheltered workshop, or an institution. The totally dependent mentally retarded child is one who, because of markedly subnormal intelligence, is unable to be trained in self-care, socialization, or economic usefulness, and who needs continuing help in taking care of his personal needs. Such a child requires almost complete supervision throughout his life since he is unable to survive without help.8 Etiology Literally hundreds of specific causes of mental retardation have been identified. Many attempts at classification have been based on etiological consider- ations ("endogenous--exogenous," "familial," etc.). Kirk9 has suggested general relationships between etiological and educational categories: The defect in a totally dependent mentally retarded child almost always has an acquired organic or genetic cause. . . . The cause of much retardation at the trainable level is also organic. . . . In classes for trainable children, for example, it has been found that one-third of the enrollment consists of mongoloid children, approximately another one-third consists of brain-injured children, and the other third is usually of unknown etiology. The educable mentally retarded group consists of children of mixed etiologies. A small proportion may have a diagnosis of organic pathology, such as minimal brain injury. The majority, however, show biological variation (the lower end of the scale of intelligence) or cultural factors causing the retardation, or a combination of heredity and sub~ cultural environments. From a text by Hutt and Gibby10 the following information is part of a table which lists by etiology ‘ 8 9 Ibid., p. 86. Ibid., p. 101. 10Max L. Hutt and Robert Gibby, The Mentally Re- E§§ded Child (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1958): p. 118. ~,_ . . . .h - . I . I al’ v. ‘54 18 (diagnosed first admission of mental defectives to eighty- nine public institutions in the United States (1949): Diagnosis Per cent Familial 30.7 Undifferentiated 24.8 Mongolism 11.1 Post Traumatic 6.2 Developmental cranial anomalies 6.2 Post-infectional 5.5 Congenital spastic paralysis 5.4 Other 10.1 In the 1967 report of the President's Committee on Mental Retardation, a chart shows that a total of 25 per cent of all mental retardation (United States) is caused by organic (genetic, unknown prenatal, tumors, metabolic, trauma, intoxication, infection) problems. The other 75 per cent of all retardation was attributed to socio- environmental factors (generally produced in low income, (fisadvantaged areas.)ll Care and Treatment In most early cultures, the mentally deficient individual was considered a definite social liability, and abandonment or death was often the prescribed form of treatment for such children. .As the human family became President's Committee on Mental Retardation, .1 It. 5.. -5 19 Inore "civilized," the retarded were allowed to survive—— 'usually through a life of public ridicule or continual confinement. One of the early breakthroughs in the treatment of the mentally retarded occurred in France about 1800, when a physician named Jean Itard attempted to teach social and language skills to a severely retarded boy. His pupil, called the "Wild Boy of Aveyron," was approximately seventeen years old at that time. He had been captured by some hunters and had evidently been living for some time in a savage-like condition in the woods of that part of France. Although Itard's work resulted in "failure" (he did not succeed in teaching the boy to speak), the wide- spread publicity surrounding it served to stir up con- siderable interest in the problem of mental retardation. From the time of Itard's experiment, up to the present, there have evolved many changes in the opinions towards, and acceptance of, public responsibility for the care and education of our mentally retarded children. Itard's work was followed up in Europe by Edward Seguin, who established a "School for Idiots" in Paris, in 1837. Seguin migrated to the United States in 1848, and pioneered the education of the mentally retarded in this country. Others of this era who served to orient the PUblic to this problem, were: Charles Billard and William Little, with information on brain damage in the newborn; 20 Down, and his description of mongolism; Gesell, who established standards for normal child development; and, probably of the greatest consequence, the Binet and Simon tests--to determine mental growth rate (established the concept of IQ). With greater public recognition of the problem, came the founding of several important organizations during the succeeding years. Many parent groups have been influential in the progress towards better treatment and facilities in the area of mental retardation. Operating ‘throughout the United States, is the American Association c1n.Mental Deficiency. This organization was established 1111 1876, and is composed of physicians, psychologists, and e3c1ucators. The National Association for Retarded Children fleas established chapters in cities all over the United 53‘tzates, to help educate the public and the parents of Irtsetarded children. In recent years, the Joseph P. Kennedy ercr. Foundation has provided financial support for various Projects (research, scholarships, Special Olympics, etc.) Vvljlich provide direct benefits to our retarded population. Trends in Programming Most of the treatment for the moderately and ESQErverely retarded in this country through the first half c>jE’ this century was based on early institutionalization. The first institution for the education of mentally 1retarded in the United States was established in .v .-u 21 Massachusetts in 1848. While these first institutions were founded for the purpose of establishing special educational programs, there was soon a prevailing rationale of confinement--rather than treatment-~as conditions of over- crowding, understaffing, and underfinancing existed in most of them. These basic problems have continued to plague most of our large institutions and some of the resultant inadequacies have been vividly described in a recent publication by Blatt and Kaplan.12 As a result of conditions just reviewed and also loecause of many philosophical revisions in education, nmast of the training-education of the retardate has ssllifted from the institution to the public or private £3<2hool. There have been a variety of class-type organ- i_::ations used or suggested for educating the EMR child. bdczst prevalent among these are the following: segregated, cinsepartmentalized special schools; homogeneous classes; Special classes; ungraded special classes; modified £3JEDecial classes (placing mentally retarded with children who are "educationally" retarded, behavior problems, ‘3”t:c.); itinerant teacher; and special class integrated with the rest of the school. There are many things to be said for and against using any one of these organizational methods exclusively. \ 12Burton Blatt and Fred Kaplan, Christmas in Eilgrgatory (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1966). L»- up. u.- 22 In most cases, a community will be better equipped to use one of these class-types more effectively than the others, and it is installed on this basis. One of the continuing controversies in class organization, is between those favoring special segregated classes for the educable retarded, and those favoring integration into the regular classes. A two year study13 determined that mentally retarded children make better grades when they are taught in regular classes rather than in special classes, but that they are better adapted socially in the special <31asses. It appears that some workable combination of both types would be the best answer. Public programs for the trainable retardate have laeaen forced to follow a much longer, uphill road to Eiczceptance. Many educators resisted parent efforts for UPINIR programs on the basis that they were by definition u1L.:1neducable," and therefore, should not be considered the ITIEasponsibility of public schools. Reynoldsl4 discussed tiline area of public responsibility for these children: Between the levels of responsibility well established in the schools, mainly for those with relatively mild handicaps, and programs operated by other public agencies, such as mental hospitals . . . is a zone of indefiniteness in public responsibility. Trainable I? 13Viola Cassidy and Jeanette Stanton, "School JLacement of the Mentally Retarded," School & Society (September, 1959), p. 366. l4Maynard C. Reynolds, "A Framework for Considering Es(Dme Issues in Special Education," Exceptional Children, 2 8 (1962) , 369. 23 retarded children . . . fall in this 'in—between' zone of responsibility. . . . Problems of the ‘in-between' children will need to solved by even closer cooperation among agencies of many types. The trainable retarded, for example, often present life-long dependency problems. It is futile to think about responsibility for these children in terms of 'education versus welfare.‘ They need health, welfare, and educational The challenge in services—-not just one or another. this field, as in many others, is to establish new and effective inter-agency community programs. The trainable child, because of the severity of his handicap, was offered no public (school) program until a few years ago. Parents of these children were generally ggiven the "choice" of constant care in the home or insti- In fact, several years ago, the tutionalization. commonest form of advice given to parents by their phy- Sicians was institutional placement at the earliest possible date. Those parents who did not want to commit their <211;ildren gradually sought out others in the community and fox’med parent groups. Many started their own day programs, EiES' no other public agency would accept such a task, and there was no legal provision for "uneducable" children in e‘="=:.J'i_stence. As parent groups grew and became more potent Sc><=ial forces, some schools began to provide special rooms for trainable children. The real spurt to this movement came through the organization of parents of TMR children and their insistance that some service be provided. The only service that was readily available fifteen years ago was the public schools. No other agency offered its services nor was there any other agency established which could meet the demands of these parents and their 24 children. The various departments of welfare provided institutional care but no community resources.15 Probably the only real valuable function these early "special" rooms served was the respite given parents for a few hours a day-—from the routine of constant supervision. These children were typically isolated from other school areas (recreational, etc.), and supervised by adults with little or no special training. It was impossible to promote any significant development in such situations where many essential services were not made ,available for these retardates. In many of the special (ilasses, a maximum age limitation of sixteen was enforced (tzhe "legal" age for compulsory school attendancel). Thus, vvriile some progress was being made in the acceptance of £>t1blic responsibility for these children, it was becoming quzite evident that the "special class" route for TMRS‘was gr oss 1y inadequate . . . . the public school is not the agency to assume responsibility for the TMR child. Such an agency must be one that is capable of following the child from the nursery to the grave. It must be flexible enough to offer financial help on the one hand and to offer trained guidance and counseling on the other. It must be in a position to receive reports from hospitals and pediatricians concerning the probable identification of the retarded child and to act immediately to contact the family. It must be able to set up and operate preschools and coordinate the services so that the continuity in preschool, training program, and vo- cational adjustment is not broken. It must have the 15William Tisdall and J. W. Moss, "A Total Program ii<3cr the Severely Mentally Retarded," Exceptional Children, 8 (1962) , 358. If 25 facilities to set up and operate workshop programs which will be beneficial for the child and for the community. There is no single agency in existence today that can initiate such a program.15 Tisdall's description of program needs for the moderately and severely mentally retarded provided a most accurate prophecy of the direction they would take toward fulfillment in the approximately eight years since then. Several new community centers for trainable children have been established in many states. These centers are constructed especially for retardates at this level, and are staffed by personnel who are well qualified to work vvith the TMR. In many of these programs, several agencies vvcuk cooperatively-—to provide many essential services tirader one roof. While trainable retardates will always Ilaave limited learning abilities, the emphasis on more fitznctional programming reflects the growing recognition 'tiflat they do possess much more potential than was previ- C>I:lsly credited them. Community day centers seem to be providing the 1'lc‘EI..ppy alternative to institutionalization. Whereas the r1iattional figures17 show an increase in number of residents j-Jfil public institutions for the mentally retarded during the years 1963 through 1967 (from a total of 176,000 to \ 16Tisdall, "A Total Program for the Severely 1V‘I-entally Retarded," p. 361. l7President's Committee on Mental Retardation, B15! 68 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 19““) . 26 193,000), figures from Michigan (with several new training centers for TMR) have shown decreases in admissions. Many retarded do not require traditional 24-hour institutional care. Development of alternative services--such as day care training centers--has demonstrated that demand for expensive 24—hour resi- dential services can be reduced. During the last ten years, the state has experi— enced substantial growth in general population. Despite this the number of commitments to MR insti— tutions has declined. From 1967 to 1969, for example, commitments dropped nearly 30 per cent. Only 629 commitments were recorded in 1968; they had averaged nearly 1,000 per year for the previous ten—year period. This reduction is related to the increased availability of alternative services.18 Along with the tremendous advantages in programming ‘hfliich the community center provides in comparison to .irustitutional care, the cost to the taxpayer is also czcansiderably cheaper per individual. "The cost of nnéaintaining them in the community [day care center], about 53'7'50.00 per year, was below the expected institutional C=<:>sts of approximately $1,800.00 per year."19 Although the c-‘-¢::>mprehensive day care center is still somewhat of a I:‘c‘al.rity, new or additional classes for TMR children are l:>1:.Iher promising trends are emerging: 1. Legal requirements. More states are passing mandatory legislation relative to programs for trainable retardates. 2. Emphasis on earlier treatment and services. There are many communities providing preschool classes for TMR children. \ ( 20President's Committee on Mental Retardation 1967) . p. 5. 28 3. Extension of maximum age for public schooling. The upper limit of twenty-one years is likely to be raised to age twenty-five. 4. More opportunities in sheltered workshop programs for older retardates. The future of the mentally retarded looks much brighter than ever before. Continued psychological, medical, and educational research of the problem promises that additional advances are forthcoming. As the public becomes more aware of what can be accomplished with the Inentally handicapped, resistance to financial responsi— laility for needed educational provisions should diminish. Motor Performance The growth of professional interest in this area hlais promulgated an increasing number of research publi- czéartions during the last few years. Most of the initial Sit:rudies on this subject attempted to show relationships l:3’€E=‘tween intellectual and motor abilities. It became a‘plaarent that little or no relationship existed between these variables within the normal range of intelligence. I:r1- a summary of related research, Ismail2 states: "After 13‘52‘viewing the literature one would be likely to conclude tlkldat the relationships between intellectual performance 21A . H. Ismail and J. Gruber, Motor Aptitude and £§~lj§ellectual Performance (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. e:I:'ri11 Books, 1967): P. 33. "- 29 and items measuring physical growth, strength, speed, and pouner were low and in some cases non—existent." Such a relationship does seem to exist, however, as tihe intellectual level falls below the range of 'Hicxrtnalcy." Sloan used an adaptation of the Oseretsky Tesst: of Motor Proficiency to evaluate performance of 20 normal (IQ range, 90-110) and 20 mentally retarded (IQ raJiggeu 45-70) subjects. His results led to the conclusion t11£1t: motor proficiency is related to intelligence, and tlléit: ". . . an adequate evaluation of adaptive capacity Sflcruld include not only estimates of intelligence but of m0tcmproficiency and social maturity as well."22 Following Sloan's work, numerous investigators have compared physical performances of normal and retarded groups, and results have supported his conclusion. Many hEi‘Ve based their research on one particular type of pl"lysical performance. Cantor and Stacey used the Purdue Pegboard to CDthain a measure of manipulative dexterity and found that 1":"Nuo groups of normal subjects performed better than the 931:0up of retardates (175 subjects, ages 14 through 18): "these results do not support the generally held contention 22William Sloan, "Motor Proficiency and Intelli— gence," American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 55 (1951) , 05. If . V 30 that little or no relationship exists between intelligence and manipulative dexterity. "23 In a study which compared proprioception among normal and EMR boys, it was found that the retarded subjects were poorer in a task (balance) requiring inte— gration of stimuli from both the vestibular and kinesthetic senses.24 In an investigation of reaction time, Jones and Burton found ". . . that reaction times tend to be longer in groups of subjects of low intelligence than in groups of subjects of normal intelligence and matched chrono— 109 ical age . "25 In another reaction time comparison, Belll‘kson and Baumeister26 reported that in addition to being poorer on this task, the mentally retarded group also demonstrated greater variability (both between and Wj~thin individuals) in scores. \ D 23Gordon Cantor and C. Stacey, "Manipulative Dexterity In Mental Defectives," American J. of Ment. we, 56 (1951)] 408. 24David Auxter, "Proprioception Among Intellectually Typical and Differentially Diagnosed Educable Mentally 1igtarded Boys," Perceptual and Motor Skills, 27:751-56, 65. 25David Jones and A. L. Benton, "Reaction Time and Mental Age in Normal and Retarded Children," American kQnrnal of Mental Deficiengy, 78 (July, 1968), 146. 26Gershon Berkson and A. Baumeister, "Reaction Time Variability of Mental Defectives and Normals," Al‘uerican Journal of Mental Deficiency, 72 (September, i967) , 265. L“ 'f“i_e‘vh - v .0 o: ..v H- c.- 31 Auxter27 used a test of grip strength (administered ovwer 20—second trials) to compare muscular fatigue in ruoxunal and retarded children. His results significantly famrc>red the normals over three (etiological) mentally retarded groups. Comparative studies have also been done where administration of several motor items was done, in an effort to show variability between normal and retarded QflECDIIpS. Kuleinski used a battery of twenty-two tumbling eXercises to compare the performance of three groups (Superior, normal, subnormal intelligence) of fifth and SiWith grade boys and girls. He reported that ". . . group czoUnparisons show a significant degree of learning by the Superior groups over the normal and subnormal groups, Inairked superiority of the normal groups over the subnormal cJitoups, and a high degree of superiority of the superior cJroups over the subnormal groups."28 Turnquist and Marzolf29 administered the Lincoln I”flaptation of the Oseretsky Test to similar groups (boys \ 27David Auxter, "Muscular Fatigue of Mentally liertarded Children," The Training School Bulletin, 63:5—10 May, 1966) . 28Louis Kuleinski, "The Relation of Intelligence t“: the Learning of Fundamental Muscular Skills," Research Q. narterly, 16 (1945), 276. 29Donald Turnquist and S. Marxolf, "Motor Abilities 53f Mentally Retarded Youth," J. of Health Physical Edu— S=ation and Recreation, 25:43—44 (March, 1954). glu- .0!- a , .e I 'o— 5 I, 32 arui girls in each, average age of thirteen years) of normal arui retarded youngsters. While based on results from a linmited sample (eleven subjects in each group), it was suggested that the mentally retarded do have deficiencies when compared to those of average intelligence-—using this measure of motor ability. fl Using the AAHPER (American Association of Health, P41§rssical Education and Recreation) battery of seven items to test a large sample of EMR children, Francis and Rarick -, 5 f<>11rui that while general patterns of change by age were Similar to those of normal children, the retarded were less ca~I-><':1ble in all tasks. Direct quantitative comparisons between the motor proficiency scores of the mentally retarded and published data on normal children . . . [show] . . . that with the mentally retarded children studied, the means of both boys and girls on most measures were two to four years behind the published age norms of normal children. Furthermore, the discrepancy between the normal and the mentally retarded tended to increase with each advancing age level.30 Howe31 tested a normal group of boys and girls (Cihronological age range, six to twelve) and a group of restarded children (matched with respect to chronological age, socio-economic background and sex), to compare their \ . 3oR. Francis and G. L. Rarick, "Motor Character- lstics of the Mentally Retarded," Amer. J. of Ment. Defic., ‘53 (1959), 810. ‘ 31Clifford Howe, "A Comparison of Motor Skills of biemtally Retarded and Normal Children," Exceptional Q. hildren, 25:352—54 (1959). ‘0-1 a.” .s‘ h. r .0- ‘. u ‘ q u . . I II 1 'I 33 performances on a variety of motor tasks. He used eleven tests, which were "selected to represent a variety of types of motor abilities." The results showed the normal boys to be significantly superior to the retarded boys on each of the eleven tasks. The normal girls were superior iri sill tasks also--significantly so in nine of the eleven itmenns. One of the tasks which clearly differentiated buet:vveen the normal and retarded groups was balancing on cuiea foot. Howe found this specific inferiority of per- fCDInmance surprising, since the retarded children he had Sealuected were supposed to be familial (had no known brain dEInuage), in regards to etiology. Rarick, Widdop, and Broadhead32 used an adapted (tflnree of the seven items were modified) form of the AAHPER Youth Physical Fitness Test to measure performance of a nEitional sample (over 4,000) of educable boys and girls, E3flies eight to eighteen years. It was determined through i3€ast results that performance levels of EMR boys and girls Eil?e well below published standards for normal children on EiJLl comparable tests. One of the essential purposes of tlflis study was to establish motor norms for educable <3}1ildren-—since those for normals are obviously inap- Propriate. \ u 32G. L. Rarick, J. H. Widdop, and G. D. Broadhead, The Physical Fitness and Motor Performance of Educable L‘lentally Retarded Children," Exceptional Children, 36:509-19 (March, 1970). .m- I. A‘- 0-“ 34 Just as normal standards are unsuitable for EMR groups, so are the EMR norms inappropriate for trainable To date, published normative data on the motor ch 1 ldren . 3 3 performance of trainables is extremely limited. Rarick observed that trainable children in the age range seven to twelve years showed substantial retardation in manual strength, manual dexterity, striking, throwing, and running performance. He also noted that the motor abilities of mongoloids were more deficient than those of familial TMRs. Brown34 evaluated the performance of thirty—eight trainable children on the Kraus-Weber Test (minimum muscular fitness). Results of this evaluation indicated that: the trainable group was seriously deficient in muscular fitness in comparison with four groups of normal cl“lildren; the trainable group was not considered deficient in flexibility as compared with normal groups; the trainable girls tended to be more muscularly fit and had better flexibility than the TMR boys; and the lower back test item (zéiused the greatest percentage of failure for the trainable cl'lildren . "Motor Characteristics of the 33G. L. Rarick, (Mimeographed Mental Retardate," University of Wisconsin. Paper.) 34Joe Brown, "Comparative Performance of Trainable b’lentally Retarded on the Kraus-Weber Test,“ The Research Q11.arter1y, 38:348-54 (1967). 35 In an investigation of the circulorespiratory enCthance of trainable boys, Campbell35 tested three age groups (12-14, 15-17, 18-20 years old) on the 25 yard dash, the 300 yard run, and the standing broad jump. The test: data was used to obtain "endurance quotients"--by formula, based on an individual's 300 yard run time divided by his extended 25 yard dash time. It was con- <3111éied on the basis of the technique used, that the Ciarwculorespiratory endurance of institutionalized TMR males does not vary by age levels (the three groups were defililar relative to "endurance quotient" scores). The level of physical development (growth) was investigated by Brown3 6 as to possible influence on physi— cal fitness scores. Nine fitness tests were given to 30 TMR boys (10 to 17 years old) who had been classified into two groups (upper or lower), based on developmental ratios Obtained with the Wetzel Grid. A comparison of the per- fOrmance of the two groups on the nine fitness items il'ldicated that there was no significant group differences (Dr: any of the tests. On the basis of this data, it was QOncluded that the level of physical development did not \ 35Donald Campbell, "Circulorespiratory Endurance Q1E Three Age Groups of Institutionalized Trainable Mentally etarded Males," The Training School Bulletin, 66:60-65, (August, 1969) . 36Joe Brown, "Ratio of Physical Development As A Factor In Performance of Retarded Boys on Physical Fitness," '1‘. he Training School Bulletin, 65:7—11, (May, 1968). rife 36 significantly affect performance of this sample of TMR boys. (While differences were not significant, it is interesting to note that the "upper" group had better average scores on all nine tests.) There have been several studies done which used motor tasks for comparing the performances of retarded and normal groups equated on the basis of intellectual level (mental age) rather than chronological age. The theo- retical basis for this practice is the idea that if motor Performance is related to mental ability, it should be more equitable to compare retarded groups with normals of similar mental age (MA), rather than matching by chronological age (CA). Research based on this MA—CA concept of group matching has generally shown that this is not an effective technique. Sengstock37 administered the AAHPER Youth Fitness Test Battery to three groups of boys-~one group of EMRs and two normal groups. The retarded group was matched by Qhronological age to one group and by mental age to a Younger group of normal boys. Results showed that the r1(armal CA group was significantly superior to the EMR group 0n all seven tests, and the EMR boys scored significantly better than the younger (MA matched) boys on five of the Seven items. In other words, the retarded group scored ‘ 37Wayne L. Sengstock, "Physical Fitness of Mentally Retarded Boys," The Research Quarterly, 37:113-120, (1966). Ffi“““”“"1 37 about midway between the two normal groups on this test battery. Another investigator has commented on the idea of comparing performances of retardates to "matched" groups of normals: . . . the inequity of comparing the motor performance of mentally retarded children on the basis of either chronological age or mental age. The former gives a mixed advantage to normal children since in an equiva- lent time span the normal child profits much more from experience than does the retarded child. The latter gives the advantage to the retarded since it places the normal child at a disadvantage in terms of physi— cal size and development.38 One of the essential considerations in the ixIterpretation of performance levels for groups of re— tardates is the element of prior experience—-in the S‘EDecific skills involved. Since there is a certain mental 1Involvement in any physical activity, the retarded child w'ould be at a disadvantage in the early stages of learning 51 motor skill, based on his comparative capacity to c-‘-c>n.ceptualize necessary physical adjustments. The existence of this "mental practice" influence l'lans been studied by several researchers. Clark39 equated two groups of normal boys on the basis of arm strength, 5dhtelligence, and basketball experience-—prior to testing \ 38Rarick, "Motor Characteristics of the Mental Retardate . " 39Verdelle L. Clark, "Effect of Mental Practice on the Development of a Certain Motor Skill," Research Quarterly, 31:560-69 (December, 1960). 312.67 Ail-a— 4 22"... .11 '_I 38 skill in the one hand foul shot. Each of the two groups (physical practice group, mental practice group) met for fourteen days--one to physically practice the foul shooting and the other to mentally practice for similar periods of time. At the end of this period, both groups were re- tested. On the basis of prior basketball experience, results were reported for three subgroups (varsity, junior varsity, novice). Physical practice resulted in average gains of 16 per cent for varsity, 24 per cent for junior 'varsity, and 44 per cent for novice boys. Most inter— esting, were the gains reported for the group that had cnnly practiced mentally for the two weeks between testing: average gains of 15 per cent for varsity; 23 per cent for tile junior varsity; and 26 per cent for novice groups! Along with the interaction of mental and physical al>ilities demonstrated in the study just reviewed, the irifluence of prior experience is reflected in the results, 1J1 that the least experienced (novice groups) showed the greatest improvement during the practice period. Several (Ither investigators, on the basis of research with re- 'tarded subjects, have supported this idea of experiential 1nfluence: . . . while the initial ability of imbeciles on many tasks is exceedingly low, they may achieve much higher levels of performance with extended (time) training. While average performance never equaled that of the higher IQ group, the low IQ group did show much greater 39 improvement and 'closed' the gap which existed between group scores on initial performances. Rate of improvement in rotary pursuit performance was greater for M.R. 85 than for normals. . . . Seems . . . that the retardates were inferior in the initial stages of the task due to inappropriate postural and attentive adjustments which are indirectly but crucially linked with performance.41 The importance of utilizing multiple-trial criteria in assessing the motor educability of mental defectives seems obvious. Novel situations demanding unique motor performance in single-trial learning sessions may affect mental defectives more than normal. . . . the findings of this study suggest that . . . the manipulative performance ability of retardates on initial trial does not represent ultimate level which can be achieved through practice, that retardates may be capable of learning manual dexterity tasks to a level competitive with normal persons, and that there is reasonable basis for expectation that using IQ, initial performance scores, and rate of improvement with practice, efficient predictors of motor skill performance may be developed. Another important consideration in evaluating pmerformance of retarded individuals relates to the area of Hubtivation. This factor effects performance at any 40 Sol Gordon, "The Rate of Improvement of Adult Ihnbeciles on.a Manual Dexterity Task as Compared With High (Srade Defectives," Proceedings of the London Conference SE3 the Sc1entific Study of Mental Deficiency, ed. by B. W. Itichards (May & Baker, Ltd. Dagenham, England, 1962), P . 587-92 . 41 . . A. A. Baumeister, "Motor Learning and Knowledge of Results," Amerdgan Journal of Mental Deficiengy, 70: “January, 1966), 593. 2 . . Malpass, "Motor Skills in Mental Deficiency," P. 620, 43 u . Pr _ H. Kahn and A. D. Burdett, Interaction of Mezgtlce and Rewards on Motor Performance of Adolescent a 1 Retardates," American Journal of Mental Deficienpy, 72 (November, 1967), 427. 4O intellectual level on an individual basis, but undoubtedly becomes more important in group evaluation-~as the mental level declines. Normal children generally have an "intrinsic" desire to compete and are likely to extend themselves to maximum effort. Many trainable children, however, are more responsive to physical discomfort than to the need to excel. Therefore, they are likely to be less enthusiastic in effort, and less inclined to sustain performance through physical distress—-to score near their true potential on many tasks. An inquiry into possible factors which might explain why mentally retarded boys are less able to maintain muscular performance over time, as compared to typical boys, may be examined as physiological or psychological in nature. In the absence of known physiological differences between the groups, strong consideration must be given to the presence of psychological factors as a contributing cause affecting the mentally retarded children's ability to withstand muscular fatigue . . . it might be that the retarded children lack, to a greater degree than typical children, the ability to work past the initial stages of discomfort of fatigue which prevents them from more nearly approaching their physiological limits.44 Motor Tests A review of research related to motor evaluation ofthe mentally retarded reveals that the kinds of test lCatteries or individual tasks which have been used to measure motor performance are quite variable. Whether an investigator uses a single task, a few selected items, or \ 44Auxter, "Muscular Fatigue of Mentally Retarded Chi1dren," p. 10. 41 some form of developmental scales seems to depend upon how he personally defines the term "motor performance." Several studies of motor ability in retardates have been done where the evaluation is limited to a single motor performance task. Cantor and Stacey (1951) used the Purdue Pegboard to measure manipulative dexterity of a group of retardates (fourteen to eighteen years old). Health (1942) and Auxter (1964) used tests of dynamic equilibrium to evaluate the gross (body) balance of edu- cable mentally retarded samples. Examples of research where a test battery was anhninistered to retardates are the studies of Sloan (1951), Turnnquist and Marzolf (1954), and Malpass (1963), all of whixzh used the Lincoln Adaptation of the Oseretsky Test of Motxar Proficiency. The Lincoln-Oseretsky has some definite dranvbacks as to its applicability with retardates, in that it :is time consuming to administer, lacks scoring objec- tfimrity (scorers must be specially trained), and numerous itfinns require a certain degree of mental ability for Performance. In a study by Distefano, Ellis and Sloan (1958), Combinations of tests were used, including the Lincoln- Oseretsky, Heath Rail-Walking, Hand Steadiness, and Hand— I3Yfl<'=1mometer tasks. Recent studies which have evaluated physical Performance in mentally retarded samples have used Standardized motor achievement tests to obtain comparative 42 data. Francis and Rarick (1960) measured static strength (four dynamometric tasks); running speed (30- and 35-yard dash); power (vertical jump, standing broad jump, ball throw for distance); balance (ten foot beam); and agility (squat thrust, agility run). Sengstock (1966) used the AAHPER Youth Fitness Test Battery to compare performances of EMR and normal boys. Rarick, Widdop and Broadhead (1970) administered the modified AAHPER Battery (flexed arm hang, situps, standing broad jump, shuttle run, 50-yard dash, softball throw for distance and 300—yard run) to a tuitional sample of educable boys and girls, ages eight through eighteen. For the most part, evaluation of motor performance of ‘trainable retardates has involved tests of the physical fitnaess variety. Brown (1967) administered the Kraus- Webner Test to a group of TMR boys and girls to compare their mirrimum muscular fitness (strength and flexibility) scores Witfli those of normal children. Fait4S tested a sample of TM}! boys and girls with a battery of six tasks: the 25- YaIKi dash; bent arm hang; leg lifts; static balance; thrust; and the 300-yard run. Brown (1968) evaluated Performance of TMR boys with nine fitness items: standing haDad jump; situps; static balance; straight arm hang; 25‘Yard dash; back lifts; back flexibility; one-half \ 45Hollis Fait, "Measuring Physical Fitness of the MePtally Retarded," University of Connecticut, 1966. (Mimeographed paper . ) 43 burpee (squat and stand); and leg lifts. Hayden (1964) tested trainables on the straight arm hang, medicine ball throw, speed back lifts, situps, vertical jump, floor touch, back extension and 300-yard run. No published data relative to performance levels of retardates on individual tasks in the category of game (Sports) skills was found in the literature. Even for normal children, there are few "skill" batteries where .norms are available. The emphasis in evaluating motor ,performance in normals as well as for retardates, has been iflirough gross motor tasks related to physical fitness. IUry instrument which purports to measure an individual's genieral motor ability should include a variety of tasks, wi11h both "skill" and "fitness" items represented. In choosing individual tasks for evaluating the motuor ability of trainables, certain criteria should be satisfied: 1. Task simplicity. To ensure that the test is really one of physical, and not mental ability. 2. Ease of administration. Should include a demonstration, with a minimum of verbal directions. 3. Simple scoring system. Scoring should be quantitative (rather than pass-fail) and highly objective. 4. Standardization. Test conditions and equipment should be standardized as much as possible. 44 5. Reliability. Test items should have an acceptable relibility with TMR children. 6. Task variety. The battery should include representative items of both the basic game skills and gross motor fitness tasks. Factors Related to Motor Performance As one would expect, most research on this subject has been concerned with the effects of intelligence on lnotor performance. There have been some recent studies, luowever, where several factors were examined and corre- lated with performance scores of mentally retarded subjects. In a study by Francis and Rarick,46 factors (iJidependent variables) investigated included age, sex, anti IQ. While the EMR children tested scored below puk>lished norms, results indicated that age and sex seem sinnilarly related to motor ability in normal children (geaneral performance improves with age, males score higher than females). There also appeared to be a positive (tflnough insignificant) relationship between intelligence and physical performance in this sample. A University of Wisconsin study (dissertation, 1967) by James Widdop47 was done in an attempt to determine 46Francis, "Motor Characteristics of the Mentally Retarded, " pp . 79 8-811 . 47James H. Widdop, "The Motor Performance of Edu- cable Mentally Retarded Children with Particular Reference to the Identification of Factors Associated with Individual 45 the effect of certain environmental factors on the motor performance of educable retardates. The purpose of this investigation was to examine the relationship between motor test scores of EMR boys and girls (ages eight through eighteen) and the factors of: parental occupation; parental education; family size; birth order (parity); and opportunity for physical education instruction. The motor measures used for correlation with these data were the seven tests (some modified) of the AAHPER Physical Fitness .Battery. Some conclusions of the study: 1. The factors of parental occupation and parental education seem to have little, if any, relationship to physical performance of EMR children. 2. Results indicate that children from larger families perform better than those from smaller families. 3. Regarding order of birth, retardates with several older brothers and sisters tend to perform better than those with fewer older siblings. 4. Subjects with at least one hour of school physical education tend to perform slightly better than EMRs with no school physical education. \ Egggerences in Performance," University of'Wisconsin, 46 There is a critical shortage of information pertaining to the environmental and organic factors which may effect the performance of moderate and severely re- tarded children. This kind of data would be of great value in evaluating the motor abilities of trainable level samples. After testing a group of trainable children on the Kraus-Weber test of minimum muscular fitness, Brown48 recommended that the children's test results ". . . should also be correlated with suspected etiology, IQ, age, and physical education opportunities." Factors which might influence motor performance may in: generally classified as "organic" or "environmental." Organic variables would include those "inborn" or consti— tutzional factors which are part of the individual, and geruerally not subject to manipulation by others. Environ- mend:al factors, on the other hand, relate to extrapersonal coruiitions, which may vary greatly for a given individual or (group. Of the factors to be reviewed-—age, sex, IQ, donutnance, etiology, and growth may be considered "organic," ‘flrile parental education and activity program would be ll . environmental . " EB? and Sex In reviewing the literature in the area of motor deve10pment and performance, one finds that the effects of 48Brown, "Ratio of Physical Development As AuFactor InPefformarice of Retarded Boys on Physical Fitness, 354. 47 age and sex are often investigated and reported in the same research studies. Therefore, a discussion of these two factors together would seem more logical than to consider them separately. The effects of these variables on the motor per- formance of very young children seem quite clear-cut. Chronological age is very important since the neuromuscular and perceptual motor systems are undergoing relatively rapid rates of development in the first few years. However, there seems to be little difference in performance relative to sex during this period: It would appear that the behaviors which are developing during the first 15 months of life, whether they are motor skills or the early perceptual and adaptive forms of mental abilities, are for the most part unrelated to sex, race, birth order, geographical location, or parental ability.49 From the ages of two to six years (preschool), differences in performance on specific tasks may be related to sex, but this is generally due to selection and practice (i.e., "boy" activities, or "girl" activities), rather than actual physical differences. Although no distinction is generally made in the motor performance of boys and girls in most activities during infancy and early childhood because the differences are not very great, there are some events in which one sex 49Nancy Bayley, "Comparisons of Mental and Motor Test Scores for Ages l-lS Months by Sex, Birth Order, Race, Geographical Location, and Education of Parents," Child Development, 36 (1965), 408. 48 tends to exceed the performance of the other in either maturity of pattern development or in objective measure. Most of the research (large samples) reporting age and sex norms are involved with upper elementary (eight-ten years old) through high school levels. In many motor items related to muscular fitness, boy—girl performances may be quite comparable up to age eleven. From this age on, however, boys begin gaining and continue to show a marked superiority through age eighteen. This performance differ— ential may be influenced by social as well as physical factors. "Failure of girls to improve after puberty in physical performance is apparently strongly influenced by the cultural milieu."51 Hunsicker and Reiff52 evaluated a national sample of normal boys and girls, ages ten through seventeen, on the basis of results from over 100 participating schools. The AAHPER Youth Fitness Test was the instrument used to gather the normative data. The boys were superior on all items and this performance "gap" between boys and girls increased with age. 50Anna Espenschade and Helen Eckert, Motor De— velopment (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1967), p. 134. 51Ibid., p. 211. 52Paul Hunsicker and Guy Reiff, A Survey and Comparison of Youth Fitness l958-—l965 (Ann Arbor, Mich.: The University of Michigan, 1965). 49 The AAHPER Test Battery (with three items modified) was also given to a national sample of educable retarded boys and girls (ages eight to eighteen years), in an effort to establish appropriate standards for the EMR.53 Results of this study indicate that changes in performance relative to chronological age follow trends similar to those of normal children (except at levels two to four years below normal). Sex differences in performance of the EMRs were also similar to those for normal children, with the boys scoring higher in all tests at each age level. One interesting difference should be pointed out, however. While the trends between normal and educable children are similar, the retarded girls do relatively better (score closer to the normal girls) than the boys, and consequently, the performance differential between retarded boys and girls is not as great in most tasks as it is between normal boys and girls. A similar trend is evident in the results of a study by DiStefano, Ellis and Sloan--where several kinds of motor tests were used to measure proficiency in mentally retarded subjects. "The males were more proficient than the females on all tests, but only the difference in 53Rarick, "The Physical Fitness and Motor Per— formance of Educable Mentally Retarded Children." 50 54 This re- rail-walking performance was significant." duction of male superiority in motor performance might be expected to diminish still further with more severely retarded samples. A study involving trainable and educable 55 offers research level retardates by Candland and Manning results in support of this expectation: Examination of the relation between sex and performance revealed that the males perform at a consistently higher level on motor tasks than do females. It was also noted that, in general, the effects of the sex difference tend to decrease as the degree or severity of retardation increases. In other words, there is a clearer differentiation between the performance of the sexes in the subjects with the higher IQ levels. The rate of improvement and the highest attainment level (peak) of motor performance also seem to be related to the factors of age and sex. In addition, the specific task (test item) could also be a most important consider— 56 of normal children ation. In the aforementioned study it was found that the mean test scores for girls generally improved between ages ten and seventeen for the shuttle run, standing broad jump, and softball throw. However, there was little or no improvement in the girls mean scores in the 50-yard dash, flexed arm hang, sit-ups, and the 54Michael DiStefano, N. R. Ellis, and W. Sloan, "Motor Proficiency in Mental Defectives," Perceptual and Motor Skills, 8 (1958), 234. 55Douglas Candland and Sidney Manning, "Elementary Learning Patterns in Mental Retardates," The Train, Sch. Bull., 63 (1966), 93. 56Hunsicker, A Survey and Comparison of Youth Fitness 1958-1965. 51 600-yard run (i.e., performance "leveled" off at age ten). In contrast, the boys' average scores generally showed continual improvement from ages ten through seventeen, for each of the seven test items. The explanation for the early (chronological) leveling of performance for girls on these fitness tests is probably related to physical changes in puberty, the prevailing social (mental) attitudes, and the relative lack of practice on these particular items. The atti- tudinal effect may be largely responsible for the differ- ences noted in comparing normal girls performance with 57 (In that the that of EMR girls on the same tasks. retarded girls would be less influenced by social restrictions.) It seems that the educable girls continue improving (through age fifteen) on some of these tests where the normal girls "level off" much (age ten or eleven) sooner. It may be inferred from a review of published results that chronological age, relative to changes (peaks) in performance for retardates, is somewhat different than for normal children. From a study which used seventy-six mentally retarded subjects with an age range of nine to thirty-two years, it was reported that: "In a group which may be presumed to have passed the chronological 'peak' 57Rarick, "The Physical Fitness and Motor Per- formance of Educable Mentally Retarded Children." 52 for both motor and mental maturation, no significant relationship was found between CA and motor scores."58 Malpass noted an increase of performance level in gross motor skills with chronological age, until about age sixteen, when there is a plateau in the curve: It is not accidental that most research dealing with motor proficiency in mental defectives has been conducted with children between the ages of six and sixteen. Maturation of most motor skills is completed by age sixteen, and no significant changes in motor proficiency have been reported after this age.59 There is some evidence to the contrary, however. 60 three age groups (12—-l4, In a recent study by Campbell, 15--l7, and 18--20 years) of trainable subjects (138 males) were tested on three fitness items. His results indicate that strength continued to increase beyond the sixteen year level for that sample: The results of the standing broad jump would establish that the strength of the skeletal muscles is greatest for the oldest age group. This fact is reflected in the less time required to perform the 300-yard run and the 25—yard run. In concluding this review of the influence of the factors of age and sex on motor performance, an important point should be emphasized. It may be noted that most of 58DiStefano, "Motor Proficiency in Mental Defec- tives," p. 234. 59Malpass, "Motor Skills in Mental Deficiency," 60Campbell, "Circulorespiratory Endurance of Three Age Groups of Institutionalized Trainable Mentally Retarded Males," p. 63. 53 the research reviewed was concerned with motor tasks related to fitness rather than motor skills. It is quite possible that these two categories of motor tasks may reveal very different patterns of development when corre- lated with the factors in question. Espenschade summarized data, for example, which shows peak proficiency in championship (sports) performance in the age range of twenty-two to thirty-five years. She differentiates performance levels according to the type of task: In general, peak proficiency is attained at an earlier age in those activities requiring strength, speed, and endurance, whereas championship performance is more common at the later ages in relatively less vi orous activities where experience is also a factor.6 In the light of available evidence, it may be explicitly stated that there is a definite interaction between the mental and physical aspects of development. Kephart62 describes the human learning process as one of perceptual-motor development. He feels that the separation of perceptual and motor activities is impossible as they are interdependent in a functional system, and that movement is the foundation of learning. The early motor or muscular responses of the child, which are the earliest behavioral responses of the 61Espenschade, Motor Develppment, p. 233. 62Newell C. Kephart, The Slow Learner In The Classroom (Columbus, Ohio: C. E. Merrill, 1960), p. 35. 54 human organism, represent the beginnings of a long process of development and learning. Through these first motor explorations, the child begins to find out about himself and the world around him, and his motor experimentation and his motor learnings become the foundation upon which such knowledge is built. Zuk has stated that this aspect of development is also operational for mentally retarded individuals: "Perception and learning are not independent phenomena but travel hand-in-hand in the development of normal as well as deviant intelligence."63 A recent study64 which attempted to compare the performance of normal and EMR boys on pattern copying and pattern walking tasks showed the re- tardates to be poorer in this type of perceptual—motor development. (They could not translate or organize the appropriate sequence of motor responses—~walking-—to the visual organization of space.) There have been several attempts to predict intelli- gence from an individual's early motor progress (infant development scales). Most of these studies have been done with normal children and results have proved generally insignificant. One recent study which did report some significant findings was done with a sample of children 63G. H. Zuk, "Perceptual Processes in Normal Development, Brain—Injury and Mental Retardation," American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 63 (September, 1958), 259. 64Barbara Keogh and Jack Keogh, "Pattern Copying and Pattern Walking Performance of Normal and Educationally Subnormal Boys," American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 71:1009-13 (May, 1967). 55 suspected of being mentally retarded. The subjects were tested at regular intervals from infancy through age six or seven. Scores of early developmental quotients (DQ), obtained on the children at one and two years of age were not valid for predicting future IQ. It was found, however, that there was predictive value as the children became a little older: Reliability of prediction based upon DQ shows a steady increase with age and offered a valuable source of IQ estimate by the time the child was three to four years of age. This seemed to be true for children with cerebral palsy, congenital anomalies, Down's Syndrome (mongolism) and hypothyroidism.65 Even in work with the severely retarded, MacAndrew 66 have found the IQ (Stanford-Binet measure) and Edgerton to be "remarkably stable over time." They also considered an IQ measure of value in determining social capabilities at this level. "Even within a homogeneous population of institutionalized male retardates who fall in the lower range of 'those labeled idiot or imbecile,‘ IQ is posi— tively related to capacity for competent conduct." In discussing the effects of IQ, an important consideration is related to the difference between motor learning and motor performance. The latter refers to test 65Karol Fishler, B. Graliker, and R. Koch, "The Predictability of Intelligence With Gesell Developmental Scales in Mentally Retarded Infants and Young Children," American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 69 (1965), 524. 66C. MacAndrew and R. Edgerton, "I.Q. and the Social Competence of the Profoundly Retarded," American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 69 (1964), 390. 56 score (proficiencY), while motor learning refers to the ability to acquire skill in a new task. In a study 67 found that dealing with normal boys, Henry and Nelson the motor learning ability had more affect on a younger (ten years old) group's scores than on the older (fifteen 68 found that the years old). Humphries and Shephard learning of a perceptual-motor skill was related to age for their sample of normal children--five to nine years old. (The oldest subjects made the most matches and fewest errors.) Ability to learn gross motor tasks is not related to the factors of age or sex in the same way that per- formance seems to be. In a study of motor learning and performance in two balance tasks, Bachman found that the "rate of learning in large muscle skills is independent of age and sex over the range six to twenty—six years."69 He also found that the performance curves were very different for the two tasks through the same age (puberty) ranges. This finding reinforces the idea of task 67F. Henry and G. Nelson, "Age Differences and Inter-relationships Between Skill and Learning in Gross Motor Performance of Ten-and-Fifteen-Year-Old Boys," Research Quarterly, 27:162-75 (May, 1956). 68M. Humphries and A. Shephard, "Age and Training In The Development of A Perceptual-Motor Skill," ercept. & Mot. Skills, 9:3-11 (1959). 69John Bachman, "Motor Learning and Performance as Related to Age and Sex in Two Measures of Balance Co- ordination," Researchdparterly, 32 (May, 1961), 136. 57 specificity in considering the effects of any factor on performance. (One should not generalize the results from one task as "motor performance.") Kuleinski's study provides some evidence of a direct relationship between motor learning ability and IQ.70 One can readily understand how a deficiency in motor learning ability could have a depressing effect on motor performance. It appears reasonable to assume that retardates' poor initial performance on motor skills tasks is a function of slowness in learning a novel task, that performance may be improved through learning, and that conditions affecting such learning may be specified.71 Accepting the idea that IQ determines motor learning ability, this function must necessarily become more restricted as level of retardation increases. This would help explain why the retarded score low on initial testing and why their performances improve relatively faster than normal, with practice. From the time of Sloan's published confirmation of a positive relationship between a retarded individual's physical performance and his measured intelligence in 1951, there have been many other studies--similar both in design and conclusion. As in Sloan's study, those of Sengstock, Malpass, Cantor and Stacey, Brace, and Turnquist and 70Kuleisnki, "The Relation of Intelligence to the Learning of Fundamental Muscular Skills." 71Kahn, "Interaction of Practice and Rewards on Motor Performance of Adolescent Mental Retardates," p. 422. 58 Marzolf demonstrated a relationship between intelligence and motor performance by comparing retarded children with groups of normal children. A more meaningful approach would be to show the effects of IQ within a particular level of intellectual functioning rather than between two distinct groups. Francis and Rarick72 noted a low but positive correlation of IQ with most of the motor performance tests in their study with educable retardates. In a dissertation study of the motor performance of EMR boys and girls, Widdop categorized the subjects into high and low IQ levels, and found the high IQ groups (boys and girls) to be signifi- cantly better on almost all test items. "With educable mentally retarded children, IQ had a positive relationship with performance on the physical test items."73 In other studies which involved only mentally retarded subjects, Black and Davis, and Distefano, Ellis, and Sloan found significant correlations between intelligence and most motor tasks performed. There is presently a lack of data which might show the effects of intelligence on performance within the 72R. Francis and G. L. Rarick, Motor Character— istics of the Mentally Retarded (Washington, D.C.: U.S. GBvernment Printing Office, Cooperative Research Mono- graph No. l, 1960). 73 Widdop, "The Motor Performance of Educable Mentally Retarded Children . . .," p. 157. 59 trainable range of retardation. Many have observed a common lack of motor ability at this level, on a subjective basis only. The measurement of motor ability in severely retarded persons is hampered by their lack of responsiveness to directions. There are very few reliable objective studies of the motor performance of such groups. Many clinical observations have been made about their general motor capabilities and, as has already been noted, there is agreement that those people with IQs roughly below 50 demonstrate considerably less motor proficiency than those in the moderately retarded and normal classifications.74 One would predict that the relationship between intelligence and motor performance should increase as the IQ level decreases. Cratty75 comments on this relationship: The IQ scores of trainable retardates when compared to their motor ability scores usually elicit higher correlations than when the same scores obtained from educable retardates and from normal children are contrasted. The reasons for these higher correlations on the part of children with lower intellectual en- dowments are probably at least two-fold. These children have not been able to profit from the variety of experiences to which they have been exposed as are normal children. . . . At the same time, the IQ of children with poor intellectual—verbal competencies are generally assessed primarily by measuring their perceptual-motor attributes, as indeed these measures are the only ones obtainable from such children. One of the most important criteria in choosing test items for evaluating retarded groups——especially at the TMR level--should be task simplicity. Since intelligence is so 74Malpass, "Motor Skills in Mental Deficiency." p. 624. 75Cratty, Motor Activity and The Education of Retardates, p. 3. 60 limited, the motor task has to be very evident for these children. If a motor item requires mental interpretation (for these children), the results would be more a measure of relative intelligence than of motor ability. Parental Education Parent educational level could be a factor in the development of TMR children in that certain environmental conditions may be dependent upon this variable. The more highly educated parents, for example, are more likely to have an advantage in occupational and intellectual status. They are also likely to have fewer children, which allows more individual attention for the retarded child. This possibility of environmental enrichment during infancy and early childhood could have substantial bearing on the retarded child's relative mental and physical progress. . . . perceptual experience plays a crucial role in psychological development prior to the perfection of sensori-motor skills and before the consequences of active responses can have an important learning effect. Thus it is not surprising that the richness of the environment and the extent of the young infant's opportunities for perceptual contact with people seem to influence development.76 . . . findings suggest that an early adverse environ- ment (assessed by highly reliable objective criteria) has a crippling effect on mental development. When the young person is withdrawn from these circumstances, 76Robert Franz, "The Crucial Early Influence: Mother Love or Environmental Stimulation?," American Journal of Orthoppychiatry, 36 (1966), p. 331. 61 the retardation begins to fade and IQ increments thus occur.77 Mental retardation in several children of the same parents is not an uncommon finding. Such familial defect is usually sociocultural and the deficiencies may be due to an improverished environment and lack of learning opportunities which affect all the siblings.78 Dennis and Najarian79 investigated the development of children in an institution in Beirut, Lebanon. For these children (generally illegitimate), all forms of adult-child interaction were at a minimum because the facility was seriously understaffed (child—adult ratio, about 10 to l). The children were admitted shortly after birth and remained until six years of age. Opportunity to develop infant skills was restricted since the children spent most of the time lying in cribs. Data obtained with the Catell Infant Scale showed a mean score of 100 at the two-month old level and a mean of 63 for the three to twelve month old infants. This drop in mean score reflects a retardation in physical development due to environmental restrictions. 77A. D. B. Clarke and A. M. Clarke, "Pseudo— Feeblemindedness--Some Implications," American Journal of .Mental Deficiency, 59 (1955), 508. 78Helen Wortis, E. Jedrysek, and J. Wortis, "Un- reported Defect In the Siblings of Retarded Children," .American Journal of Mental Deficiengy, 72 (November, 1967), 391. 79Wayne Dennis and Pergrouhi Najarian, "Infant Development Under Environmental Handicap," Ppycholpgical .Monographs, 71, No. 7. 62 Of course, level of education tells nothing of how the retarded child is accepted by his parents. In many cases, there is evidence of rejection or over-protection of the child--on the part of one, or both parents. Such psychological problems, if of sufficient magnitude, could materially affect the child's emotional, physical, or mental adjustment and progress. While the child from a smaller family may have an advantage regarding environ— mental stimulation (interpersonal contact, etc.) and reflect this in comparative verbal ability, he is often "protected" to the point which increases his dependency and inhibits possible physical develOpment. Motor activities, for example, may be more helpful to the retarded child from the family high on the economic scale, who has been over—protected and has been denied movement experiences. On the other hand, the child from the less privileged communities may lack verbal- linguistic stimulation, but he may function in a superior way in motor tasks, because his environment has forced him to find his own forms of play.80 Most of the research in this area would lead one to conclude that there is a relationship between parental intelligence (education) and the incidence of children 81 classified as educable mentally retarded. Kirk described this level retardate "to be found more frequently in 80Cratty, Motor Activity and The Education of Retardates, p. 3. 81Samuel Kirk, "Experiments In the Early Training of the Mentally Retarded," American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 56 (1952), 694. 63 families of low socio—economic, intellectual, and edu- 82 also found that the parents cational levels." Wakefield of EMR children were significantly lower than the general population in intelligence, level of schooling, family income, and cost of family housing. This relationship does not hold true for parents of trainable level children, however. For the severely involved, most of the retar— dation is related to trauma (brain injury) or genetic (mongolism, etc.) problems, which may be equally possible at any parental (socioeconomic) level. A study83 which investigated social status differ— ences among parents of educable and trainable retardates found a trend of lower status level related to higher level retardation (of children) to be maintained in various measures of socioeconomic status, including parental edu— cation. Gibson studied a group of mongoloid children and determined that the test intelligence of home reared :mongoloids is related to paternal educational attainment level. "If educational level can be accepted as a useful index of paternal intelligence level, than a reliable 82Robert Wakefield, "An Investigation of the Family Backgrounds of Educable Mentally Retarded Children in Special Classes," Exceptional Children, 31:143-46 (1964). 83G. Solomons, B. Cushna, E. Opitz, M. Greene, "An Investigation of Social Status Differences Among Educable and Trainable Children," American Journal of Mental De- ficiengy, 71:207-12 (1966). 64 connection seems to obtain between parental and mongoloid intelligence."84 There is very little research available which has investigated the relationship of parental education to motor performance of their children. In a study of normal children, Bayley and Jones85 found that while father's education showed no relation to children's scores, there was a trend of positive correlation between motor scores and mother's education--approaching a peak between the ages of one to three years. In a correlation between parental education and motor performance scores of educable retardates on the AAHPER Fitness Battery, Widdop86 found that there was no clearly defined pattern of relationship. Since there is a much wider distribution of parent edu- cation levels for the TMR than for the educable, it would be interesting to see if similar results are obtained for a trainable sample. 84David Gibson, "Intelligence In the Mongoloid and His Parent," American Journal of Mental Deficienqy, 71 (1967), 1016. 85Nancy Bayley and Harold Jones, "Environmental Correlates of Mental and Motor Development: A Cumulative Study From Infancy to Six Years," Child Development, 83329-41 (1937). 86Widdop, “The Motor Performance of Educable Mentally Retarded Children . . .," p. 133. 65 Activity Program One of the most important aspects of the handi- capped child's developmental potential has only recently been given the attention of special educators. In the last few years, increasing interest has been focused on this area and most administrators have become aware of the essential nature of a structured program in a curriculum for the mentally retarded. Inclusion of planned develop— mental activities not only helps fulfill one of the basic needs (movement) of all children, but also provides the dual benefits of individual attainment (success at one's ability level) and a "natural" learning process for teaching many mental concepts to the retardate. Most of the initial interest in this area was sparked through published material which emphasized motor activity for the remediation of specific handicapping conditions. Of these treatment regimens, probably the best known to special educators are the programs of Kephart, and Doman and Delacato. The "Perceptual-Motor Theory" of learning has been developed by Newell Kephart87 and stresses the complete perceptual-motor development of the retarded child. His theory explains learning difficulties as the result of a breakdown in the child's perceptual-motor development. Such a breakdown is considered the outcome of 87Kephart, The Slow Learner In The Classroom. 66 an incomplete integration of present and past stimuli, and lack of complete feedback from the muscles to the brain—— to compensate for errors in perception. Kephart considers the accumulation of motor information as prerequisite to all other perceptual-motor skills. His treatment pro— cedures are purported to improve environmental orientation and include activities for gross motor control, eye-hand coordination, temproal-spatial translation, and form perception. Specific tasks include chalkboard activities, drawing or copying, balance (board, beam, or trampoline) activities, form puzzles and pegboards, and body image ("Angels in the Snow," etc.) activities. Kephart's program has several basic limitations regarding its utility in special education on a large scale. The program does not include an adequate evaluative technique (to define specific individual needs), and it also lacks research verification of its value in improving perceptual-motor difficulties. The basic unstructured nature of the treatment is probably the most limiting factor, however. A lack of specified, sequenced activities makes professional application on a large scale almost impossible. The Doman-Delacato88 program of "patterning" is based on the concept of "neurological organization." 88Carl H. Delacato, The Treatment and Prevention of Reading Problems (The Neuro-Psychological Approach) (Springfield, I11.: Charles C. Thomas, 1959). 67 According to this theory, a normal child progresses through an uninterrupted continuum of ontogenetic development—— each higher stage dependent upon a more sophisticated central nervous system (brain) level. If a child "skips" any of the ontogenetic stages (crawling, creeping, etc.), Domand and Delacato would expect incomplete development of the central nervous system, with eventual difficulties in such functions as speech, reading, etc. They also recom- mend this technique for brain injured individuals on the basis that pathways through the central nervous system can be retrained and that unused or new brain cells may become functional. In some cases, patterns of passive movement are imposed on the individual by several people working together. This is a daily regimen which sometimes requires the services of over 100 people per child (several treatments each day, seven days a week). Other techniques sometimes used include: sensory stimulation; rebreathing of expired air (plastic face mask); restriction of fluid intake; and activities for establishing uniform hemispheric dominance (extensive use of unilateral hand, eye, and foot). While this treatment program has publicized some amazing results, it has of late come under increasing attack by many professionals.89 Many of the techniques 89Roger D. Freeman, "Controversy Over 'Patterning' as a Treatment for Brain Damage in Children," The Journal of The American Medical Association, 202:385—88 (October, 1967). 68 have not been adequately verified and some of the pro— cedures for evaluating individual progress are suspect. A recent opportunity for an extensive and objective study of the program was turned down by Doman, which has served to reinforce opposition to the treatment. Although the value of either the Kephart or Doman—Delacato motor (remedial) programs may be questioned by many, they have served the purpose of emphasizing the relationship between the physical and mental aspects of development and the need to provide movement experiences for the atypical child. There have been several studies done where re- tardates have demonstrated improved physical performance following regular participation in a physical education program. Lillie reported results on the application of an experimental preschool motor development program (period of five months). He tested three groups: an experimental (special program); a kindergarten group; and a home group. All three groups consisted of preschool, culturally deprived, mentally retarded children. At the conclusion of this research, Lillie found no significant differences in gross motor development among the groups. However, results did show the experimental group to be significantly better than the control groups on evaluation of fine motor development. He suggested that the "investigation of gross motor and fine motor proficiencies as separate 69 entities appears to have much value for diagnostic remedi— ation of motor deficiencies."90 An investigation of a national sample of EMR boys and girls91 attempted to determine the relationship between the motor performance of these children and the extent of their physical education program. Comparisons were made of the test scores (AAHPER Youth Fitness Battery) of those retardates who had no planned physical education program with those who had sixty minutes or more (per week) of scheduled physical education. The results showed that the level of performance of the boys in 58 of 77 tests (7 tests at 11 age levels) was higher for those who had 60 minutes or more per week of physical education than those with no regular programs. The same was true for girls on 54 of the 77 tests. There were significant differences at the 5 per cent level on 24 test items for the boys and on 17 test items for the girls. While these results do not establish causal relationships, there was a tendency for retarded children who had the benefits of as little as one hour weekly of physical education to perform better on selected physical skills than those without instruction. Solomon and Pangle92 completed a research project in which an experimental group of EMR boys were involved 90David L. Lillie, "The Effects of Motor Develop- ment Lessons on Mentally Retarded Children," American Journal of Mental DeficienEY, 72 (May, 1968), 807. 91G. L. Rarick, J. Widdop, and G. Broadhead, "Environmental Factors Associated With The Motor Performance and Physical Fitness of Educable Mentally Retarded Children," University of Wisconsin, June, 1967, p. 16. (Mimeographed report.) 92Amiel Solomon and Roy Pangle, "Demonstrating Physical Fitness Improvement in the EMR," Exceptional Children, 34 (November, 1967), 179. 70 in an eight week program of planned physical education activities. On the basis of pre- and post-tests (measures of physical fitness), the experimental group showed sig— nificant improvement. A follow-up test of the group was administered six weeks after the conclusion of the experimental program, and showed that gains (fitness) had remained significant over this period: Results of this investigation indicate that physical fitness of educable retarded boys can be improved through planned and systematic physical education experiences. Moreover, this improvement is apparently not a spurious gain, but can be demonstrated following a six week post experiment interval. The importance of these findings, it is thought, lies not so much in the demonstrated improvement, but rather in the extent of improvement. As the data indicate, subjects in this study evidenced the capability of performing equally as well as--and in some instances superior to--their CA nonretarded comparison group on four measures of physical fitness. There have been some reports which indicate that the more severely retarded can also show improved physical performance through participation in a regularly scheduled activity program. In a program of physical fitness (pullups, pushups, situps, springups, and back bridges) for a group of older (seventeen to thirty—five years old) males in a state institution for the mentally retarded, 93 Lawthorne reported a substantial improvement in fitness. 93Wayne T. Lawhorne, "Physical Fitness for the Mentally Retarded: A Reality," Training School Bulletin, 63:45-48 (1966). 71 Hayden94 has reported significant improvements in strength and endurance of a trainable level group of boys and girls through participation in a program stressing the develop- ment of organic fitness. In addition to physical improvements, participation in structured activity programs has been credited with eliciting other developmental gains in mental retardates. The idea that regular physical activity might effect favorable changes in social and intellectual development has proved especially intriguing to those working with the mentally retarded. It is apparent that such changes are possible through an activity program on the basis that: the physical involvement directly effects central nervous system functioning; the "successes" possible in a carefully administered activity program may serve to motivate a child toward additional achievement; and one's self-image, or confidence may be enhanced and a "carry—over" effect might be evident in other interpersonal situations. Several writers have observed that unacceptable social behavior is commonly associated with mental retar- dation. One investigation of the personality differences between EMR and normal children reported that there is a measurable general pattern of personality (less socially acceptable) common to EMR children, and the divergency 94Frank J. Hayden, Physical Fitness for the Mentally Retarded (Ontario, Canada: University of Western Ontario, 1964). 72 from normal personality pattern increases as level of intelligence decreases.95 Smith and Hurst96 investigated the relationship between physical ability and peer acceptance (a socia- bility factor) of educable and trainable retardates and reported the results of the study in support of the hypothesis "that motor ability, as defined in this study, plays a significant role in peer acceptance, as defined, for these children." Weiner discussed the social benefits of recreational play activities on mentally retarded boys: The program has contributed specifically to our goal of socialization (or 'civilization') through its consistent demonstration of the practical necessity for regulation of conduct, particularly in the swimming pool and on the playground; through reinforcement of general instruction and supervision . . . through . . . acquaintance with numerous activities going on . . . and through com anionship with the children and with a reliable adult. 7 95R. Porter, J. Collins, and M. McIver, "A Com- parative Investigation of the Personality of Educable Mentally Retarded Children and Those of a Norm Group of Children," Exceptional Children, 31:457-63 (1965). 96J. Smith and J. Hurst, "The Relationship of Motor Abilities and Peer Acceptance of Mentally Retarded Children," American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 66 (1961), 84. 97Bluma Weiner, "Play and Recreation Activities of Young Mentally Retarded Boys in a Residential Pre—Academic Program," American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 57 (1953), 599. 73 Several others have stressed the positive influence a physical activity program may exert on the social development of mental retardates: . . . appropriately developed physical activities will increase tolerance, will offer acceptable emotional outlets, will give self-confidence, and will help the mental retardate in establishing himself as an indi- vidual and a member of the group.9 Physical education and related activities satisfy many of these needs by siphoning off damned-up tensions in wholesome and socially acceptable ways. If satisfied in opposite ways, neurotic or delinquent behavior may be the result.99 Physical education and music seem closest, and inter- estingly enough, probably most essential in the lives of children who are mentally retarded, and who seem so often to have concommitant physical disabilities of varying degrees. It is around physical education and music that learnings in social competency can most easily be integrated with these children.100 Some reports have been published which indicate that the achievement potential of retardates may be more adequately realized as a result of participation in an activity program. Beck101 considered the physical 98Delores Geddes, "A Physical Educator's View of Social Aspects of Physical Activity for the Mentally Re- tarded," The Mentally Retarded, 6 (1970), 110. 99Charles Cowell, "The Contributions of Physical Activity to Social Development," Research Quarterly, 31 (1960), 293. 100Harry Dubin, "Some Observations On the Place of Physical Education and A Health Program In Building A Program For the Mentally Retarded Child," American Journal of Mental Deficiengy, 59 (1954), 12. 101Harry Beck, "Present Status of Physical Edu- cation in Special Classes for the Educable Mentally 74 education program as a possible means to better mental health for some children, especially if they can be taught to excel in some particular activity. He further stated that "Since the educable mentally handicapped are obviously not going to make a living with their wits, it becomes increasingly important that they learn to use their hands and bodies as efficiently as possible." Ismail and Gruber102 used three IQ levels (above average, average, and below average) to form groups (three experimental, three control) for a study purporting to measure relationships between physical and mental per- formance. Three experimental groups (one at each IQ level) were involved in a special physical education program for one year. This program included calesthenics, gymnastics, track and field events, games and relays, rhythmics and balance activities. While they found no particular changes on IQ scores, the results did show differences in academic achievement scores--in favor of the three experimental groups. The statistically significant increase in academic achievement of the experimental group came as a slight surprise since the program was conducted for one year duration which is relatively short. It is our opinion that the effects of a quality physical education program on intellectual achievement will be much Handicapped," American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 61 (1956), 120. 102Ismail, Motor Aptitude and Intellectual Per- formance, p. 190. 75 greater over a longer period of time. . . . This may be due to the fact that the experimental group is exposed constantly to a better physical education program and thus develops and achieves a better neurological basis for learning through two approaches, namely the classroom and the gymnasium programs. Participation in a structured activity program has also been credited as a determinant in the improved mental functioning of some retardates. Oliver103 did a study in England which involved two groups of institutionalized mentally retarded boys (ages twelve to fifteen years). While one group (control) continued on with its regular program (included two periods of physical education per week and daily games after school), the other (experimental) group of boys was placed on a special program. During the ten-week research period the schedule for the experimental group eliminated all academic classes (except arithmetic and English) and replaced them with physical activities, including daily gym time; remedial (individual) activities; fitness exercises; and recreational games. Following the ten weeks of experimental programming, the two groups were re-evaluated. Results showed the experimental group to be significantly improved in all measures of physical per- formance. There were also significant changes in emotional and personality adjustment, and there were significant IQ 103J. N. Oliver, "The Effect of Physical Con— ditioning Exercises and Activities on the Mental Character- istics of Educationally Subnormal Boys," British Journal of Educational Psychology, 28:155-65 (June, 1958). 76 increases in 25 per cent of the experimental group. There were no significant improvements in IQ noted for boys in the control group. In another study,104 an experimental group of EMR boys was given an intensive twenty day physical education program. A second EMR group met with research "officials" during this period but were not involved in the activity program. A third group of boys served as "controls" with no special changes in their regular routine during the experimental period. Final results indicated that the experimental (activity) group made significant IQ score gains (Full Scale and Verbal Scale--WISC) over the control group. On a physical fitness battery, the experimental group also made significant gain scores over the other two groups. The evidence afforded by the studies just reviewed emphasizes the interrelation between physical and mental processes, and Opens the possibility of "education through movement" as a most effective technique for teaching the mentally retarded. A still more refined vieWpoint has slowly emerged, possibly only as recently as the last five to seven years. The aim remains to capitalize on sensory and motor traits and to teach skills that can improve social adjustment, but there is a new feature in the expectation that the apprOpriate planning of physical 104W. O. Corder, "Effects of Physical Education on the Intellectual, Physical, and Social Development of Educable Mentally Retarded Boys," Exceptional Children, 32:357-64 (1966). 77 activity for the retarded can affect personal capacity for thought and action. If we raise the degree of well-being, alertness, and interest in reality and action, the individual's attention span will expand, with the result that he will have the benefit of more awareness, more associative perception, more thought. Presumably, more effective intellectual potential will rise.105 Although there is much supportive evidence as to the value of regular physical education in classes for the retarded, recent reports indicate that there are widespread deficiencies in the actual implementation of activity programs. A questionnaire study by Brace106 was conducted in an attempt to gather data about provisions for physical education and recreation for mentally retarded children in the United States. The following summary statements are based upon the questionnaire returns: 1. Almost 100 per cent believe that instruction in physical education and recreation can help social and emotional development in the mentally retarded. 2. Almost 90 per cent of the respondents feel that all workers with the mentally retarded should have a basic understanding of physical edu- cation and recreation. 105E. Paul Benoit, "Extending the Mind Through the Body," Journal of Health Physical Education and Recreation, 37 (April, 1966), 28. 106David K. Brace, "Physical Education and Recre- ation for Mentally Retarded Pupils in Public Schools: A National Survey," in Programing for the Mentallngetarded (Washington, D.C.: AAHPER, 1968), p. 130-31. 78 3. Physical education for the mentally retarded is limited in content, as indicated by the report that in 40 per cent or more of the programs, the only activities taught regularly each week are basic movements and calis- thenics. 4. One-third or more of the schools never teach swimming, racket games, bowling, combatives, gymnastics or activities on apparatus, track and field, or winter activities. 5. Facilities for physical education are generally inadequate. Through interviews with administrators and teachers in all the 241 schools involved in their study--Rarick, Widdop, and Broadhead107 compiled information concerning the amount of time which is alloted for physical activity instruction. A review of this data led them to the con- clusion: It is apparent that mentally retarded children do not have the same opportunities for physical education instruction as do children of normal intelligence. Forty-five per cent have no physical education classes and less than 25 per cent of the schools have sixty minutes or more per week. These findings raise an interesting question concerning the often quoted two to four year retardation 107Rarick, "The Physical Fitness and Motor Per— formance of Educable Mentally Retarded Children," p. 16. 79 (motor) of educable retardates. A comparison of national samples of normal children on the AAHPER Fitness battery showed that the children tested in 1965 were better in all items than the normal children of similar chronological ages tested in 1958.108 The suggested reason for this improvement in performance (for equivalent CA) was the fact that 1958 was the first year of testing (national) on the AAHPER test battery, and that by 1966 children had greater familiarity (physical education classes) and had more relative experience on the test items. One can readily understand how a single administration of a similar test battery on a sample of EMR children (many who have had no or little exposure to the test items) would provide data which would necessarily be a minimum (unfavorable) standard for comparison to normal children! There has been a recent accumulation of evidence which indicates that the preschool years may be among the most critical for influencing an individual's developmental potential. Bayley's work with infants and young children prompted her to conclude: "Evidently, the period between one and four years of age is an important one in the development of mental and motor functions."109 In 108Hunsicker, A Survey and Comparison of Youth Fitness 1958-1965. 1ogBayley, "Comparisons of Mental and Motor Test II Scores . . ., p. 409. 80 Espenschade and EckertllO a discussion related to the effects of early motor training of one child from a set of twins seems to substantiate this concept. While the other (untrained) twin was able to learn more quickly and eventually perform the specific skill equally as well at a later age, there were general differences (between the boys) noted which seemed to continue throughout their lives. The twin who had been given more opportunity for motor activity (experimental training) during his first two years still possessed superior motor coordination and more assurance in performance many years after termination of the experiment. "Early training does, moreover, seem to have a very definite effect upon the individual's general 'rapport' or 'feeling' for motor activities." The emphasis on early motor training is undoubtedly as essential (or more so) for trainable retarded children as for normals: The importance of 'critical periods' in the development of behavior should not be overlooked. . . . In general, the periods occur at early ages and it is at these stages of development that the behavior of the pro- foundly retarded should be given special attention.111 110Espenschade, Motor Development, p. 84. 111John Hollis, "The Effects of Social and Non Social Stimuli on the Behavior of Profoundly Retarded Children: Part II," American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 69 (1965), 782. 81 In programming for TMR children, some important adaptations may be essential for producing desired progress in motor performance. One of the major difficulties with older trainables is related to the pattern of inactivity many have adjusted to--which makes them particularly resistant to sustained movement or physical stress. For these youngsters particularly, it is necessary to gradually progress to an adequate level of fitness. In fact, the experiential restrictions imposed on most trainable children makes it imperative that any type of motor task be presented in simple form initially and a gradual sequence of progression determined for subsequent presen- tations. When children . . . have not learned the basic skills, instruction should start at beginners' level with adaptation made for the child's greater social and physical maturity. Sequential learning is important in Physical Education just as in other instructional areas.112 Some special motivational techniques are often helpful for increasing participatory level of the TMR. The addition of music sometimes improves group partici- 113 pation in active movement. Weigl defined "functional music" as that used "not for any aesthetic value, but for 112Sisters of St. Francis of Assissi, Physical Edu- cation Curriculum for the Mentally Handicapped (Milwaukee, Wis.: Cardinal Stritch College, 1962), p. ii? 113Vally Weigl, "Functional Music, A Therapeutic Tool In Working With The Mentally Retarded," American Journal of Mental Deficiengy, 63 (1959), 676. 82 its effectiveness in reaching practical therapeutic goals outside of music itself." Another study reported that a combination of music and exercise may have a significant effect (positive) on the psycho-motor ability of severely retarded children: Thus, music may act as an agent through which the focusing of attention could be increased and the con- trolled manipulation of music, with respect to some performance measure, may produce an increase in per- ceptual accuracy and performance.114 There are certain common deficiencies among trainables which might require particular emphasis in activity programing. For the most part, however, the same basic principles stressed in developing a good physical education program for normal children are applicable for the TMR. The program should provide activities that are physi- cally stimulating, socially constructive and es— thetically acceptable. A program planned with these criteria in mind contributes to the child's growth in all areas--motor, social, emotional, intellectual and spiritual. Careful planning is necessary. The gym or playground must never be regarded as a refuge from the classroom.115 114W. Harrison, H. Lecrone, M. Temerlin, and W. Tronsdale, "The Effect of Music and Exercise Upon the Self-Help Skills of Non-Verbal Retardates," American Journal of Mental Deficiengy, 71 (1966), 279. 115Julia S. Molloy, Trainable Children Curriculum and Procedures (New York: The John Day Company, 1963), p. 40. Etiology 83 Literally hundreds of conditions or causes of mental retardation have been identified. Several in— vestigators have attempted to classify mental retardates by causative factor. The following categories were among those listed in an etiological classification by Carter: 1. 116 Mental retardation due to infections (prenatal, postnatal). Mental retardation associated with prenatal intoxication and allergic reactions. Mental retardation second to prenatal trauma, physical agents, or intoxication. Mental retardation due to injury at birth (brain damage). Mental retardation associated with postnatal poisons and allergic reactions. Mental retardation associated with toxins, endotoxins, and deficiencies in the postnatal period. Mental retardation associated with abnor- malities of metabolism. Mental retardation due to postnatal injuries, vascular accidents, and anoxia. 116Charles H. Carter, Handbook of Mental Retar- dation §yndromes (Springfield, I11.: Charles C. Thomas, 1966). 84 9. Mental retardation associated with abnor- malities of endocrine function. 10. Mental retardation associated with diseases and conditions due to new growths and skin lesions. 11. Mental retardation associated with cranial abnormalities and other prenatal influences. 12. Mental retardation due to chromosomal or genetic causes. 13. Mental retardation due to unknown or uncertain causes. 14. Mental retardation due to functional causes (familial, environmental, etc.). In most instances, etiological classification systems have very limited value, because of the wide range of abilities (social, intellectual, etc.) generally encountered within any one category. However, many researchers in recent years have expressed an interest in learning more about the possible relationship between etiology and physical performance in mental retardation: Consideration of some of the etiological variables underlying motor performance in general points up many of the more specific reasons why motor disability and mental status, at least for low-grade defectives as contrasted with normals, are related.117 117Malpass, "Motor Skills in Mental Deficiency," p. 605. 85 This study points up the desirability of developing incisive measures of motor proficiency. Further investigation of the motor proficiency of different clinical groups is indicated.118 In general, the present evidence supports the hypothe- sis of a significant positive relationship between MA and motor proficiency. Some evidence is adduced for the importance of task complexity and possible clinical etiology as significant variables which need to be considered in investigations of this type.1 9 A study of the effects of etiology on performance-- especially with TMR samples——would necessitate a limitation to a few basic categories, into which large numbers of the children could be placed. A review of studies which investigated the effects of this factor indicates that there are four common "etiological" categories: brain- injured; familial; unknown; and mongoloid. Brain-injured. Brain damage may result from numerous causes, including: disease processes (inflam- mation of brain tissue); internal pressure; chemical imbalance; toxic substances; circulatory (blood) problems; and anoxia (lack of oxygen). Perhaps the most common cause of brain damage would be that resulting from physical trauma--during birth (paranatal), or later. In many cases, there will be one or more symptoms (of brain damage) present, if the injury sustained is of any import. These 118Sloan, "Motor Proficiency and Intelligence," 405. 119DiStefano, "Motor Proficiency in Mental Defec- tives," 234. 86 could include certain behavioral or motor symptoms, neurological (abnormal reflex, etc.) signs, unusual EEG pattern, or periodic seizures (petite, or gran mal). The degree of retardation and motor handicap is related to the area of the brain involved and the extent of the damage. This is the reason why this particular etiological group may be so variable--in comparison to others. Familial. This term is used to describe retar- dation which is believed to be "inherited" as a result of organic deficiencies (subnormal function) in brain tissue. "Cultural" and "endogenous" are other terms that have been used to define retardates in this category. The home situation is generally very poor, and the lack of environ- mental stimulation may often have a negative effect on intellectual development. One would expect to find several members (parents, siblings, etc.) of the indi- vidual's family who would also be classified as mentally retarded. Mongoloid (Down's Syndrome). A condition due to chromosomal abnormality, mongolism is a common finding among trainable level retardates. This condition seems most related to maternal age--with a peak incidence in mothers over forty years old. In this country, the incidence of mongolism is approximately 1 per 600 live births. The life expectancy of the mongoloid child has increased into normal ranges in the last fifteen years, 87 with the availability of drugs which effectively control many common respiratory diseases (formerly fatal to such individuals). The average mongoloid child may be expected to function at the trainable level, but there is a wide range of abilities among these individuals, from severe retar- dation to dull-normal levels. There have been several cases of mongoloids who have possessed mental ability within the normal range of intelligence (average, and above). Certain common physical stigmata are found among these children, such as: a depressed (flattened) bridge of the nose; large tongue; brachiocephalic skull shape; slanted eyes (inner epicanthal fold); abnormally shaped ears; short stature and extremities; short fingers and toes (with wide separation between first and second toes); single transverse palmer line; frequent congenital heart defects; and infantile genital organs. In addition to the presence of some or many of these physical signs, the mongoloid will have an abnormal (forty-seven, rather than forty-six) chromosome count. Unknown. Many trainable level children have no Specified condition or developmental history (pre— or postnatal) which would indicate the reason for their retardation. If there are no family members who would be considered intellectually subnormal, and there is no 88 indication of brain damage, these children would have to be classified in an "unknown" category-—relative to etiology. Auxter120 found the performance of brain injured EMR boys to be significantly poorer than that of non-brain injured or undifferentiated retardates on items requiring muscular strength or endurance. Heath121 compared the rail—walking (dynamic balance) ability of brain-injured (exogenous) and endogenous groups of retardates, and found the latter category to be superior on this task. In a study122 which compared performance of brain— injured (organic) and familial groups, it was reported that the familial etiology group was significantly faster on the two reaction-time tasks used. Howe's study (1959) of the motor ability of retarded children was done with a sample he considered familial in etiology (children with evidence of brain damage were excluded from the study). 120David Auxter, "Strength and Flexibility of Differentially Diagnosed Educable Mentally Retarded Boys," Research Quarterly, 37:455-61 (January, 1967). 121Roy S. Heath, "Rail-Walking Performance as Related to Mental Age and Etiological Type Among the Mentally Retarded," American Journal of Psychology, 55:240-47 (1942). 122Gerard Bensberg and Gordon Cantor, "Reaction Time in Mental Defectives With Organic and Familial Etiology," American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 62: 534-47 (1957). 89 Results from a study which compared tactual discrimination skills in mongoloid and non—mongoloid groups indicate that ". . . when purely motor skills are compared, with little need for conceptual understanding, the per- formance of mongoloid and non-mongoloid retardates is "123 Cratty124 describes the mongoloid's motor similar. performance as a separate (from other TMR children) category. "The mongoloid child is the least favored motorically of all groups of retardants discussed on these pages." Knights, Hyman and Wozony125 compared the psycho- motor abilities of familial, brain-injured, and mongoloid groups of retarded children. Results showed the mongoloid children to be poorer than the other groups on a non-visual psychomotor task. It was also determined that the brain- injured retardate does not benefit from prior tactual— kinesthetic experience as much as the familial type. It was concluded that the findings of ". . . different psychomotor abilities suggests contrasting emphasis in 123R. M. Knights, B. R. Atkinson, and J. A. Hyman, "Tactual Discrimination and Motor Skills In Mongoloid and Non—Mongoloid Retardates and‘Normal Children," American gpprnal of Mental Deficiency, 71 (1967), 900. 124B. J. Cratty, Developmental Sequences of Egrceptual-Motor Taskg (Freeport, N.Y.: Educational ActiVities, Inc., 1967): p. 5. 125Robert Knights, J. Hyman, M. Wozny, "Psychomotor .Abilities of Familial, Brain-Injured and Mongoloid Retarded Children," American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 70 (1966), 457. 90 the training of psychomotor skills with these three types of retarded children." A comparison of several etiological groups of TMR children in a variety of motor tasks could provide some interesting data. Relative strengths and deficiencies in certain types of performance could be useful in planning activity programs for these particular groups. Although at present we do not have much evidence concerning differential procedures in educating children whose intellectual defects arise from differ- ent causes, it is possible that in the future many educational techniques will be based, at least in part, on the etiological factor.126 Growth Many who have worked with groups of mentally retarded children have observed a rather common occurrence of retarded physical development among this population. A study of the height and weight of mental retardates (up to age twelve, with a mean age of nine years) found a high incidence of short stature and sub-average weight among trainable children. It was further noted that: "Pro- foundly retarded patients . . . were shorter and lighter for their age than higher functional patients."127 126Samuel Kirk and G. 0. Johnson, Educating the Retarded Child (Cambridge, Mass.: The Riverside Press, 1951), p. 15. 127W. Culley, D. Jolly, and E. Mertz, "Heights and Weights of Mentally Retarded Children," American Journal pf_Mental Deficiency, 68 (1963), 209. 91 128 Flory also suggested that the degree of physical deviation is related to the degree of mental defect. Mental deficiency does not seem to be an isolated mis- fortune which centers in the brain of the persons afflicted. Factors which operate to produce a mental debility, also seem to operate to produce a general physical inferiority. 129 Kugel and Mohr agreed that ". . . the supposition that brain defect can of itself produce physical growth retar- dation may be a reasonable hypothesis." In addition to the growth measures of height and 130 weight, Hollis found that ". . . x-rays of development of the hand bones of retardates generally showed erratic 131 of an institution- and retarded growth." Another study alized population of retarded males and females found that in comparison to normals, there is a delay in the ap- pearance of secondary sex features in the mentally retarded. Kraus, Clark, and Oka132 reported an elevated incidence of 128Charles Flory, "The Physical Growth of Mentally Deficient Boys," Society for Research in Child Development Monographs 1: Number 6, 1936, p. 50. 129R. Kugel and J. Mohr, "Mental Retardation and Physical Growth,” American Journal of Mental Deficienc , 68 (1963), 48. 130Hollis, "The Effects of Social and Non Social Stimuli . . .," p. 782. 131H. Mosier, H. Grossman, and H. Dingman, . ”Secondary Sex Development In Mentally Deficient Indi- viduals," Child Development, 33:273-86 (1962). 1328. Kraus, G. Clark, and S. Oka, "Mental Retar- dation and Abnormalities of the Dentition," American qurnal of Mental DeficienEY; 72:905-17 (1968). 92 tooth deformity, while investigating an association between mental retardation and dental morphology. After reviewing the literature on this subject one would be inclined to conclude that as the degree of retar- dation increases, so does the probability of concomitant physical deviation from the norm. The theoretical explanation for this apparent relationship between physical and mental development which many researchers advocate-- suggests that the central nervous system, the endocrine glands, and other systems act reciprocally in producing the total developmental condition. The results of research on the relationship of developmental level and physical performance are somewhat contradictory. In a study done with elementary school 133 children, Bookwalter noted a definite relationship between growth factors (body build) and physical fitness test scores. Clarke and Harrison134 tested boys at three age levels (9, 12, and 15 years) and compared test scores for advanced, normal, and retarded maturity (growth) groups. They found that in all instances where mean score 133Karl Bookwalter, "The Relationship of Body Size and Shape to Physical Performance," Research Quarterly, 23:271-79 (1952). 134H. Clarke and J. Harrison, "Differences in Physical and Motor Traits Between Boys of Advanced, Normal and Retarded Maturity," Research Quarterly, 33:13—25 (1962). 93 differences were significant, the advanced maturity group scored highest. Others who have done similar research with ele- mentary school children have reached different conclusions, however. Rarick and Oyster135 reported that skeletal maturity was not an important factor in effecting the motor performance scores of their sample. Seils found ". . . little or no relationship between the gross motor skill performance of primary-grade children and their age, height, or weight."136 In a study with three maturity groups of boys (ages ten to fourteen), Solley137 found no significant differences between the accelerated, average, and retarded growth groups on the measures of motor coordination used. The limited research of this factor as related to performance of retarded children also provides conflicting 138 results. Dawson and Edwards suggested that there was a relationship between growth (height and weight) and grip 135G. L. Rarick and N. Oyster, "Physical Maturity, Muscular Strength, and Motor Performance of Young School- Age Boys," Research Quarterly, 35:523-31 (1964). 136LeRoy Seils, "The Relationship Between Measures of Physical Growth and Gross Motor Performance of Primary- Grade School Children," Research Quarterly, 22 (1951), 259. 137William Solley, "Ratio of Physical Development as a Factor in Motor Co-ordination of Boys Ages 10—-l4," ‘Bpsearch Quarterly, 28:295-304 (1957). 138W. Dawson and R. Edwards, "Motor Development of Retarded Children," Perceptual and Motor Skills, 21: 223-26 (1965). 94 strength measures for their sample of retardates. Brown139 used the Wetzel Grid to determine developmental level of trainable boys. Two experimental groups ("upper" and "lower") were formed by dividing each individual's developmental age by his chronological age. On the basis of test scores, it was concluded that ". . . the level of physical development did not significantly effect the performance of this group of TMR boys on the nine physical fitness items." It appears that part of the explanation for research differences connected with this factor may be related to the age level of the subjects and the growth measures used. Whatever the reason, the existence of such conflicting results in the literature makes this factor worthy of further investigation--especial1y with the trainable mentally retarded. Dominance There has been a long history of scientific inter- est in the uniquely human pattern of unilateral motor dominance. Many researchers have investigated the possible relationship of incomplete dominance (hand-eye) and problems in speech and reading. Recent attention on the subject of incomplete cerebral dominance has been 139Brown, "Ratio of Physical Development As A Factor In Performance of Retarded Boys on Physical Fitness," p. 11. 95 aroused through the efforts of Doman and Delacato and their "patterning" techniques. Many studies have been done in an attempt to explain the occasional occurrence of left hand dominance in a population which is so biased towards right handed- ness. Most researchers agree that there is little evidence of hand preference in infants through six or seven months of age. During the first year, there is a great tendency to use either hand, rather than a dominant one. In a study of eight month old (normal) children, Cohen140 found that over 40 per cent should be categorized as ambidextrous (no preference) in an evaluation of handedness. Longitudinal research has shown that there may be considerable interchangeability in individual cases through the first two years. At this time there is usually an ascendance of hand preference evident, but this stage is often followed by another increase in bilaterality, which may continue for a year or two. Handedness is fluctuating and unstable during the nursery years. However, all observers report increased preference for right-handedness during the ages of two to five.1 140Abraham Cohen, "Hand Preference and Develop- mental Status of Infants," The Journal of Genetic Psyf chology, 108:337-45 (1966). 141Gertrude Hildreth, "The Development and Training Of Hand Dominance: I. Characteristics of Handedness," figurnal of Genetic Psychology, 75 (1949), 225. 96 14 . . 2 shows an increase in Data presented by Harris the category of "strong" hand (left or right) dominance over three age groups: 7 and 8 years old, 36.6 per cent; 9 and 10 years old, 55.6 per cent; and 11 years and older, 65.4 per cent. (For the oldest group, 58.1 per cent were strong right dominant and 7.3 per cent strong left.) Belmont and Birch143 stated that age nine may be considered a useful indicator for the existence of established hand preference. The reported incidence of left handedness varies among many investigators, but the general concensus is that approximately 7 per cent of the population would be in this category. In those studies where eye and foot dominance were also evaluated, somewhat different (from handedness) patterns emerged. In his study, Harris (1957) found for the older (11 years, plus) group a determination of eye dominance rated 46.8 per cent in the strong right category, and 27.4 per cent in the strong left category. Foot dominance for the same age level showed 54.7 per cent in the strong right, and 17.1 per cent in the strong left groups. The data also indicates that eye and foot domi- nance is established earlier than hand preference (less variable across the three age levels). Belmont and 142Albert Harris, "Lateral Dominance, Directional Confusion, and Reading Disability," Journal of Psychology, 44:283—94 (1957). 97 Birch143 (1963) stated that of all findings, the one ex- hibiting the most clear—cut and earliest (by age six) established preference in usage is footedness. There is general agreement that the existence of left eye dominance in our population is much higher (approximately 25 per cent) than left handedness. This would necessarily mean that there are many peOple who are right handed and have a dominant left eye. The fact that most of these individuals evidence no emotional, reading, speech or other problems seems to refute the theory of the normalcy of unilateral hemispheric dominance. However, since 20 to 25 per cent of the population shows some lack of correspondence between eye and hand in sighting and many of these persons experience no confusion . . . due to 'mixed' dominance, this factor has probably been exaggerated as a cause of adjustment difficulties.l Much research has focused upon the possible determinants of dominance, and the findings remain incon- clusive. The notably increased incidence of left handed- ness among mentally retarded groups has been reported by many workers. Gordon145 tested a large sample (over 143L. Belmont and H. Birch, "Lateral Dominance and Right-Left Awareness in Normal Children," Child Development, 34:257-70 (1963). 144Hildreth, "The Development and Training of Hand Dominance: . . .," p. 275. 145Hugh Gordon, "Left-Handedness and Mirror Writing, Especially Among Defective Children," Brain, 43:22-68 (1921). 98 4,000) of mentally retarded boys and girls (ages eight to sixteen) and found the incidence of left handedness to be 18.2 per cent. He tested a similar sample (ages four to fourteen) of normal children and found that 7.3 per cent were left handed. One explanation for the difference between normals and retardates is related to the social environment: However, boys, who tend to be less responsive to and/or less subjected to as much social training as girls, are more often left handed than the opposite sex. Moreover, retarded children and mental defectives, who are also less responsive to social training, have twice as great an incidence of left handedness as normal children.146 The environmental influence of other people on handedness seems to be another important factor. Hildreth (1949) reported that children tended to be more consistent (stronger dominance) in their use of hand for taught activities (drawing, eating with a spoon, throwing, etc.) 147 than they were for "untrained" activities. Rife has explained the development of handedness as a combination of heredity and environmental influence: The inheritance of left-handedness cannot be explained solely on the basis of a single pair of genetic factors. There is considerable evidence that handed- ness is a graded or quantitative trait. . . . Many individuals are genotypically intermediate, that is, not strongly biased in either direction. The handed- ness of such individuals can easily be shifted one way or the other by environmental conditions. . . . 146Espenschade, Motor Develppment, p. 97. 147D. C. Rife, "Handedness, With Special Reference to Twins," Genetics, 25 (1940), 185. 99 Individuals genotypically strongly biased for either right- or left-handedness, would not be shifted by environmental circumstances. In addition to these factors there is also the possibility of pathological left (or right) handedness—— especially in a group of mentally retarded subjects. In these cases, a left or mixed dominance could be the result of weakness in the dominant extremity, hemiplegia, minimal brain damage, and similar conditions. Most of the work done in this area has attempted to show a relationship between the establishment (or lack) of dominance and reading ability. While Harris (1957) found a significant relationship between the factors of reading disability and hand dominance, most studies (Coleman; Smith; Stephens; and Balow) reported that the degree of dominance does not significantly effect reading achievement. There have been very few studies which have investigated the relationship of dominance and motor ability. Cohen (1966) found that in normal infants, developmental status is related to the (early) development of hand preference. An interesting finding was reported in a study by Paul and Markow. They involved ten retarded children in a six-month exercise program which was based on the theory of neurological organization. The first, and what may be the most startling finding, revolves around a change in dominance which occurred at approximately two months after beginning the procedure. The group receiving the experimental 100 treatment started out with a ratio of 50—50 left to right handedness. Within a period of approximately three weeks all but one of the left handed group went through a mixed stage, then established their right hand as dominant. This left the group with a 90—10 per cent distribution between right and left. It should be noted that this is far closer to the right to left handed distribution in a normal population.148 One would expect that the earlier dominance is established for hand skills, the more proficient an individual could become. The relatively high incidence of mixed dominance (ambidexterity) among trainable retardates then becomes an important factor in considering the per- formance level of these children. Smooth team work between the two hands functioning automatically in motor performance contributes to skill. Individuals who have not achieved manual dominance are less effective or may even be handi— capped in motor performance. Delay in establishing dominance is unfortunate because it leads to un— certainty, confusion, and awkwardness in motor performance.149 Summary It has been determined that approximately 3 per cent of all children born in this country may be considered mentally retarded. Of this total, the great majority (87 per cent) would be classified as mildly retarded (educable). Of the other 13 per cent, about 10 per cent 148H. Paul and M. Markow, "Neurological Organi- zation Exercises on Retarded Children With Strabismus," Ihe Traininngchool Bulletin, 66 (1969), 69. 149Hildreth, "The Development and Training of Hand Dominance: . . ., p. 199. 101 would be considered trainable (the remainder would be in the totally dependent category). While the trainable child could not profit from classes (academics) for educables, they do have potential for learning self care, social adjustment, and economic usefulness in the home or a sheltered environment. Responsibility for the care and training of the "non-educable" child has only recently been assumed by the local school systems in most of the United States. From an emphasis on early institutionalization, there has been a gradual progression to the provision of special com- munity centers where trainable children can profit from a daily program of essential professional services. While studies done with normal subjects have shown no relationship between motor and mental abilities, research with educable retardates has demonstrated the existence of a slight positive correlation between these variables. Available evidence indicates that the greater the mental deficiency, the more pronounced will be the retardation in motor behavior and physical growth. Current literature reflects an almost complete lack of data concerning the effects of organic or environ- mental factors upon the motor development of trainable Children. From the review of related literature, the fellowing eight factors appear to be worthy of investi- gation in regards to possible effect on motor performance: 102 age, sex, IQ, parent education, activity program, etiology, growth, and dominance. The evaluation of motor abilities in the mentally retarded has generally involved tests of the physical fitness variety. In addition to such gross motor tasks, a test battery should include evaluation of several basic game (sports) skills. This additional information would help the teacher to more effectively plan the activity content of the physical education program for trainable retardates. CHAPTER III PROCEDURES This chapter includes a review of the sample of trainable retardates used as subjects and the methodology of data collection. The battery of test items is outlined, with a summary of findings as to its reliability with TMR children. Along with the topic of testing arrangements is a description of the method for collecting and recording personal data which provided the basis for grouping the children into categories for each of the factors under consideration. The concluding segment of this chapter outlines the proposed analysis or treatment of the data to be collected. Sample The trainable group which provided data for this study consisted of eighty-eight subjects, ages eight through twenty-one. All the children were enrolled in one of two schools--both of which were involved exclusively in Programing for the TMR. Approximately one-half of the sample was attending Community School (Lansing, Michigan), 103 104 and the rest of the subjects were enrolled at Towar School (East Lansing). All children who could perform the test items were included in the sample (88 of 92 enrolled, ages 8 through 21). Of the four who were not used in this study, three were excluded for physical reasons (two severe cases of cerebral palsy and one non-ambulatory child), and the other due to gross lack of comprehension of the test items. Personal Data The information needed for categorizing subjects (relative to the factors under investigation) was obtained by reviewing individual records of all eligible children. Data cards were made for each child in the study, and each was assigned a number based on alphabetical order in the sample. In addition to test scores, the data cards contained the following information: 1. Birthdate. To determine age at the time of testing. The testing month of June was considered the mid—point of a year, and birthdates from January through December were included in that year. (For example, those children born in 1960 were considered eight years old at the time of testing. The actual range was 8 years, 5 months if born in January, to 7 years, 6 months if born in December of that year.) On the basis of birthdate, Subjects were placed in one of five age categories: a. 8 and 9 years old; b. 10 through 12; 105 c. 13 through 15; d. 16 through 18; and e. 19 through 21 years old. 2. Sex. Male, or female category. 3. IQ. Based upon most recent psychological assessment. The Stanford—Binet (Form L—M) was the funda- mental measure. (A few subjects had been tested with the W.I.S.C. Any other measures were not considered ac- ceptable.) Three IQ categories were determined: a. High, IQ range 51--72; b. Medium, IQ range 4l--50; and c. Low, IQ range 30—-40. One may question the IQ range of the High category, since TMRs are generally considered to be in the 30 to 50 range. Of the 23 subjects in that category, all but four had IQs below 60, and many of these were in the low fifties. The fact that all the subjects were considered functionally trainable, and enrolled in certified TMR programs at the time of testing, permits their inclusion in this study. 4. Etiology. Based upon personal records and other information in the school files, each subject was .assigned to one of four categories (see Chapter II) as to possible cause of mental retardation: a. Familial--parents or siblings enrolled at some time in school programs for the mentally retarded; 106 b. Brain Injured--based on medical records or other evidence (seizures, etc.) of brain damage; c. Mongolism—-genetic defect sometimes termed "Down's Syndrome"; d. Unknown—-no known cause, no evidence for inclusion in one of the other categories. Following a review of the records, there were several children for whom assignment to one of the four above categories was considered inappropriate. These six subjects were all diagnosed as microcephalic. The microcephalic individual has an extremely small head, which is usually due to a lack of brain tissue formation (especially the cerebral hemispheres). In primary microcephaly, the principal abnormality is usually mental retardation (from mild to severe), and such individuals are often well coordinated in physical performance. An additional category was provided for the benefit of these subjects: e. Microcephaly—-abnormally small head related to subnormal development of brain tissue. 5. Activity Program (School). At the time of testing, those children at Community School had been inxnolved in a regular physical education program (period Of (eight months), while those attending Towar School had IK> sstructured activity program. 107 6. Parent Education. The number of years total (elementary, secondary, college) for each parent was recorded. The sum of both parents' total years of edu- cation provided the child's rating for inclusion in one of two categories: a. High, a parent education total of 21 to 34; b. Low, a parent education total of 0 to 20. 7. Growth. Height in inches, weight in pounds was recorded for each subject during the test period. Using the physical growth records (boys and girls) by Meredith,150 a subject was placed in one of three height categories: below average (short), average, or above average (tall), according to his chronological age. Using the subject's height, he was then given a weight classi- fication based on his height. (For example, a child may be short for his chronological age, but of average weight for his height.) This allowed for placement in one of nine possible growth categories: a. Short and underweight (light) b. Short and average weight c. Short and overweight (heavy) d. Average and underweight (light) 150H. V. Meredith and V. B. Knott, "Height Weight Interpretation Folder For Boys (For Girls)" (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1967). 108 Average and average weight Average and overweight (heavy) Tall and underweight (light) Tall and average weight Tall and overweight (heavy) 8. Dominance. During performance in certain skill tests (throwing and kicking), hand and foot (left, right, or mixed) usage was also recorded for each subject. Following completion of the test battery, a child was placed in one of four categories: a. Right dominant-~exclusive use of right hand and right foot in single limb tasks. Mixed dominance--in a single limb task, used both (either) left and right hand (or foot) on successive attempts. Opposed dominance——use of single limb was consistent, but hand used was opposite to the foot used. Left dominant--exclusive use of the left hand or left foot in single limb tasks. Motor Performance Test Battepy Fourteen motor performance tasks were selected to evaluate the motor ability of each trainable subject. A complete description, including equipment and administrative directions for each task may be found in the appendices. The fourteen test items are listed below under one of two categories. 109 Seven items purport to measure basic com- ponents of motor fitness, such as muscular strength, agility, speed of movement, endurance, and balance. The other seven items are supposed to measure basic components of game skills, striking. 1. such as throwing, catching, kicking, and Seven gross motor fitness tasks. a. Straight arm hang (Hayden, 1964; Brown, 1968). Standing broad jump (Francis and Rarick, 1960; Brown, 1968). Sit ups (Widdop, 1967; Brown, 1968). Balance beam (Francis and Rarick, 1960; Auxter, 1965). Squat thrust (Francis and Rarick, 1960; Howe, 1959). 25-yard dash (Fait, 1966; Brown, 1968; Campbell, 1969). BOO-yard run (Widdop, 1967; Hayden, 1964; Brown, 1968). Seven game skill tasks. Shooting a ball (two hands) into a barrel. Throwing (one hand) at a target (Howe, 1959; Cratty, 1969). Catching a ball, after one bounce (Cratty, 1969). 110 d. Catching a ball, no bounce. e. Batting a suspended (swinging) ball. f. Dribbling (one hand) a ball. g. Kicking a ball at a target. Some may argue that the tests listed are but crude measures of basic movement components. Nevertheless, they do include many basic abilities and skills required for successful participation in physical activities common to our culture. Reliabilipy of the Tests The reliability of most of the gross motor fitness tasks have been examined in studies which included normal (Espenschade, 1940) or educable mentally retarded (Francis and Rarick, 1960) samples. There is no published study which has examined the validity and reliability of these tests for the trainable retarded. In this study, the seven gross motor fitness items have been claimed valid for measuring certain basic motor qualities on logical grounds. These specific tests have been used by several investigators (see references cited on page 109) with EMR or trainable mentally retarded samples. Based on the test descriptions, face validity was claimed for each of the seven game skills tasks. The fourteen test items were given to a group of twenty-five trainable mentally retarded subjects, in order to determine reliability coefficients for each motor task. 111 The group consisted of both male (N = 18) and female (N = 7) retardates, ages ten through twenty-one. The method used was the test-retest technique, and the test interval was one week (seven days). Each relia- bility coefficient was obtained by applying the following correlation formula, as described in Edwards:151 N r = J/ 2 2 2 _ (EX) 2 _ (ZY) [2X ——fi——] [ZY ——fi__] r = coefficient X = raw score, first testing Y = raw score, second testing N = number taking test The test-retest reliability coefficients obtained for each of the motor tasks are reported below: ZEEK. Coefficient 1. Straight Arm Hang .88 2. Standing Broad Jump .96 3. Sit Ups .93 4. Balance Beam .86 5. Squat Thrust .58 6. 25-Yard Dash .94 7. 300-Yard Run .83 151Allen L. Edwards, Statistical Analysis (New 'York: Rinehart, 1958), p. 73. 112 ngk Coefficient 8. Shoot Ball in Barrel .33 9. Throwing (Accuracy) .73 10. Catch Ball on Bounce .37 ll. Catch Ball——No Bounce .75 12. Batting a Suspended Ball .41 13. Ball Dribble-—One Hand .88 14. Kicking (Accuracy) .64 The standard of acceptable reliability for group (normal subjects) application is generally considered to be 0.75 or above. As the listed coefficients indicate, there were some test items where the reliability obtained was not at this level for the group tested. Lower reliabilities in certain tasks might be due to the limited range of possible scores (on two items), and/or the lack of familiarity (practice) with these tests by the trainable subjects. Since these tasks do serve to give a more complete picture of basic motor skill com— ponents, they have been retained in the motor performance test battery for exploratory purposes. Similar investigations with other samples are necessary for a conclusive determination as to the validity and reliability of these tasks with trainable subjects. 113 Testing Arrangements The tests were administered during the first two weeks of June, 1968. All testing was done by this writer, with some assistance by two graduate students (physical education). The same test equipment was used at both schools (transported for each test session). The children were tested in class groups, so their teachers could be present during testing. An attempt was made to have each class involved in both morning and afternoon sessions during the two week period, so that the possible effect of "time of day" would be neutralized. Each test was demonstrated for the whole class prior to testing, and children then watched as classmates were tested. All tests were done indoors (cleared classroom areas) except the straight arm hang, the 25-yard dash and the 300-yard run. The tests were given in the following order for each class: First day: l. broad jump; 2. balance beam; 3. sit ups. Second day: l. catch on bounce; 2. catch—no bounce; 3. arm hang. Third day: l. shoot ball; 2. ball dribble; 3. squat thrust. Fourth day: l. throwing; 2. batting; 3. 25- yard dash. Fifth day: l. kicking; 2. 300—yard run. 114 Treatment of Data Data collected for each subject in the sample was recorded on individual computer (CDC 3600) cards. The "UNEQl" routine (one-way analysis of variance with unequal number of replications permitted) was chosen as the statistical technique which would allow maximum use of collected data. For each of the eight factors, the analysis provided the mean score and standard deviation of each category on all fourteen motor tasks. The F statistic (level of significance at .05) was also reported for each test item. For those factors (with three or more cate- gories) where significance level was within .05, a post hoc comparison (Scheffé method) was made in order to determine which pairs of means (categories) were signifi— cantly different for that specific motor task. Data results are also presented in graphic form to provide a visual demonstration of variance among the categories of each factor under investigation. These graphs are constructed through implementation of standard- ized scores (category mean increment divided by the overall standard deviation), since the tests were scored on a variable (points, repetitions, seconds, etc.) basis. This technique allows one to visualize how categories vary (from the overall mean score) and how they compare on each test, and across all fourteen tests at once. CHAPTER IV RESULTS The two basic purposes of this study were: 1. To establish the utility of a test battery for evaluating the motor performance of a sample of trainable retardates, ages eight through twenty-one. 2. To select specific environmental and organic factors which appear to produce differential effects on performance of the motor tasks in the test battery. Results of the data analysis (each of the fourteen tests with each factor) are presented for each of the eight factors, in both tabular and graphic forms. The tables include data on: categories (factor groups), numbers of subjects, mean score, and standard deviation for each category. The F statistic is also reported for each test, and those within the .05 level of significance are marked with an asterisk. (The significance found for one or two of these factors could be due to chance.) 115 116 To facilitate comparisons, results are also presented in graphic form, showing the category variance from the overall mean, for each of the fourteen motor tasks. Main Effects: Age In all tests except the arm hang, the youngest group scored relatively poorly. An inspection of the graph (page 119) of this factor indicates that for most gross motor fitness items, there is relatively little variance among mean scores of the four older age groups (except for the sixteen-eighteen years old group on the two running tasks). This visual interpretation is sub— stantiated by the fact that the .05 significance level was reached only for the 25—yard dash. The situation is quite different for the seven skill items, however, where the group variance is significant on six of the seven tasks. The skill items seem to be more effected by age, in that the younger groups are lower and the oldest group higher for these tasks (see graph). Further evidence for this conclusion may be seen in the post hoc comparisons on those tests where a significant F ratio was found (Table 3). .As this analysis shows, the comparison contributing to (overall significance on most tasks is between (mean scores <3f) youngest and oldest age groups. In terms of the effects of age on performance in SEDecific tasks, the table shows that the straight arm hang 117 .emo. .mooo. mom. .mooo. .moeo. .mooo. .mooo. bosoueuesoem me.~ m~.b ~m.a Hm.m mb.aa ma.b so.» uauuausum b Hm.m am.an mm Ha.vm om.mm be Ho.m ss.m be ~s.a be.m em se.~ ~m.e em oe.b mm.ma em sm.a mm.a be Hasuo>o be.m av.o~ H~ m~.e~ ea.nb Hm em.~ sm.b Hm re.a me.e H~ oe.o oe.m Hm «s.m mv.sa Hm rm.a mm.~ ON Hm . as ~m.m so.o~ «a os.m~ mm.vm ma em.~ ms.m ma om.H mm.e ma am.o sm.e me -.e sm.ba «a ~v.a o~.~ me as - be He.m o~.ma eN ~s.mm oo.ee eN o~.m mm.m om me.e om.e om Nm.o mm.e as as.m ma.sa on so.a om.~ em me n ma om.” em.o~ «a Hm.o~ ce.a~ «a om.~ se.b ma sm.a sm.m «a am.a ab.m ma me.s sm.va «a am.~ s~.H ma NH . on m~.m so.sa «a oe.s~ mm.ma be we.m mm.v ma HH.~ em.a «a bo.~ ve.~ «a m~.s se.m ma Nb.o me. be m s m .o.m m z .o.m m z .o.m m z .o.m m z .o.m m z .o.m m z .o.m m z abomouuo seasons oceabbauo manuumm mossom oz rouse mussom rouse msbzousa been acorn was ans. .bee. see. are. ohm. ems. med. mosuoeuasmsm mm.n mm.m nee. oe.e mo.a mm.a Hb.H osuuaumum m mm.~e ra.sme om se.a we.b em be.~ mm.b em mm.v ov.b be mb.s ba.na mm Hb.~H ob.b~ mm em.ma mm.¢~ mm Haauo>o se.om o~.mea ea we.a em.b o~ b~.~ om.b ow vs.e ma.b HN Ha.b em.ma om km.oa om.s~ aw as.m~ so.o~ «a Hm n ma em.mm so.baa ma bH.H s~.b ma mo.~ oe.b ma Hm.e m~.s ma sm.e sm.ma «a so.ma em.om ea oo.va ob.oa ma as u be ~v.ae m~.mma we em.H es.b o~ se.m oe.b om Ho.m sm.b an mo.oa mm.~H o~ mm.ba mm.m~ ma Hb.- mo.s~ as ma . ma me.om mo.m~a ~H H~.H mo.s ma mH.~ oq.b ma om.m mm.s ma ~m.k so.ma ma ~m.m be.b~ ma ~v.ma so.m~ ma NH u on -.vv mm.mma me me.a ma.m «a so.~ ea.b «a mo.m ma.v we v~.m bo.oa be mm.m ve.e~ ma bo.H~ so.om me a a m .o.m m z .n.m m z .o.m m z .o.m m z .o.m m z .o.m m z .o.m m z abommumo rmco tumwuoOm rmmo eucwlmm unsure bosom Boom wocmamm moo ufim mesh pooum mam: EH4 om< .uuasmom oo¢(|.~ mamas 118 TABLE 3.--Comparison (Scheffé) of Significant F Means: Age. Task Age Category 2 3 4 5(19-21) 25-Yard (8 & 9) 1 NS NS * NS Dash (10—12) 2 NS NS NS (13-15) 3 NS NS (16-18) 4 NS Shoot 1 NS NS NS * Ball 2 NS NS NS 3 NS NS 4 NS Throwing 1 NS * NS * 2 NS NS NS 3 NS NS 4 NS Catch on 1 NS * NS * Bounce 2 NS NS NS 3 NS NS 4 NS Catch 1 NS * * * 2 NS NS NS 3 NS NS 4 NS Dribbling 1 NS NS NS * 2 NS NS * 3 NS NS 4 NS Kicking l * NS NS * 2 -NS NS NS 3 NS NS 4 NS XSIX EIQQIIG genes eounog . uo qoiea mozqm TIPS O nooqs usea 'px 006 9820 'px sz lsHJQL ienbs mesa . 'IQH sdn -4TS dmnp psorg BueH . NIH Category: 8 & 9 -—-~--- 10-12 16“]..8 o—o—o—o—v— 13-—15 ——-—- 19....21 cla- . 0 Figure l—-Age Results TABLE 4.--Number of Subjects by Age and Sex. 120 Age Subjects Level Total Male Female 8 & 9 16 10 6 10--12 16 10 6 l3-—15 20 9 11 16--18 15 10 5 l9-—21 21 9 12 Overall 88 48 40 121 provides scores which are nearly inverse to age levels. The probable explanation for this would be that body weight rather than age, is most related to performance on this item. In the standing broad jump, the second oldest group (16-18 years old) had the best mean score, as they did in the 25-yard dash and the 300-yard run. There was rela- tively little variance in mean scores by age in the remaining fitness items for all groups but the youngest. Except for the sit ups and squat thrust tests, there was a tendency for the oldest group to score lower than the next two younger (16-18 and 13-15) groups on the fitness items. There seemed to be a different pattern with the game skills, however, where the oldest group had the best average score on six of the seven items. This would offer some support to the concept that skill improves longer, or peaks at a later age than fitness performance, with TMRs, as well as for normals. The catch on one bounce proved to be an easier task for all age groups than the direct (air) catch item (see mean scores of tabled data). The relative lack of progressive improvement by age (through 10--18 years) level for this sample is contrary to what has been reported for normal (Hunsicker and Reiff) and educable (Rarick, Widdop and Broadhead) groups. The lack of experience with these test items could be one influence affecting this result. Other possible influences would be 122 the small number of subjects in the five age groups, and the male-female ratio in each. Main Effects: Sex Since the sexes are fairly representative at each level (Table 4), and due to the small number of subjects at some levels, it was considered appropriate to make the data analysis without regard to age (two general cate— gories of male and female). Once again, results show a definite relationship to the type of task involved. In all fitness items, males performed better than females--significantly so in six of the seven (all but balance) tasks. For the skill tests, however, only on the throwing task did the males perform significantly better. On several of the skill items, there was relatively little difference in mean scores, although the males had the higher average. The only test (of all fourteen) where the female mean score surpassed that of the males was in the dribbling task. In the age range represented, for the fitness items the results of the comparisons based on the sex factor are in general agreement with findings for other (normal, EMR) samples, except that the TMR girls score relatively closer to the male test means. There is not sufficient data (published) available for comparisons (male-female) with other populations on the skill tests. mmm. How. mma. new. mom. «moo. hmv. mocmuwuwcmwm oa.a ov.o cm.~ v0.0 ov.o ~c.n Hw.o Owumaumum m Hm.m Hm.ma mm Ha.vm om.mm mm Ho.m nn.m mm ~h.H om.m cm nv.a ~m.v vm oo.o mm.mH cm hm.a mm.a mm Hamum>o vm.m oa.ma mm Hm.vm vm.av mm ov.m mm.m mm Nb.a mm.m mm mm.a Hm.v mm vv.o mv.ma mm «N.H mh.a ov masses mo.m um.¢a vv mp.mm mm.mm be vm.~ H~.m be mb.a mm.m we om.a ~v.¢ mv mH.m mm.oa me mv.a om.a we can: .Q.w m z .Q.m M 2 .o.m m z .D.m m z .o.m M z .Q.m M z .n.w M z whomwumu mcaxoax mcwabnauo mewuumm cocoon oz noumu condom noumu usazours Hana 900nm and 3 or 1r cmmo. «vac. «moo. baa. .noo. «mac. cmoo. cosmowwwGOHm mv.m m~.w av.h mm.m Hw.n . Hm.m mm.m owumwunum h mm.~v ma.hma om nv.a mm.m em wv.~ wm.w um mm.v ov.m mm mm.n .wH.ma mm Ho.ma mw.o~ mm vm.wa mm.v~ mm Hamuo>o oo.~e N~.mva mm mv.a av.» mm mm.m am.m mm mm.v mm.m mm ma.m hh.oa mm mn.aa ma.m~ mm av.oa v¢.ma on maofiom ma.av Nm.nma we mm.a mw.w we NH.N No.n we ~m.v no.n he ow.o om.ma we mw.~a no.mm me mm.ma om.a~ we can: .Q.m N z .o.m m z .o.m m z .Q.m M z .Q.m N z .o.m M z .a.m m z Mucomumo rmmo cumwuoom ammo pumyumm unsure bosom Emwm mocmHmm moo Dam dado pmoum mam: End mod .muaamwm xmmll.m mam¢e x01» - GTQQIIG ° :98 o Hones : eounoa uo qoqeg . moxqm . IIes locus . HRH PIER 008 used p121 sz QSHIQL qenbs meeg 'Ieg- sdn-nrs' dmnp pacig- bueH may . 1.0 124 /\ 1/// / \ IX " Category: Male Female Figure 2.-'Sex Results -1.0 125 .malmom .Aonmav mm .cwnpaflnu HmcoHummoxm =.cmnoaflbu ompumuwm >HHMbcmz mabmooom mo mocmEuomuom Houoz pom mmocbflm aboammsm one: .pmmnomonm .0 now gonna: .b .xoaumm .A .0 "Boom omflmaooe mzm pom HmEHoz How sumo mmnno ss.oa .. .. Hmum mas . . . . om ma mans mzm masses A.osb mmune om.ma .. .. Hmum may was: was new mm be balm mzm meanoem mm.mea .. .. Hmum mas m MET . . . . as sea maum mam H a 1.006b com mbuumaa mm.sma .. .. Hmim ass meuum ba.mm .. .. Hm(m ass . . . . mm mm maum mam masses . . . . so mm panes Hmsboz newscast emnne se.am .. .. Hmum mas eswmsmmmwm . . . . we as mans mam was: . . . . . em or kHIOH Hmsboz mocmm com: com: cmmz Hmopw>fipsH HHMHO>O roam 30A mmcmm mHmEmm xmm xmma mos monoom .moHQEMm wabmsflmns pom .maomooom .HmEHoz How mxmme mmmcpflm conga co mohoom cmmz mo consummfiooll.m mqmds 126 Results show that performance on comparable items indicates a considerably poorer level of ability in trainable, as compared to EMR subjects. Relative ability levels on the skill items cannot be determined at this time, since such data is not available. While direct (age) comparisons are not possible, Table 6 does give a general idea of performance level on comparable (scoring, etc.) motor tasks by normal, educable and trainable samples. Main Effects: IQ The results based on the three IQ groups are presented on pages 127 and 128. The medium IQ (range 41—50) group performed better than the high (range 51-72) and low (range 30-40) categories on all fourteen test items. The difference reached the level of significance on two tests (standing broad jump, and balance beam). The Scheffé procedure showed that the significant mean differ- ences on both those tests were between medium and low IQ categories. It also appears for this factor that the type of performance (fitness or skill) is related to the extent of group differences (dispersion). The graph indicates that there was much less variance (mean scores) among the three groups on the skill tasks than on the fitness items. Another difference involving the type of task, is the relative position (mean) of the three groups. In the 127 ham. 5mm. mmm. nmv. mmv. mom. vma. oosdowuacmam moo. m~.H mwa. mn.o m>.o Ho.a ~m.a. caumwumum h m~.m mv.ma mm mo.vm -.mm mm mo.m on.m mm mh.a vm.m mm h¢.H am.v mm cm.m -.mH ma om.H ~m.a mm Hamuo>o hm.m vm.ma mm mm.am an.0m em hm.~ mm.m em ~m.H mm.m vm mm.a m~.v v~ vo.m m~.m~ mm mm.H on.H mN 30A oo.m mm.ma mm v~.vm an.vv mm wH.m mm.m mm mm.H Ha.v mm m~.H mm.v mm ~m.m oo.oa on mv.a HH.~ mm .00: ~m.~ mm.m~ mm mm.mm mm.mm mm wo.m mo.m mm vh.H or.m MN ww.a vo.v mm mm.m eh.ma Nu vH.H H<.H - roam .o.m m z .o.m m z .a.m m z .a.m m z .o.m m z .o.m m z .o.m m z 306360 mcaxoax onwabbfluo mcauucm cocoon oz roumu mocdom roumu mcw30ura Hana uoorm OH amo. moo. mmo. somo. mma. smflo. mno. cocoowuacmam vv.~ ne.~ em.m HH.v am.a mo.v on.~ uwumwumum h on.~v vv.mm~ on nv.a om.m mm ma.~ mm.w mm mm.v mv.o mm on.h na.ma em oo.~a mn.o~ mm vm.ma ew.vm um Hamuc>o ~m.mv wm.ama mm mv.a mm.n mm ob.~ ~m.m mm mo.v ~w.v mm mv.n mm.oa mm vv.oa mo.o~ «m vb.va om.ma mm onnomo 30A ma.ae oo.w~a mm mv.a o>.w mm Hm.~ em.b em o~.v ~>.n mm mo.m mn.va hm or.~H he.m~ mm nm.a~ mv.m~ mm Aomuaeo .002 em.av va.mma mm mv.a en.w mm mo.~ cm.m mm Hm.v m~.w Hm mm.w va.ma mm mm.ma mm.m~ mm mm.wa vo.m~ mm Awhuamo roar .Q.m M 2 .o.m m z .Q.m M z .Q.m m z .Q.m m z .o.m m z .o.m M z >u00oumu rmmo pbmwuoom rwmo pbm>nmm umsure bosom £00m wocmHmm was new dado nacho one: Eu< 0H .muanmmm OHIa.h mqmda XOTX : GIQQTJG' nes- qoueo ' eounoq uo qoqeg moxqm- Iteg iooqs. “NH PIER 008° usea p121 93o ianqL qenbs° wees 'IPs- sdn—urS° dmnp peoxgo SueH m1v° 128 I... .00....0. Category: High (51—72) Medium (41—50) Low (30-40) Figure 3.——IQ Results 129 TABLE 8.--Factor Relationships--Number of Subjects in IQ Categories Relative to Age Level and Etiology. Age Subjects in IQ Category Level High Medium Low 8 & 9 6 8 2 10—-12 5 8 3 l3--15 5 9 5 16--18 2 8 5 19--21 5 6 10 Total 23 39 25 High Medium Low Etiology N % N % N % Brain Inj. 7 30.45 5 12.80 9 36.0 Familial 4 17.40 16 40.96 2 8.0 Mongoloid l 4.35 6 15.36 8 32.0 Unknown 9 39.15 8 20.48 6 24.0 Microceph. 2 8.70 4 10.24 0 0.0 130 seven fitness tests, for example, the high IQ group means are always below those of the medium and well above these of the low IQ group. For the skill items, however, the high group drops below the low group on three of the seven items. In attempting to explain the pattern demonstrated in the graphed results, some consideration of possible interaction of other factors is in order. It would seem that age would not be an important factor, since the three IQ categories are relatively evenly represented in all five age levels (Table 8)- There does appear to be some interrelationship with the etiological factor, however. The medium IQ group has a much higher percentage of the familial type, and a rela- tively smaller proportion of the brain injured than the high IQ group. As results by etiology show, this would tend to enhance the total group (medium IQ) scores. In addition to the intellectual disadvantage, the low IQ group is also comparatively high (percentage) in brain injured and mongoloid subjects, and very deficient in familial representation, which would tend to depress the overall (category mean) scores. Main Effects: Etiology Results based on this factor indicate that eti- ology of retardation may be an important consideration for 131 many types of motor performance, especially those generally involved in fitness testing. The microcephalic group was well above the overall mean on most test items but did drop below on the 300—yard run and some of the skill tasks. One of the subjects in this category was a dwarf, and because of the small number of subjects in the group, this individual's low scores (on those particular tests) depressed the group mean. The most consistent (above the overall mean on all fourteen tests) and capable (highest mean on six items) of the etiological categories was the familial group. The unknown etiology category generally scored below the familial and microcephalic groups and above the brain injured and mongoloid categories. As the graph shows, the pattern for this category is one of proximity to (above and below) the overall mean—-across the entire test battery. The brain injured and mongoloid categories were notably poorer on this test battery. The mongoloid group was especially deficient in the fitness items, while performing somewhat better on most skill items. The pattern for the brain injured group was somewhat the opposite. These results would tend to support the idea of programing for certain kinds of etiological groups among trainable samples. As the post hoc (Scheffé) comparison shows (Table 10), on the four gross motor tasks examined, 132 mow. omo. ooo. omm. «Hmo. Ham. omm. oussowuacmam om.a mo.~ oa.~ o~.H om.~ o~.H an.o owuuaumum m Hm.m am.oa no Ha.vm oo.om om Ho.m h>.m mo Nh.a om.m vo nv.a mm.v so oo.o mm.ma so hm.a mo.a om Haoum>o an.m 5H.o~ o mn.ov ha.oo o os.m om.n o vm.a mo.m o oo.~ oo.v o n~.v mm.ma o mm.a ha.~ o .nouoouowz nn.~ m~.o~ ma ov.am oo.v~ ea mm.m oo.o ma -.~ om.m oH mm.a mm.v ea Ha.o ma.va ma ~m.H om.a oa cacaomcoz mo.m om.oa om hm.~m mm.om om om.m ov.v om oo.a mo.m om oo.~ nm.m Hm ao.o om.va om hm.a Ho.a Hm .ncH sauna nm.~ Nv.o~ ma oH.om Ho.ov Hm oo.~ vo.o NN mH.H om.v om m~.o mm.e ma ~m.m mm.na ma vv.a mH.~ Hm HmaHaEum mo.m Hm.oa «N vo.mm om.~v mm om.~ om.m Nm mo.a vo.m Nm mm.o vo.v mm ~o.m om.va mm oH.H mn.a mm csocxco .Q.m m z .o.m m z .D.m N z .Q.m m z .Q.m m z .o.m N z .Q.m m z uncoouou kmoHOwum ocaxufix onwannwuo ocauumm cocoon oz roumu cocoon ruumu ocaaoucs damn uoonm «woo. «Hmo. men. aoHo. mmw. .mHo. oho. oucmuwuficowm om.v mo.m vH.H va.m ov.a mH.m w~.~ cuumaumum m mo.~e oa.nma om he.” oo.o so ov.~ om.o so mm.v ov.o om mo.n oa.ma mm Ho.ma mo.m~ mm vo.o~ om.v~ mm Hamum>o vv.~o ha.mma o mo.m mm.o o oo.H oo.o o o~.v mo.m o HS.~H om.ha o mm.ma mm.nm w hm.a~ no.av o .nomoouuwz om.mm oo.ooH ma v~.a mo.n ma HH.N mn.m oa mm.m oo.v ma mm.n om.MH ma oo.oH oo.oa ma hn.oa mn.o~ ma cacaoocoz oo.ov oa.sva on mn.a vm.b Hm mm.~ mm.m ma ~n.v ma.m om m~.o mo.oH om om.~a vo.m~ ma mm.na ~v.- ma .flcn cwmum o~.mm mm.saa om oo.H mm.o om mm.~ mo.o Hm mo.m mo.m mm .no.o om.vH om no.aa mv.m~ Hm mo.o~ m~.m~ - H6flHMEmm mo.mm oo.-a om o~.H oo.o mm Ho.~ mm.o mm Hm.v oa.m mu m~.o Hm.ma mm mv.aa av.o~ mm mn.ma mm.oa NN ssocxco .Q.m N z .o.w m z .o.m m z .D.w m z .Q.m M z .D.m m z .Q.m M 2 >Hommum0 cam pubsnoom zmmo pumwnmm unsure bosom Emmm mocmHmm was new dash omonm onus End xooHOAum .muasmmm hooHOAumcu.m wands TABLE 10.--Comparison 133 (Scheffé) of Significant F Means: Etiology. Etiology Task Category 2 3 4 5(Microcephalic) Broad Unknown 1 NS NS NS NS Jump Familial 2 NS NS NS Brain Inj. 3 NS NS Mongoloid 4 * Balance 1 NS NS NS NS Beam 2 NS NS NS 3 NS NS 4 * 25-Yard 1 NS NS NS NS Dash 2 NS * NS 3 NS NS 4 NS 300-Yard 1 NS NS * NS Run 2 NS * NS 3 NS NS 4 NS Catch on 1 NS * NS NS Bounce 2 * NS NS 3 NS NS 4 NS muaomom wooHoHumsl.o musoflm .111. Oflamnomoouoflz 2.2.. pHoHomcoz II:|: omnoncH sebum Hmflaaamm csocxco I "muomobmo XGTH- SIQQIIG' nes- q0393~ eounog uo qoieg O O I O a O O O I S .dec OZ LS 8 S 8 U. U. no 99 U...b P T: I I 0 U0 S In I .4. O O O U....A he . _ E M 1. .A E 81. D D. p. 1 1. H d We M. P a S P. r m m T. d BueH mlvo IN 135 m m e m m Hmnma o m e m m mHIoH m m o m e mHImH o m s n m NHIoH m m m m m m a m "Hm>mq mom hmuee emuem solom omlem mnnmm omsmm OH m.e N.mH m.mm e.mm H.bm maessm mo usmu mom o oH Hm mm mm 2 oaamnomoouoflz cHoHomsoz tmusflcH Hmfiawamm csocxco mmoaoflum sebum .cOHmeuomsH maosmm pmumHmm pom coaumpnmumm mo hmoHoquIl.HH Manda 136 the mongoloid category is consistently one of the mean pairs contributing to overall significant (F ratio) difference. For the catching task, however, it is the brain injured group (versus unknown, versus familial) which does significantly poorer. It is evident that (for the sample tested) mongol- oids especially need activities involving jumping, balance, running, and endurance, while brain injured subjects tend to be very poor in strength (jumping, sit ups) tasks and ball skills. Main Effects: Parent Education As the table and graph for this factor indicate, the rather interesting results were in favor (three at a significant level) of the low parent education group for all fourteen test items. In respect to type of task, the means were gener- ally more variable in the skill items for this factor. On three of the fitness items (arm hang, balance beam, and squat thrust) the mean scores were quite comparable, though all favored the low parent education group. The information of Table 12 shows relationships of parent education level to other factors, and gives some insight as to possible interaction of these factors. Relative to subjects' IQ status, the low parent education group appears to have some advantage (higher percentage of high and medium IQ subjects). What may be even more 1237 Nam. mea. sea. sea. .sao. .Nae. bbN. coronauasmam ao.o oo.~ vo.a on.~ ao.m mm.o m~.a oaumaumum m mm.m ov.ma mo am.vm mo.mm mm mo.m o>.m mo ~n.a vm.m mo nv.a am.v mo mo.o om.ma no om.a om.a mo aamum>o oa.m am.oa mv oh.vm oo.vv vv ~m.m om.o vv vv.a va.v me vm.o oo.< me oo.v oo.oa we mm.a No.~ no 30a mv.m ma.ma oe oa.mm mm.~m av hv.m om.m av mo.a nm.m 0v mo.a mm.m av ~>.o mn.ma av om.a oo.a ~v roam .o.w M 2 .o.m m z .o.m M 2 .m.m m z .o.m m z .o.m N z .o.m m z Snooouuu oCaxoax oCaabbauo ocauumm cocoon oz Loumo mocsom Loumo oca3oura aamm uoorm. .pm vacuum mmo. sooo. moo. aom. moo. ooa. ooh. condoauacmam oo.m mv.h moo. am.o on.~ oo.~ oo.o caumaumum m oa.mv am.nma on ov.a no.o mm hv.~ om.o mm av.v om.o mm on.n ma.ma no ~o.~a vm.o~ No cm.oa ha.v~ so aanuo>o m~.vv oo.oma av v~.a om.o mu on.~ hm.o me om.v vo.w me mm.n ov.va vs mo.ma v>.om me mo.ma no.vm mv 304 om.ov mo.hva mm om.a av.n oe v~.~ mm.o oe mv.v aa.o me mo.o on.aa ov oa.aa m~.v~ ov om.oa mo.m~ av 20a: .o.m m z .o.m m z .o.m m z .o.m m z .o.m m z .o.m m z .o.m m z huoooucu .pm vacuum sumo oumwuoom meo pumwumm unsure umsom Edom mocwamm moo yam mesh umoum mom: and .ubasmwm soauuuspm abounmuu.~a mamas x012- quqIIQ- 198' unnee- eounog uo qoqeg moqu 1193 uooqs unH PIPK 008 Used PIPK SZ isnlqm ienbs meeg °Ieg sdn-nis dmnp peoxg BueH wry 138 \ ‘~ c—__~.-—- --0‘ IX Figure 5.——Parent Education Results Category: High Low 139 TABLE 13.-—Factor Relationships: Parent Education, Eti- ology, IQ. Parent Education High (21_34) Low (0—20) N % N % Etiology: Familial 4 9.3 18 41.0 Brain Injured 14 32.6 7 16.0 Mongoloid 11 25.5 5 11.3 Unknown 11 25.5 11 25.0 Microcephalic 3 7.0 3 6.7 IQ: High 10 22.7 13 31.0 Medium 19 43.3 19 45.2 Low 15 34.0 10 23.8 140 TABLE l4.--Comparison of Percentage Distribution in Parent Education. General Parents Parents of Population of EMR TMR Sample Education % % N % 4 Years College 10.0 2.4 14 9.1 1-3 Years College 10.0 1.4 20 13.0 High School 30.0 8.0 40 26.0 Grades 10-11 22.0 40.2 29 18.8 Grades 7-9 14.0 31.0 35 22.7 Less Than 7 Years 14.0 17.0 16 10.4 Percentages for general population and EMR parents from: G. L. Rarick, J. Widdop and G. Broadhead, "Environ- mental Factors Associated With The Motor Performance and Physical Fitness of Educable Mentally Retarded Children," University of Wisconsin, 1967. (Mimeographed report.) 141 important, is the etiological representation in the respective categories. The relatively high percentage of familial, and lower proportion of brain injured and mongoloid subjects found in the low parent education group would definitely enhance group scores for that category. Another very possible explanation for category variance may be related to differences in environmental restrictions between the two groups. In other words, the subjects whose parents are more educated may be given relatively less opportunity to interact with and motorically explore their surroundings ("over-protected")--because they are mentally handicapped. In the low education group, there is a greater incidence of parental and sibling retardation, and such a condition is more "acceptable," which often means fewer environmental restrictions for the involved child. This idea seems to have some support in the specific kinds of tasks (running, catching, throwing) where differences were greatest between the groups. Table 14 indicates that the distribution by edu- cational level for the parents of this TMR sample is quite comparable to the distribution for the normal population. (An exception is "grades 7—9" leve1--a reflection of the incidence of familial retardation.) There is, however, a notable contrast when comparing these two distributions to the EMR parent education levels. 142 Main Effects: Dominance There were two tasks (broad jump and sit ups) where mean differences reached the .05 level of signifi- cance. Post hoc analysis of these items showed the left dominant group to be involved (higher) in all significant comparisons (Left versus Right, Left versus Opposed for the broad jump; Left versus Opposed for the sit ups task). One of the basic reasons for the lack of other significant findings is undoubtedly related to the small numbers of subjects in some categories. The results, while not highly significant, do give one the general impression that the establishment of unilateral dominance may be an important factor in the development of game skills for trainable retardates. The left dominant group had most of the higher mean scores. (There is an etiological consideration in these results, in that five of the six microcephalic individuals were in this category.) The right dominant group scored very close to the overall mean on all items, as the graph for this factor illustrates. (Proximity to the overall mean in this case is generally a reflection of the large number of subjects in this category, as compared to the other three.) The mixed dominance category scored quite well on most of the fitness items (except arm hang). The picture mmv. mm.~ mmo. oma. Had. mmN. MNH. oonmowuwcowm 143 om.o Hm.H mv.~ vm.a no.~ hn.a mm.a oauuwunum m am.m Hm.aa mm mv.qm om.mm mm mo.m mh.m Nm mn.a mm.m mm we.” vm.v mm oo.w h~.ma mm mm.~ hm.a mm Hauuo>o Nm.c Na.ma ma wo.ov mo.om NH mm.m mn.h Na mv.o m>.¢ ~H a~.o mm.v NH mo.m oo.mH NH om.” so.~ NH uuoq vm.n mm.ma o mm.~m hm.~n m mm.~ om.m w mm.a na.v w vm.o om.e o mv.m mm.ma w na.a mm.a w noxwz mm.m vm.ma ma mm.m~ ov.o~ ma mo.m mH.v ma HH.~ ma.m ma o~.~ om.m NH m~.h mo.ma ma om.u mm.H ma vmnoamo mm.~ oh.mH Nm ma.vm hv.Hv Hm mn.~ mm.m Hm ah.a mn.m Hm ~v.a mm.v mm mo.o mm.va Nm om.a om.a am unmwm .o.m m z .o.m m z .n.m m z .o.m m z .n.m m z .o.m m z .o.m m z muooouao oococaaoa mconax mcwannwuo m:fluumm mucsom oz noumo mucdom soumu ocwzouna Hana uoozm 35. So. mom. 28. .08. :8. SN. 6053333 h~.o ~m.~ mm.o 5H.~ ma.m m>.m . cm.H cauuwuuum m m~.mv Ha.hma we mv.a oo.n «m mv.m Hm.m om vv.v mm.o mm hh.n m~.ma mm me.- Hw.w~ an Hw.mH hm.m~ Hm Haouo>o mm.am m~.mma ma o~.H ma.m NH no.~ hw.m NH mm.v ~m.m Na mm.m mm.ha NH mm.ma mm.wm ma m~.Hm mh.om NH puma ma.mm mm.hma m mm.H mv.o m om.H mm.w o hm.m mm.n o mo.v om.ma m mo.m na.om m mo.om oo.o~ m pox“: ma.mm Hm.oma AA o>.H mv.n ma hm.~ mm.o ma om.v mm.w ma mm.m ~m.oa ma mm.~a na.- NH mm.o~ mm.w~ ma vmnommo -.Hv mv.ova av Nv.a va.n Hm mv.m oH.m om Hm.m hm.m Hm mo.h m~.ma mm NH.~H ~m.v~ ,mv om.wa oo.a~ an annex .o.m m z .o.m m z .o.m m z .a.m m z .a.m m z .o.m m z 5...... m z auououao unansweoo cam oumwnoom nmmo onmwnmm umsune usagm Emmm mocmamm me: new mesh coonm mam: EH4 .muasmmm mosdcwsoouu.mu munch HDIH' etqqrxa- nea- unavo- sounog uo qoqeo' MOJQL- Itea nooqs' UUH PIER 00E“ usea plex sz- aanqL qenbs° UIBBQ "[28 ‘ sdn-nts- dmnp peoxg° bueH mxv- Category: Right Opposed Mixed Left I—O—uI—‘— Figure 6.—-Dominance Results 145 m.qH H.4m 4.Hm mHmamm mo w NH AmocmcHEoo HmnmumHHcs mo xUMHV om Hm z Hmuoa v H H H mH HNIImH m H N m mHIImH m a H H H OH mHlan m m H m mHnnoH H m OH m a m "mod umoq uanm ummH cmtz pamHm omtz uanm mosmcHan lummq -ummq -ugonm -numq nemtz nugmnm nugmHm uoomuncmm ummH ommommo omtz uzmHm "muommumo .Hw>mH mod mg .mpoanSm mo HmnESZIImmHHommumo mosmsHanln.mH mqmde 146 changes somewhat for skill tasks, however, and scores are below the overall mean on four of the seven items. One of the most interesting aspects in the results for this factor is the pattern for the opposed dominance group. Except for a few of the fitness tasks, this group does relatively poorly on the entire battery, and especially so on the skill tests. As Table 16 shows, the incidence (percentage) of left dominance was approximately double that which has been reported for the normal population. One of the interesting findings in this sample was the fact that five of the six microcephalics were left dominant (the other youngster was in the opposed category). Almost one-fourth of the sample was in one of the two categories (mixed, opposed) which evidenced a lack of unilateral dominance. For the age range represented, this is much higher than would be expected, and further illustrates the need for greater emphasis in training for this development. Main Effects: Growth The Meredith Growth Charts (boy and girl) were used to obtain ranges in height and weight, by age (see Tables 19 and 20). To categorize subjects for this factor, the age was found on the proper (sex) table, and the subjeCt's height was compared to the average range for his chronological age. If his height was within that range he was given an "A" for height. If his height was below 147 that range, he was assigned as "S" (short) and if above, a "T" (tall). After this height rating was recorded, the subject was also given a weight rating. This was done by locating the "A" column (average height range) which contained his measured height (if his height was not in the range for his chronological age, the age column closest to his C.A. is found), then moving at that level across to the weight ratings, to find if his measured weight was in the light (L), average (A), or heavy (H) column. Following this procedure, each subject could be rated and assigned to one of nine possible height (by age)——weight (by height) groups. (There were eight actual categories, since the sample had no subjects in the tall—light category.) The data is tabulated (Table 21) to show the results of category (height-weight) placement for each of the five age levels of the sample. As the totals (Table 22) for these growth measures indicate, the subjects of this sample were definitely subnormal in the general evaluation of height and weight (except for the occurrence. of heavy, or overweight subjects). Due to the large number (eight) of categories, the data for this factor is presented on two different graphs (the same overall mean is used to show category variance on the tests). The first graph consists of the three heights with average weight ratings. It would appear that for most of the motor tasks, the factor of height (at average weight) is positively related to performance. 148 The second graph provides a comparison of the short and average height groups with the weight "extremes" (light, and heavy for each height). Since there were no subjects in the tall-light category, the tall-heavy cate- gory was not included on this graph. Relative to height by weight, these results would support the statement that outside of average limits, weight is negatively related to performance (i.e., underweight group generally performs better than overweight group, for similar height cate- gories). As one would expect, the short-heavy group is especially handicapped in the jumping and running tasks. (Although results are not plotted for the tall—heavy subjects, they are consistently poor [- .5 to - 1.0 S.D.] across the seven fitness items.) The results are quite different for the skill tasks, however, and weight "extremes" seem to have less effect on the results of those tests. In the overall analysis, groups were significantly different on four of the fourteen tasks. (The small number of subjects in some categories undoubtedly prevented further significant results.) The post hoc analysis (Table 18) shows that the height categories (short and average) which contained the heavy individuals generally contributed to the significant (between means) differ- ences o 149 :mooo. hmo. amHo. NHm. hvm. «omo. amoo. condoHuficmHm vo.m mo.N mm.N 0N.H mv.o VH.~ hm.m UHumwuuum m mm.Nv QH.hMH ow mv.H mm.m mm nv.N hm.w Nm Hv.v mm.w mm 05.5 mH.MH vm mo.NH mm.wN Nm mm.mH om.v~ mm HHMM0>O oa.mv mn.HwH m oH.N nm.n m vo.e nm.m m mo.o oo.e m no.m mm.m m mv.mN no.mH m No.NH om.HH N >>nu=|HHna ON.Nv oo.m0H m om.H oe.m m vm.H om.w m Nm.v om.h m Nm.h 0N.mH m Nm.mH oo.mm m vo.m~ oo.mm m .um>ao:n.uo>4 m5.Hv NH.NNH NH mv.H om.o NH «N.N Nm.o NH mv.v 0N.m pH mm.n mm.QH hH om.NH mm.mN NH Nm.oH mm.vN NH .um>¢n.uo>4 NH.mN om.«HH m mm.H nv.m m om.N mm.n w mm.¢ nH.m o ov.m om.HH w vm.NH ov.mm m mN.HN om.oN w uanHu.uo>4 Hm.bH mn.m0N w NH.H Nn.m o mN.H oo.m m mn.H mN.N w NH.> om.NH m NN.m 5H.mH o ov.0N NH.bH o m>aumuuuosm oo.mN vm.mmH HH mH.H wH.h NH mo.N NH.w NH wv.v mn.w NH nm.m hH.HH NH mm.m Hm.HN HH Hv.NH mm.mH NH .um>¢uuuonm ov.o¢ mn.mNH mN om.H mo.n wN mo.N NH.h wN nw.v mm.w 5N nv.m vs.mH 5N av.HH mm.mN wN wv.mH NN.vm hN unowquuuonm .o.m m z .o.m m z .o.m m z .n.m m z .o.m m z .o.m m z .a.m m 2 E333 5530 cam can» con :mmo oum>nmN umzuca unsvm Edam muconm ma: uHm mean pmoum and: EH< .muHsmmm £u3ouo|l.hH MAmo mm.o No.0N m oo.Hv Nm.mN m mm.o Nm.m m mm.o NH.H m oo.o oo.m m oo.v oo.mH m mH.H mn.N m >>mmmuHHca m¢.v oc.mH n oN.oN om.ov m mN.m ov.v m vm.H ov.v m mN.H ON.v m mm.N 0N.oH m Nm.H oo.H m .um>uozu.uo>< oH.m Hm.mH oH No.Nn mN.mm .mH om.N mm.v NH mm.H vN.v NH vm.H mm.v NH mo.m em.VH NH mm.H oo.N NH .uo>< NH.m om.mH o mm.mn No.vv m vN.N om.o m Hm.o Nm.v o 00.0 oo.m o Nv.N mm.mH w mo.H N@.N o unuHHI.uo>< m¢.N mm.ON m HN.mm NH.mm o Nm.m NH.N w mv.N NH.m m mm.o om.v o 0N.oH NH.mH w mN.H om.N o m>mo=nuuonm MN.N Nm.mH mH NH.Nm mm.NN NH mo.m Nm.w NH wm.H mm.m NH mm.H Nm.m MH cw.o mm.MH NH Hm.o oo.H NH .uo>4cuuonm mN.m Na.mH mN om.wm vv.wv NN Nm.N Nm.m NN mN.H mm.m mN mw.H mH.v mN NH.o wa.mH mN NH.H oo.H mN unawquuuonm .o.m m z .o.m m z .o.m m z .o.m m z .o.m m z .a.m m z .o.m m z .Cououuo nuzouo ucquHx OCHHnnHuo vsHuumm condom oz noumu cocoon coumu mcHzounB HHnm uoozm .H.v.ucouv .NH Manda 151 mz N m2 m2 0 m2 m2 m2 m m2 m2 m2 m2 H mz « x « « m m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 N cam m2 m2 m2 mz mz . mz H wnmwuoom mz N m2 m2 8 m2 m2 .4, m m2 m2 m2 m2 w m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 N Dwayne m2 m2 4 m2 m2 m2 m2 H umsvm mz N m2 m2 0 m2 mz mz m mz m2 m2 m2 v m2 * m2 « k m m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 N menu m2 m2 - m2 m2 m2 4 m2 H cmoum mz N .um>muHHme mz * m m>mmml.nm>4 m2 m2 m2 m .um>4n.um>< m2 m2 m2 m2 4 uanHn.um>4 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m N>mmmuunonm m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 N .uw>¢uuuosm m2 m2 4 m2 m2 mz . H uanHuuuonm mama sum AN>mmmuHHmavm N m m H m N Naommumo guzonw xmma "£u3ouw “mammz m unmonHcmHm mo Awmmonomv COmHHMQEOUII.mH mqmda 152 mmHHommumu ucmHoB mmmnm>fillmuH3mmm QDBOHOII.N ousmHm mmmum>¢ummmum>¢ mmmum>¢lunonm "whommumu XOTX BIQQTIG 198 Hones eounoq uo qoqeo moqu Itea nooqs UUH 919K 00$ usea plex sz 0 C . O O O S 8 S 8 V .b E I I I n I 1 o m e . . 9 1. fl 0.. H 8 .a e L a S D U m m m 5 n d s 3 IN 2153 mmeuuxm ucmHmZIlmuHsmom :u3OHOII.m musmHm ..:... >>mmz|mmmum>< Iliul ucmHHImmmum>d 9:17. N>mmmnuuozm uanHsuuocm "Naommumo XOTX ' arqqrxa neg - uoneo aounog uo qoqeg MOJQL IIPa noous UUH PIER 00C o I O O O 0 Z S H S 8 V C.. b P T. I J n T. .4 O m K p. . . 9 E .4 n D. H J 8 d 9 D. Tu a S C U U. P n 5 G 1 m m E n d S S U. 3. |>< 154 TABLE l9.——Growth Category Assignment——Height and Weight Data for Boys. Height Weight Age A A H (Aver. Range) Light Average Heavy 18+ 66--72 129, less 130-175 176, more 17 65.5-—7l 124, less 125—170 171, more 16 64.5--70 119, less 120-160 161, more 15 65-—69 109, less 110-150 151, more 14 60--67 99, less 100-135 136, more 13 58--63 86, less 87—120 121, more 12 56--61 76, less 77—107 108, more 11 54--59 69, less 70—95 96, more 10 52.5-—57 64, less 65-85 86, more 9 51--55 56, less 57-80 81, more 8 48--53 51, less 52-70 71, more Height and weight data adapted from: H. V. Meredith and V. B. Knott, Folder For Boys" 1967). Association, (Washington, D.C.: "Height Weight Interpretation National Education 155 TABLE 20.——Growth Category Assignment—~Height and Weight Data for Girls. Height Weight Age A L A H (Aver. Range) Light Average Heavy 18+ 63.5-—67.5 119, less 120-150 151, more 17 63.5--67.5 116, less 117-147 148, more 16 63.5—-67.5 114, less 115-145 146, more 15 63-—67 109, less 110-140 141, more 14 62--66 99, less 100-135 136, more 13 60—-64.5 89, less 90—125 126, more 12 57--62 79, less 80-110 111, more 11 55--59.5 69, less 70—95 96, more 10 53—-57.5 64, less 65—85 86, more 9 51--55 56, less 57-77 78, more 8 49--53 51, less 52—70 71, more Height and weight data adapted from: H. V. Meredith and V. B. Knott, "Height Weight Interpretation Folder For Girls" (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1967). 156 TABLE 21.--Subjects in Growth Categories, By Age Level. Growth 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Category ESQESEEEE Age 8 & 9 4 2 2 o 6 o o 2 0 10—-12 7 3 o 1 1 2 o o 0 13--15 6 3 o 3 2 3 o 1 2 16--18 2 3 0 2 5 1 o 2 0 19--21 8 2 4 O 4 2 O O 0 157 TABLE 22.——TMR Subjects in Height and Weight Categories, as Compared to Expected (Normal Curve) Results. Height (By Age) Short Average Tall Expected N 17 53 17 Actual (TMR) 47 32 7 Weight (By Height) Light Average Heavy Expected N 17 53 17 Actual (TMR) 34 36 16 158 It would appear that there are some definite relationships between the factors of growth and motor performance of trainable retardates, and use of this technique on a larger sample might be worthwhile. Main Effects: Activity Program The subjects from one of the schools had been involved in a regular physical education (thirty minutes daily) program for the school year (eight months, Sep— tember through June) preceding the testing of the sample. This was the first year that a physical education teacher had been employed at the school, and results should be considered on that basis. The program included instruction in game skills, but the general emphasis was on locomotor and fitness development. The subjects attending the other (no physical education) school were provided frequent activity periods, under the direction of their regular classroom teachers. It was concluded that an analysis of the data for this factor would be more reasonable if done by age levels. This was especially necessary for this sample, since the age distribution was quite different for the two schools (at the youngest and oldest levels), as illustrated in Table 23. The very limited number of subjects in many (age level) categories has undoubtedly restricted more signifi- cant findings for this factor. In those instances where 159 significant differences resulted (two at the 8 and 9 year level, and three at the 13-15 year level), all were in favor of the "physical education" groups. At 8 and 9 years level, the "physical education" group had better mean scores on all fourteen tasks. At the 10-12 year level, the "physical education" group performed better on eleven of the fourteen items. This category had better mean scores on seven tests at the 13-15 year level, on nine tests at the 16-18 year level, and on eleven items at the 19—21 year level. The "physical education" groups seemed to have a general advantage on the fitness items, where the results (all age levels) showed them to have the better mean score on 28 of the 35 measures. While cause-effect inference can not be made on the basis of this data, the results do give support to the existence of a positive effect on performance through regular physical education classes. It appears that the results of programing are more quickly effected at rela— tively earlier ages. One might predict that the advantages realized in one year of programing with these TMR subjects would become more significant with continued exPosure to regular physical education. 160 TABLE 23.——Number of Subjects in Activity Program, by Age Level. School Physical No Physical Program Education Education Age 8 & 9 l3 3 10--12 10 6 13—-15 12 8 l6--l8 7 9 19--21 3 17 161 moa. mmN. me. vmo. mNN. .Nmo. «mvo. QUCMUHuHcon Noo. Hv.H Nm.N mm.m Hw.H mN.m mm.v oHumHumum h oN.m No.NH vH cv.NN mm.mH wH mm.m mm.v mH HH.N mm.H «H mo.N vo.N VH mN.N Nv.m mH No.0 no.0 mH HHmum>o vo.N oo.NH m mo.N Nm.N m mm.N Nm.H m 00.0 oo.o m mm.H mm.H m mm.H Nw.H m oo.o 00.0 m .cm .mhzm oz om.m mo.NH HH mH.mN mN.mN NH oo.m mN.m NH HH.N mm.N HH OH.N oo.m HH om.o Nv.HH NH om.o NN.o NH .vm .manm .o.m m z .o.m M 2 .o.m m z .o.m m z .o.m m z .o.m m z .o.m m z huomoumu NuH>Huo< mconHx mcHHnnHuo wcHuumm coumu mucsom coumo mcH3ounB HHmm uoozm mom. mvm. OHN. HOH. mma. NHH. va. oocuoHuHcmHm mm.o Nm.o mm.H mo.m Nooo. mm.N No.0 UHumHumum m NN.v¢ mm.mmH mH mw.H mH.m «H No.N eH.m vH mo.m mH.v wH vN.m wo.oH wH mm.m we.mH mH oo.HN No.om mH HHmuo>o mo.mH oo.mNH m mm.o mo.m m HN.o om.v N om.H om.H m mm.m oo.oH m MN.H oo.NH m 0N.mH Nm.HN m .nm .mxzm oz No.Nv NH.N¢H NH mN.H mm.N HH HH.N Nv.m NH oo.m MN.v MH Hm.m mo.0H MH Nm.m mH.HN NH mH.NN Nm.Nm NH .Um .mwsm .Q.m m z .D.m m z .D.m m z .Q.m M z .o.m M 2 .Q.m N z .Q.m M z whomoumu NuH>Huo< ammo Uumwnoom ammo cumyumN unsuna unsum Emma woCMHmm mm: uHm mesh omoum mam: Eu< .Am a m mmmHuu¢-n.eN m4m¢a XOTX anqrxa 398 H3393 eounoa uo qoqeg moxqm 1198 nooqs una PIER 00$ usea p191 sz ASHJHL qenbs mesa '198 sdn -n:s dmnp peoxg BueH mJV 162 Category: Physical Education————- No Physical Ed. -l.0 Figure 9.—vActivity Program Results-Ages 8 & 9 163 ONm. NmN. mom. mvN. How. moo. ONO. mocmoHuHcmHm Nv.o OH.O moo. HH.O ON.O Nm.o mo.o OHumHuaum m om.N om.oN vH H0.0N oo.HN VH om.N Nv.o mH Nm.H Nm.m VH HO.H No.m mH mo.N Nm.vH vH Om.H NN.H mH HHmuo>o mv.m mm.oH m Nm.ON ON.mH m mm.H oc.o m NH.N Om.m m mN.N mm.m o Nv.m mm.NH o mm.H NH.H o .nm .mxnm .oz mm.H mN.oN O OH.NN oo.mN m vm.N om.o OH Hm.H vv.m O ON.H Om.m m «N.N mm.mH m Om.H mm.H m .vm .mxnm .o.m m z .O.m m z .O.m m z .o.m m z .O.m m z .o.m m z .o.m m z mConHx ocHHnnHuo vcHuumm Loumu moczom zuumu mcH3ou£B HHmm uoonm NON. OON. NNH. ONN. mmH. How. mHH. oocuoHuHcme NO.H mm.H oo.H NH.O vm.N ON.O mm.N owumHuuum h mv.om mo.mNH NH HN.H mO.N mH NH.N ov.o mH OO.m mm.N mH Nm.N No.mH mH Nm.m ov.0N mH Nv.mH Nm.mN mH HHouw>o vm.mm oo.HvH m om.o mm.m O mm.H ow.m m ON.m oo.m o mm.N NH.OH o ON.m om.vN m Nw.vH ow.NH m .vm .mhnm oz Nm.NN mv.mHH N mw.H Om.N m ON.N om.o OH HN.v NN.N O O0.0 oo.OH m OH.m om.NN m mo.mH om.em OH .Um .wmnm .o.m m z .o.m m z .o.m m z .o.m m z .o.w m z .o.m m z .n.m M 2 wuoooumo NuH>Huu¢ cam numwnOOM nmmo numwumN umsune umsvm Emmm mocmHmm was uHm QEdo Umoum ocmm EH4 .HNH1I0H mmmHuU // \\ \ .> / / / \ \ \ \> / / / // o. m <. H \\ o \ 8 \ u \ m \* O Ln O Physical Education No Physical Ed. ———— -1.0 Figure 10.*—Activity Program Results-Ages 10-12 165 Nmm. NON. HNN. ONN. mom. aocmoHuHcmHm O0.0 No.o Om.H OO.H O0.0 OHumHuaum m Hv.m ON.OH ON.m ON O0.0 om.e Nm.o OO.v ON ON.m OH.NH OO.H om.N ON HHmu0>o om.m O0.0H ON.N O NO.o Om.v oo.o oo.m O OH.v OO.mH om.H Om.N O .vm .mxzm oz om.n O0.0H HH.N NH OO.H mN.v oo.o NO.v HH vv.m oo.OH N0.0 ON.N NH .om .mhnm .o.m m .o.m z .O.m m .o.m m z .O.m m .o.m m z anommuuo NuH>Huo< vconHx mcHuuam noumu mossom coumu ocH3ouna HHom uoonm omO. «NHO. omm. va. «Oo. mocnoHuHcmHm vo.o No.O OO.o OO.H N0.0 UHumHumum m Nv.Hv ON.OOH Nv.m ON Ho.m N0.0 mo.OH mO.NH ON mm.OH O0.0N HO.HN mo.NN OH HHmu0>o oo.Ov O0.00H ON.N O NN.O Om.m «0.0 ON.OH O ON.OH OO.¢N OH.ON O0.0H O .vm .mNnm oz NN.ov N0.00H No.m NH Ov.v O0.0 VN.OH Om.vH NH O0.0H OH.NO oo.ON NO.vm HH .vm .mmzm .o.w m .o.m z .o.m m .o.m m z .Q.m m .n.m m z muomoumo NuH>Huu4 cam numwnoom swan oumwnmN amoune umsvm Emwm wocmHmm mm: uHm dado nmoum man: and .HmHuumH mmoao amumoum NuH>Huoo oo.q oo.ON m O0.0N NN.HO O OO.N ON.O O OO.H NN.O O NO.O ON.O O O0.0 OO.OH O OO.H OO.N O .OO .OOnO oz NO.H ON.ON O HN.OO O0.00 O No.N N0.0 O 00.0 oo.O O oo.o oo.O O OO.N O0.0H O Oo.H NO.H O .OO .mNnm .o.m m z .o.O m z .o.m m z .O.O m z .o.O m z .o.m m z .O.O m z anomouuo NuH>Huo< OconHx OcHHnnHuo OcHquO cuuoo wucsom guano mcHzouze HHOO uoocm NOO. OOO. NOH. NHH. OOH. OON. OOH. wocmoHOHcmHO Om.o OH.o NO.N HO.N ON.o Oo.o NO.N oHumHumum m O0.00 No.OHH OH OH.H NN.O OH Ho.N o0.0 OH HH.O ON.N OH NO.H NO.OH OH N0.0H OH.OO OH oo.OH O0.0H OH HHouo>o HN.OO N0.0NH O vo.H NH.O O OO.H ON.O O OH.O NO.O O O0.0 ON.NH O OO.HH NN.HO O NO.NH HH.NH O .OO .OOnO oz NO.NH NH.OOH O HO.H H0.0 O No.N OO.N O O0.0 Oo.O O O0.0 oo.OH O ON.OH O0.0N O H0.0H O0.0N O .OO .uxzm .0.0 m z .a.m m z .O.O m z .O.O m z .o.O m z .o.m m z .o.m m z Ouomuumo OuH>Huo< cam cumuloom cmmo oumwnmN umsuce umzcm Emmm mocmHmm mm: uHm mean omoum mam: End .HOHsuOH mmOOO sauooum OuH>Huo¢uu.NN OHOON XOTH 9188110 198 H3193 eounog uo qoqeg MOIqL 1198 30088 UHH 919K 008 8898 8191 sz QSHIqL qenbs sdn-nrs dmnp peo:g BueH MIV Category: Physical Education No Physical Ed. Figure 12.-Activity Program Results-Ages 16—18 169 NOO. OOO. HOH. NON. OOO. OOO. oocmuHOHcOHm OOO. NOO. OO.N OH.H HN.O NOO. oHumHumum m OO.N O0.0N HN ON.ON OH.OO HN OO.N N0.0 HN OO.H O0.0 HN O0.0 O0.0 HN NN.O OO.NH HN ON.H OO.N ON HHmuo>o NN.O ON.ON NH O0.0N H0.00 NH O0.0 O0.0 NH NH.H OH.O NH O0.0 O0.0 NH ON.H ON.NH NH HO.H OO.N OH .om .mNzo oz OO.N ON.HN O OO.HO OO.NO O O0.0 ON.O O O0.0 O0.0 O O0.0 O0.0 O O0.0 ON.OH O ON.H OO.N O .om .mOnm .O.m m z .O.m m z .O.m m z .0.0 m z .O.m m z .0.0 m z .o.m m z Ouomoumo HuH>Huo< mconHx OcHHooHuo OcHoumm noomo oocsom noumo OcHoncN HHom ooozm OOH. OOO. ONO. OOO. NON. ONO. OOO. oocooHOHoOHm NH.H H0.0 HN.O O0.0 OO.H H0.0 HN.O oHumHumum m NO.OO ON.OOH ON OO.H O0.0 ON ON.N O0.0 ON ON.O OH.O HN OH.O OH.OH ON N0.0H OO.NN HN HN.OH N0.0N HN HHmuo>o ON.OO OH.HOH OH NO.H O0.0 OH NH.N NH.O NH OH.O O0.0 NH O0.0 O0.0H OH O0.0H OH.NN NH NN.OH O0.0H NH .om .mOnm oz OH.OO ON.HNH O O0.0 O0.0 O OO.N N0.0 O OO.N O0.0 O O0.0 O0.0H O OO.HH OO.HO O OO.NH oo.ON O .om .mOON .o.m m z .o.m m z .o.w m z .o.m m z .o.m m z .o.m m z .n.m m z Ouomouoo NuH>Huo¢ cam oumruooO nmmo oumwnmN umsunh uosvm £80m oucmHmm was “SO 95:... Homoum man: and .HHNquH OOOOO souooum OuH>HuoHuodtI.mH musmHm nilll. .om HOUHmmsm oz COHumosom HMUHmmzm 170 "wuommumo N\ //L.I.|..|.l..|o/Ilk w\\ //\ II! C O O O O O D O O O O O O H G 8 D D L S Ct Z S S H V. T. I E E P U.. U1 0 C.. b T: 1 I o 1. 1 .4 1 1 o 0 n 1 o m N. G. O O O O ..A p. _ P O. U. U. M 1. _.A E 1. H D. H T. P I .d e a O H l D. L S P. u U E D. U. m 5 _.L G I H T. H o. n d O n S S n u H 1 u o 8 IX m.o 171 Discussion of Findings The Motor Performance Test Battery. Results would support the idea that performance on tests of the type used to measure gross motor fitness are quite different from the game skill tasks, relative to the influence of some of the factors investigated. This is especially evident for the factors of age, sex, and etiology. For the factor of age, significant results were generally on skill tasks, whereas for the factors of sex and etiology, significant differ- ences were basically on the gross motor fitness tests. These findings would definitely strengthen an argument for the inclusion of both types of tasks on any battery which purports to give a general measure of motor performance. The results also provide evidence which gives further insight into some of the individual test items. The arm hang test appears to be more a measure of relative body weight than of gross motor fitness (component of arm and grip strength). One might conclude this by noting that the arm hang was the only task where the younger (age level) subjects scored higher than the older groups, and that the short and heavy groups (Growth factor) scored lowest on this item. On the basis of these findings, this investigator would recommend the exclusion of the arm hang test from the motor performance battery. Results further indicate that some modification of the catching tasks is in order. For the sample tested, the direct catch and the catch on one bounce items were 172 not discriminatory enough, since too many subjects (older age levels) achieved perfect scores. A possible change in the administration of these items would involve use of a smaller (e.g., tennis) ball, and/or an increase in distance the ball travels through the air. Results do indicate (Table 2) that catching on one bounce is easier than the direct (air) catch for the age range sampled. The remaining tests appear to be adequate and might be retained in the motor performance battery. One necessary requisite, however, would be the further evaluation of those tests (squat thrust, shooting a ball, catch on the bounce, batting) where reliability coef- ficients were low. Factors Influencing Motor Performance. A review of results for each of the eight factors is presented in the summary (Chapter V) of this study. It is evident that several of the factors are worthy of further investigation. On the basis of the results of this study, there are some factors which should be essential considerations for certain aspects of activity programming, and for con— structing TMR performance standards (norms). It would appear that planning of the program content (activities) should be influenced by the etio- logical composition of the group (class), and that the prescription of activities could be related to individual growth and dominance patterns. 173 In establishing motor performance standards, it would seem imperative to differentiate between mongoloid subjects and other trainables, at least for gross motor fitness tasks. Age and sex would also be important factors in constructing performance norms for the trainable mentally retarded. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The two basic purposes of this study were: 1. To establish the utility of a test battery for evaluating the motor performance of a sample of trainable retardates, ages eight through twenty-one. 2. To select specific environmental and organic factors which appear to produce differential effects on performance of the motor tasks in the test battery. The eighty-eight subjects who provided data for this study were enrolled in school programs for the trainable mentally retarded, in one of the two cities of Lansing, or East Lansing, Michigan. An evaluation of individual motor performance was obtained with a fourteen-item motor test battery, which included seven gross motor fitness tasks and seven basic game skills. The tests included several motor tasks selected from the literature, and some new tests devised especially for the stated purposes of this study. 174 175 Eight factors were selected for investigation: the two environmental factors of type of activity program, and parent education level; and the six organic factors of age, sex, IQ, dominance, etiology, and growth. Data collected for each subject was recorded on individual CDC 3600 computer cards, and the one-way analysis of variance with unequal number of replications permitted (UNEQl routine) was used in the data analysis. If the F ratio showed significance within the .05 level, the Scheffé test was used to determine which pairs of category means were significantly different. Relative to the main effects of the factors investigated, the findings of the study may be summarized as follows: 1. Organic Factors and Motor Performance. Age: Except for the youngest age levels, there is much less (than normal) difference in per- formance on gross motor fitness tasks among various age categories. This pattern is not consistent for game skill items, however, where differences are more significant and age level may be considered a definite positive influence on performance. Sex: Males performed significantly better than females on fitness tasks (except for dynamic balance). This is in general agreement with findings for normal and EMR samples. While 176 differences may be considered significant, it should be noted that the mean score differ- ences are not so extreme as those found in higher functioning (mental) groups. There is a definite connection between type of task and performance by sex. On the game skills (as opposed to gross motor fitness tasks) for example, female mean scores may approximate or exceed male means. IQ: Many children who are in the higher intelli— gence (IQ of 51, or more) levels of trainable functioning groups are brain injured or may have emotional problems which serve to restrict their average motor scores. In the comparison of IQ groups, the medium (40 to 50) category performed better than the high group, and significantly better on some motor tasks than the low (30 to 40) IQ group. Etiology: Those children in the familial category were generally more physically capable than those trainable retardates whose etiology was unknown, brain injured, or mongolism. Many etiological relationships are specific to the type of motor performance evaluated. Mongol- oid individuals are relatively more capable in skill tasks than on gross motor fitness 177 tasks. Since several kinds of motor per— formances appear to be related to etiology, program content or planning should be influ— enced by etiological considerations. Dominance: The establishment of unilateral dominance (hand and foot) appears to be positively related to motor performance, and those who have an opposed (opposite hand and foot) dominance were generally poorer in motor skills. The incidence of left handedness and the lack of unilateral dominance was found to be much higher in this trainable sample than what is reported for the general population. Growth: The trainable children of this sample were found to be generally subnormal in growth measures and especially deficient in standing height. There was a generally positive effect of height upon motor ability. For children of similar height (and age), weight had a nega— tive effect on performance in tests of gross motor fitness. 2. Environmental Factors and Motor Performance. Parent Education: Level of parent education seemed to have a negative effect on performance level, as those in the low group scored better on all motor tasks. This effect is at least 178 partially influenced by etiological factors, however. Activity Program: Regular physical education classes exerted a positive influence on the motor performance of trainables in this sample. Based on the application of the test battery to this sample, it would appear to be a useful instrument for evaluating motor performance levels of trainable retar- dates, ages eight through twenty-one. The exclusion of the arm hang test, and modification of the catching tasks would be recommended as possible adaptations of the battery used. Further investigation of some items, as to validity and reliability with trainable subjects, would also be prerequisite to gathering normative data for the motor tasks in the test battery. Of the eight factors investigated, the organic factors of age, sex, etiology, and IQ, and the environ- mental factor of activity (physical education) program, appear most worthy of further study for constructing category standards and for planning more effective activity programs. Conclusions Subject to the limitations cited in the study, the following conclusions appear to be warranted: 179 1. Evaluation of Motor Performance of the Trainable Retardate. a. One of the difficulties encountered with retardates at this mental level, is their lack of understanding regarding score totals (number concepts) or timed repe- titions. This concept is as essential a consideration as task (simplicity) se- lection. When one realizes that the motivation to achieve motorically among normals is based upon competition (with norms, peers, or one's self), the possible influence of this aspect of mental de- ficiency becomes quite apparent. To counteract this basic lack of intrinsic motivation, this investigator would conclude that some variation from typical test administration is in order. One example would be the use of much verbal encouragement and direction during indi— vidual performances. Another would be the provision of frequent practice periods (for the purpose of orienting children as to task objectives) before the actual testing (recording scores) situation. 180 b. Results of this study show that the type of task (game skill versus gross motor fitness) used to evaluate the motor ability of trainable children is an important con- sideration. (The significant findings for such factors as age, sex, and etiology are closely related to the type of task.) This would lead one to conclude that game skill tasks as well as gross motor fitness tests should be included on a battery which purports to measure the general motor ability of these children. c. Relative to the use of test scores as normative data, results based on the factor of etiology indicate that it would be illogical to compare motor performances of mongoloid children to the other trainable children of this sample, in terms of per- formance expectation on gross motor fitness items. It is evident that in addition to standards based on age and sex, for many motor tasks, standards based on etiological considerations should be employed. 2. Physical Education Programming. a. Program content should include instruction in game skills as well as gross motor 181 fitness activities, since both types of performances seem important in overall motor development. The concept of sequencing is important in planning activities related to motor development, particularly in game skills (results show that catching a ball on one bounce is easier than catching it directly). If possible, the physical education class should be formed on the basis of mental age (ability grouping), since specific content could be varied for low (30 to 40) and higher (40 to 50) IQ groups. Program content should relate to the etiological composition of the activity class. Results indicate that most of the mongoloid children should be given ad- ditional activities to develop strength, balance, speed and endurance, while many brain injured children may need special emphasis in ball (reception) skills. The high degree of variability in per- formance found among these children, suggests that an adequate physical edu- cation program must necessarily be highly individualized, to effectively promote the development of motor skills in each child. 182 f. Results related to type of activity program indicate that instruction is most effective (improvement greater) at the younger age levels. This would support the concept of emphasizing the development of basic motor skills in younger children, since secondary skills are dependent on this development. Recommendations Similar research on several of these factors should be done with other trainable samples, to determine how the interaction of some factors might produce interrelated effects on motor performance scores. Using such sta- tistical techniques as multivariate analysis, the relative influence of specified factors may be studied. Similar studies with larger TMR samples might reduce the number of factors to be investigated. Research should be specifically designed to answer several questions which are pertinent to the findings of this study: a. Would length of time in a regular physical education program directly effect per- formance of TMR children in terms of increasing variability by chronological age, and between males and females? 183 Would the employment of techniques aimed at raising the motivation level (extrinsic rewards, etc.) of TMR children substantially effect motor achievement scores? Does the familial child (as defined in this study) compare (to other etiological groups) as favorably in classroom behavior as in motor performance? Do young trainable children who have been involved in programs emphasizing single hand and foot skills demonstrate greater (and/or earlier) development of unilateral dominance than similar children who have not had such experiences? Excluding children where retardation is related to genetic defect (i.e., mongolism), is there a positive relationship between standing height and mental age? How do results from an activity program based on individually prescribed activities (on the basis of etiology, test scores, etc.) compare to those of a program which provides similar content for whole groups of TMR children? BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Alley, Gordon R. "Perceptual-Motor Performance of Mentally Retarded Children After Systematic Visual- Perceptual Training." American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 73 (1968), 247—50. American Association of Health Physical Education and Recreation. Programing For the Mentally Retarded. Washington, D.C.: AAHPER, 1966. . Physical Activities for the Mentally Retarded. Washington, D.C.: AAHPER, 1968. AAHPER Kennedy Foundation. Special Fitness Test Manual for the Mentally Retarded. Washington, D.C.: AAHPER, 1968. Anastasi, Anne. "Intelligence and Family Size." Psy— chological Bulletin, 53 (1956), 187-209. Auxter, David. "Proprioception Among Intellectually Typical and Differentially Diagnosed Educable Mentally Retarded Boys." Perceptual and Motor Skills, 21 (1965), 751-56. . "Muscular Fatigue of Mentally Retarded Children." The Training_School Bulletin, 63 (1966), 5-10. "Strength and Flexibility of Differentially Diagnosed Educable Mentally Retarded Boys." Research Quarterly, 37 (1967), 455—61. Bachman, John C. "Motor Learning and Performance as Related to Age and Sex in Two Measures of Balance Coordination." Research Quarterly, 32 (1961), 123-37. ' Balow, Irving, and Balow, Bruce. "Lateral Dominance and Reading Achievement in the Second Grade." American Educational Research Journal, 1 (1964), 139-43. 184 185 Bannatyne, A. D., and Wichiarajote, P. "Hemispheric Dominance, Handedness, Mirror Imaging, and Auditory Sequencing." Exceptional Children, 36 (1969), 27-360 Baumeister, Alfred A. "Motor Learning and Knowledge of Results." American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 70 (1966), 590-94. . Mental Retardation. Chicago, I11.: Aldine Publishing Company, 1967. , and Kellas, George. "Reaction Time and Mental Bayley, Retardation." International Review of Research in Mental Retardation. Edited by N. R. Ellis. New York: Academic Press, 1968, 163-93. Nancy, and Jones, Harold. "Environmental Correlates of Mental and Motor Development: A Cumulative Study From Infancy to Six Years." Child Develop- ment, 8 (1937), 329—41. . "Consistency and Variability in the Growth of Intelligence from Birth to Eighteen Years." Journal of Genetic Psychology, 75 (1949), 165-96. . "On the Growth of Intelligence." American Psychologist, 10 (1955), 805-18. . "Comparisons of Mental and Motor Test Scores for Ages 1——15 Months by Sex, Birth Order, Race, Geographical Location, and Education of Parents." Child Development, 36 (1965), 379-411. Beck, Harry S. "Present Status of Physical Education in Belmont, Special Classes for the Educable Mentally Handi— capped." American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 61 (1956), 117—120. L., and Birch, H. "Lateral Dominance and Right— Left Awareness in Normal Children." Child Develop: ment, 34 (1963), 257-70. , and Birch, H. "Lateral Dominance, Lateral Benoit, Awareness, and Reading Disability." Child Develop- ment, 36 (1965), 57-71. E. Paul. "Extending the Mind Through the Body." Journal of Health, Physical Education and Recre— ation, 32 (1966): 28-30. 186 Bensberg, Gerard, and Cantor, Gordon. "Reaction Time in Mental Defectives with Organic and Familial Eti- ology." American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 62 (1957), 534-37. Berkson, Gershon, and Baumeister, A. "Reaction Time Variability of Mental Defectives and Normals." American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 72 (1967), Black, Alan, and Davis, L. J., Jr. "The Relationship Between Intelligence and Sensorimotor Proficiency in Retardates." American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 71 (1966), 55-58. Blackman, Leonard, and Heintz, Paul. "The Mentally Retarded." Review of Educational Research, 36 (1966), 5-36. Blatt, Burton, and Kaplan, Fred. Christmas in Purgatory. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1966. Bookwalter, Karl W. "The Relationship of Body Size and Shape to Physical Performance." Research Quarterly, 23 (1952), 271-79. Brace, David K. "Motor Learning of Feeble-Minded Girls." Research Quarterly, 19 (1948), 269-75. . "Physical Education and Recreation for Mentally Retarded Pupils in Public Schools: A National Survey." Programming for the Mentally Retarded, AAHPER. Washington, D.C.: AAHPER, 1968, 130-31. Brown, Joe. "Comparative Performance of Trainable Mentally Retarded on the Kraus-Weber Test." Research Quarterly, 38 (1967), 348-54. . "Ratio of Physical Development As A Factor In Performance of Retarded Boys on Physical Fitness." The Training School Bulletin, 65 (1968), 7-11. Burt, Cyril. "The Inheritence of Mental Ability." American Psychologist, 13 (1958), 1-15. Campbell, Donald E. "Circulorespiratory Endurance of Three Age Groups of Institutionalized Trainable Mentally Retarded Males." The Training School Bulletin, 66 (1969), 60-65. 187 Candland, Douglas, and Manning, Sidney. "Elementary Learning Patterns in Mental Retardates." The Training_School Bulletin, 63 (1966), 57—99. Cantor, Gordon, and Stacey, C. "Manipulative Dexterity In Mental Defectives." American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 56 (1951), 401-10. Carroll, Robert, and Abshier, Mildred. "To Play is the Thing." Journal of Health Physical Education and Recreation, 32 (1966), 33-34. Carter, Charles H. Handbook of Mental Retardation Syndromes. Springfield, I11.: Charles C. Thomas, 1966. Cassel, Robert. "The Oseretsky Tests: Vineland Adap- tation." American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 55 (1950), 251—56. Clark, L. Verdelle. "Effect of Mental Practice on the Development of a Certain Motor Skill." Research Quarterly, 31 (1960), 560-69. Clarke, A. D. B., and Clarke, A. M. "Pseudo-Feeblemindedness --Some Implications." American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 59 (1955), 507—09. , and Clarke, A. "Some Recent Advances In the Study of Early Deprivation." Child Psychology and Psychiatpy, l (1960), 26-36. Clarke, H. H., and Harrison, J. "Differences in Physical and Motor Traits Between Boys of Advanced, Normal and Retarded Maturity." Research Quarterly, 33 (1962), 13-25. Cleverdon, D., and Rosenzweig, L. "A Work-Play Program for the Trainable Mental Deficient." American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 60 (1955), 56-70. Cohen, Abraham I. "Hand Preference and Developmental Status of Infants." The Journal of Genetic Psy— chology, 108 (1966), 337—45. Coleman, R., and Deutsch, C. "Lateral Dominance and Right— Left Discrimination: A Comparison of Normal and Retarded REaders." Perceptual & Motor Skills, 19 (1964), 43-50. 188 Corder, W. Owens. "Effects of Physical Education on the Intellectual, Physical, and Social Development of Educable Mentally Retarded Boys." Exceptional Children, 32 (1966), 357-64. Cowell, Charles. "The Contributions of Physical Activity to Social Development." Research Quarterly, 31 (1960), 286-306. Cratty, Bryant J. Developmental Sequences of Perceptual— Motor Tasks. Freeport, N.Y.: Educational Activities, Inc., 1967. . Motor Activity and The Education of Retardates. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, 1969. Culley, W.; Jolly, D.; and Mertz, E. "Heights and Weights of Mentally Retarded Children." American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 68 (1963), 203-10. Cumbee, Frances Z. "A Factorial Analysis of Motor Co- ordination." Research Quarterly, 29 (1954), 412—28. Dawaon, W., and Edwards, R. W. "Motor Development of Retarded Children." Perceptual and Motor Skills, 21 (1965), 223-26. Dennis, W., and Najarian, P. "Infant Development Under Environmental Handicap." Psychological Monographs, 71, No. 7, 1957. DiStefano, M.; Ellis, N.; and Sloan, W. "Motor Proficiency in Mental Defectives." Perceptual and Motor Dubin, Harry N. "Some Observations on the Place of Physical Education and A Health Program In Building A Program For the Mentally Retarded Child." American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 59 (1954), 6—12. Dunham, Paul, Jr. "Teaching Motor Skills to the Mentally Retarded." Exceptional Children, 35 (1969), 739-44. Espenschade, Anna S. "Motor Performance in Adolescence." Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 5 (1940), 1-126. . "The Contributions of Physical Activity to Growth." Research Quarterly, 31 (1960), 351-64. 189 Espenschade, Anna S., and Eckert, H. Motor Develppment. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1967. Fait, H., and Kupferer, H. "A Study of Two Motor Achieve Achievement Tests and Its Implications In Planning Physical Education Activities for the Mentally Retarded." American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 60 (1956), 729-32. Faber, Bernard. "Family Organization and Crisis: Maintenance of Integration in Families With a Severely Mentally Retarded Child." Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Vol. 25, No. l, 1960. Fishler, K.; Graliker, B.; and Koch, R. "The Predictability of Intelligence with Gesell Developmental Scales in Mentally Retarded Infants and Young Children." American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 69 (1965), 515-25. Flory, Charles. "The Physical Growth of Mentally Deficient Boys." Society for Research in Child Development Monographs, Vol. 1, No. 6, 1936. Forgays, D., and Forgays, J. "The Nature of the Effect of Free-Environmental Experience in the Rat." Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 45 (1952), 322-28. Francis, R. J., and Rarick, G. L. "Motor Characteristics of the Mentally Retarded." American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 63 (1959), 792-811. , and Rarick, G. L. Motor Characteristics of the Mentally Retarded. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, Cooperative Research Monograph No. 1, 1960. Franz, Robert L. "The Crucial Early Influence: Mother Love or Environmental Stimulation?" American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 36 (1966), 330-31. Freeman, Roger D. "Controversy Over 'Patterning' as a Treatment for Brain Damage in Children." Th3 Journal of the American Medical Association, 202 (1967), 385-88. Gates, Arthur I. "The Nature and Educational Significance of Physical Status and of Mental, Physiological, Social and Emotional Maturity." The Journal of Educational Psychology, 15 (1924), 329-58. 190 Geddes, Delores. "A Physical Educator's View of Social Aspects of Physical Activity for the Mentally Retarded." The Mentally Retarded, 6 (1970), 109-ll Gibson, David. "Intelligence In the Mongoloid and His Parent." American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 71 (1967), 1014-16. Gilmore, J., and Zigler, E. "Birth Order and Social Reinforcer Effectiveness in Children." Child Development, 35 (1964), 193-200. Glassow, R., and Kruse, P. "Motor Performance of Girls Age 6 to 14 Years." Research Quarterly, 31 (1960), 426-33. Goldberg, Ignacy. "Current Status of Education and Training in the United States for Trainable Mentally Retarded Children." Exceptional Children, 24 (1957), 146-59. Gordon, Hugh. "Left—Handedness and Mirror Writing, Especially Among Defective Children." Brain, 43 (1921), 22-68. Gordon J., and Haywood, H. "Input Deficit in Cultural- Familial Retardates: Effect of Stimulus En- richment." American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 73 (1969), 604-10. Gordon, Sol. "The Rate of Improvement of Adult Imbeciles on a Manual Dexterity Task as Compared With High Grade Defectives." Proceedings of the London Conference on the Scientific Study of Mental Deficiengy. Edited by B. W. Richards. Dagenham, England: May & Baker Ltd., 1962, 587-92. Guyette, A.; Wapner, 8.; Werner, H.; and Davidson, J. "Some Aspects of Space Perception in Mental Retar- dates." American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 69 (1964), 90-100. Harris, Albert J. "Lateral Dominance, Directional Con- fusion and Reading Disability." Journal of Psychology, 44 (1957), 283-94. Harrison, W.; Lecrone, H.; Temerlin, M.; and Tronsdale, W. "The Effect of Music and Exercise Upon the Self Help Skills of Non-Verbal Retardates." American Journal of Mental Deficiengy, 71 (1966), 279-82. 191 Hayden, Frank J. Physical Fitness for the Mentally Re— tarded. Toronto, Canada: University of Western Ontario, 1964. Heath, Roy 8., Jr. "Rail-Walking Performance as Related to Mental Age and Etiological Type Among the Mentally Retarded." American Journal of Psy- chology, 55 (1942), 240-47. Heber, Rick F. "Motor Task Performance of High Grade Mentally Retarded Males As A Function of the Magnitude of Incentive." American Journal of Mental Deficiengy, 63 (1960), 667-71. He'caen, H., and Ajuriaguerra, J. Left Handedness Manual Superiority and Cerebral Dominance. New York: Grune & Stratton, Inc., 1964. Henry, F., and Nelson, G. "Age Differences and Inter— relationships Between Skill and Learning in Gross Motor Performance of Ten— and Fifteen-Year-Old Boys." Research Quarterly, 27 (1956), 162-75. Hildreth, Gertrude. "The Development and Training of Hand Dominance." Journal of Genetic Psychology, 75 (1949), 197-220; 221-54; 255-75. Hill, 5.; McCullum, A.; and Sceau, A. "Relation of Training in Motor Activity to Development of Right-Left Directionality in Mentally Retarded Children: Exploratory Study." Perceptual and Motor Skills, 24 (1967), 363-66. Hollis, John. "The Effects of Social and Non Social Stimuli on the Behavior of Profoundly Retarded Children: Part II." American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 69 (1965), 772-89. Howe, Clifford E. "A Comparison of Motor Skills of Mentally Retarded and Normal Children." Ex- ceptional Children, 25 (1959), 352-54. Huddle, Donald. "Work Performance of Trainable Adults As Influenced by Competition, Cooperation, and Monetary Reward." American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 72 (1967), 198-211. Humphrey, James H. "Comparison of the Use of Active Games and Language Workbook Exercises as Learning Media in the Development of Language Understandings with Third Grade Children." Perceptual and Motor Skills, 21 (1965), 23-26. 192 Humphries, M., and Shephard, A. "Age and Training In the Development of A Perceptual-Motor Skill." Per- ceptual and Motor Skills, 9 (1959), 3-11. Hunsicker, P., and Reiff, G. A Survey and Comparison of Youth Fitness l958--1965. Ann Arbor, Mich.: The University of Michigan, 1965. Hutt, M., and Gibby, R. The Mentally Retarded Child. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1958. Ismail, A. H., and Cowell, C. C. "Factor Analysis of Motor Aptitude of Preadolescent Boys." Research Quarterly, 32 (1961), 507-13. , and Gruber, J. Motor Aptitude and Intellectual Performance. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill BOOkS, Inc. I 1967. Jenny, John H. "The M.Q. is as Important as the IQ." Journal of Health Physical Education and Recre- ation, 30 (1959), 23. Jones, D., and Benton, A. L. "Reaction Time and Mental Age in Normal and Retarded Children." American Journal of Mental Deficiency. Kahn, H., and Burdett, A. "Interaction of Practice and Rewards on Motor Performance of Adolescent Mental Retardates." American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 72 (1967), 422-27. Keogh, B., and Keogh, J. "Pattern Copying and Pattern Walking Performance of Normal and Educationally Subnormal Boys." American Journal of Mental Deficiengy, 71 (1967), 1009-13. Kephart, Newell C. The Slow Learner in the Classroom. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, 1960. Kirk, S. A., and Johnson, G. Educating the Retarded Child. Cambridge, Mass.: The Riverside Press, 1951. Kirk, Samuel. "Experiments In the Early Training of the Mentally Retarded." American Journal of Mental Deficiengy, 56 (1952), 692-700. . Educating Exceptional Children. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1962. 193 Klausmeier, Herbert J. "Physical, Behavioral, and Other Characteristics of High- and Lower-Achieving Children in Favored Environments." Journal of Educational Research, 51 (1958), 573-81. Knights, R.; Hyman, J.; and Wozny, M. "Psychomotor Abilities of Familial, Brain-Injured and Mongoloid Retarded Childre." American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 70 (1966), 454-57. ; Atkinson, B.; and Hyman, J. "Tactual Dis- crimination and Motor Skills in Mongoloid and Non— Mongoloid Retardates and Normal Children." American Journal of Mental Deficienpy, 71 (1967), 894-900. Knobloch, Hilda, and Pasamanick, B. "Seasonal Variation in the Births of the Mentally Deficient." American Journal of Public Health, 48 (1958), 1201-08. Kraus, B.; Clark, G.; and Oka, 8. "Mental Retardation and Abnormalities of the Dentition." American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 72 (1968), 905-17. Kugel, R., and Mohr, J. "Mental Retardation and Physical Growth." American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 68 (1963), 41-48. Kuleinski, Louis. "The Relation of Intelligence to the Learning of Fundamental Muscular Skills." Research Quarterl , 16 (1945), 266-76. Langan, James. "A Comparison of Motor Proficiency in Middle and Lower Class Educable Mentally Retarded Children." Dissertation Abstracts, 27 (1966), 396. Lawhorne, T. Wayne. "Physical Fitness for the Mentally Retarded: A Reality." Training School Bulletin, 63 (1966), 45-48. Leland, H.; Walker, J.; and Taboda, A. "Group Play Therapy With a Group of Post-Nursery Male Retardates." American Journal of Mental DeficienEX: 63 (1959), 848-51. Lesser, Gerald S.; Fifer, G.; and Clark, D. "Mental Abilities of Children from Different Social-Class and Cultural Groups." Society for Research in Child Development Monographs, 30: No. 4, 1965. 194 Lillie, David L. "The Effects of Motor Development Lessons on Mentally Retarded Children." American Journal of Mental Deficienpy, 72 (1968), 803-08. Lyle, J. G. "Environmentally Produced Retardation-- Institution and Preinstitution Influences." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 69 (1964), 329-32. MacAndrew, C., and Edgerton, R. "I.Q. and the Social Competence of the Profoundly Retarded." American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 69 (1964), 385-90. Maccoby, Eleanore. "Activity Level and Intellectual Functioning in Normal Preschool Children." Child Development, 36 (1965), 761-70. Malpass, Leslie F. "Motor Proficiency in Institutionalized and Non-Institutionalized Retarded Children and Normal Children." American Journal of Mental Deficiengy, 64 (1960), 1012-15. . "Motor Skills in Mental Deficiency." Handbook of Mental Deficiengy. Edited by N. R. Ellis. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Company, 1963. Mathews, C., and Reitan, R. "Psychomotor Abilities of Retardates and Patients with Cerebral Lesions." American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 66 (1962), 607-12. McCandless, Boyd. "Environment and Intelligence." American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 56 (1952), 674-91. Mintz, Alexander. "Lateral Preferences of A Group of Mentally Subnormal Boys." The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 71 (1947), 75-84. Molloy, Julia S. Trainable Children Curriculum and Procedures. New York: The John Day Company, 1963. Mosier, H.; Grossman, H.; and Dingman, H. "Secondary Sex Development In Mentally Deficient Individuals." Child Development, 33 (1962), 273-86. Oliver, James N. "The Effect of Physical Conditioning Exercises and Activities on the Mental Character- istics of Educationally Sub-normal Boys." British Journal of Educational Psychology, 28 (1958), 155-65. 195 Oliver, James N. “Add Challenge With Variety in Activi- ties." Journal of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 32 (1966), 30-32. Paul, H., and Markow, M. "Neurological Organization Exercises on Retarded Children With Strabismus." The Traininngchool Bulletin, 66 (1969), 66-71. Porter, R.; Collins, J.; and McIver, M. "A Comparative Investigation of the Personality of Educable Mentally Retarded Children and Those of a Norm Group of Children." Exceptional Children, 31 (1965), 457-63. President's Committee on Mental Retardation. MR 67. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967. '. MR 68. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968. Rarick, G. L., and Oyster, N. "Physical Maturity, Muscular Strength, and Motor Performance of Young School-Age Boys." Research Quarterly, 35 (1964), 523-31. ; Widdop, J.; and Broadhead, G. "Environmental Factors Associated With the Motor Performance and Physical Fitness of Educable Mentally Retarded Children." University of Wisconsin, 1967. (Mimeographed report.) ; Widdop, J.; and Broadhead, G. "The Physical Fitness and Motor Performance of Educable Mentally Retarded Children." Exceptional Children, 36 (1970), 509-19. Reynolds, B., and Adams, J. "Psychomotor Performance As a Function of Initial Level of Ability." American Journal of Psychology, 67 (1954), 268-77. Reynolds, Maynard C. "A Framework for Considering Some Issues in Special Education." Exceptional Children, 28 (1962), 367-70. Rife, D. C. "Handedness, With Special Reference to Twins." Genetics, 25 (1940), 178-86. Rosenzweig, L., and Long, J. Understanding and Teaching the Dependent Retarded Child. Darien, Conn.: The Educational Publishing Corporation, 1960. 196 Sarason, Seymour. Psycholpgical Problems in Mental Deficiency. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1953. Schmuck, Richard. "Sex of Sibling, Birth Order Position, and Female Dispositions to Conform in Two-Child Families." Child Development, 34 (1963), 913-18. Schumacher, Henry. "Contribution of the Child Guidance Clinic to the Problem of Mental Deficiency." American Journal of Mental Deficiengy, 50 (1945), 277-83. Seils, LeRoy G. "The Relationship Between Measures of Physical Growth and Gross Motor Performance of Primary—Grade School Children." Research Quarterly, 22 (1951), 244-60. Sengstock, Wayne L. "Physical Fitness of Mentally Re— tarded Boys." Research Quarterly, 37 (1966), 113-20. Shotick, A., and Thate, C. "Reactions of a Group of Edu- cable Mentally Handicapped Children to a Program of Physical Education." Exceptional Children, 26 (1960), 248-52. Siegel, P.; Forman, G.; and Williams, J. "An Exploratory Study of Incentive Motivation in the Retardate." American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 71 (1967), 977-83. Sisters of St. Francis of Assissi. Physical Education Curriculum for the Mentally Handicapped. Mil- waukee, Wis.: Cardinal Stritch College, 1962. Sloan, William. "Motor Proficiency and Intelligence." American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 55 (1951), 394-406. Smith, J., and Hurst, J. "The Relationship of Motor Abilities and Peer Acceptance of Mentally Retarded Children." American Journal of Mental Deficiengy, 66 (1961), 81-85. Smith, Linda C. "A Study of Laterality Characteristics of Retarded Readers and Reading Achievers." Journal of Experimental Education, 18 (1950), 321-29. Solley, William. "Ratio of Physical Development as a Factor in Motor Co-ordination of Boys Ages 10—14." Research Quarterly, 28 (1957), 295-304. 197 Solomon, A., and Pangle, R. "Demonstrating Physical Fitness Improvement in the EMR." Exceptional Children, 34 (1967), 177-81. Solomons, G., and Solomons, H. "Factors Affecting Motor Performance in Four-Month-Old Infants." Child Development, 35 (1964), 1283-95. Solomons, Gerald. "An Investigation of Social Status Differences Among Educable and Trainable Children." American Journal of Mental Deficienpy, 71 (1966), 207-12. Stein, Julian U. "Motor Function and Physical Fitness of the Mentally Retarded: A Critical Review." Rehabilitation Literature, 24 (1963), 230-42. . "The Potential of Physical Activity for the Mentally Retarded Child." Journal of Health Physical Education and Recreation, 32 (1966), 25-28. Stephens, W.; Cunningham, E.: and Stigler, B. "Reading Readiness and Eye Hand Preference Patterns in First Grade Children." Exceptional Children, 33 (1967), 481-88. Sternlicht, M.; Pustel, G.; and Seigel, L. "Comparison of Organic and Cultural-Familial Retardates on Two Visual-Motor Tasks." American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 72 (1968), 887-89. Stone, Marguerite. "Parental Attitudes to Retardation." American Journal of Mental Deficiengy, 53 (1948), 363-72. Strauss, A., and Lehtinen, L. Psychopathologyland Edu- cation of the Brain-Injured Child. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1947. Thompson, W., and Melzack, R. "Early Environment." Scientific American, 194 (1956), 38-42. Throne, John. "Everybody's Problem." Journal of Health Physical Education and Recreation, 32 11966?) 24.25. Thurston, John. "A Procedure for Evaluating Parental Attitudes Toward the Handicapped." American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 64 (1959), 148-55. 198 Tisdall, W., and Moss, J. "A Total Program for the Severely Mentally Retarded." Exceptional Children, 28 (1962), 357-62. Turnquist, D., and Marzolf, S. "Motor Abilities of Mentally Retarded Youth." Journal of Health Physical Edu- cation and Recreation, 25 (1954), 43-44. Wakefield, Robert. "An Investigation of the Family Backgrounds of Educable Mentally Retarded Children in Special Classes." Exceptional Children, 31 (1964), 143-46. Weber, Elmer W. Mentally Retarded Children and Their Edu- cation. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas, 1963. Weigl, Vally. "Functional Music, A Therapeutic Tool in Working With the Mentally Retarded." American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 63 (1959), 672—78. Weiner, Bluma B. "Play and Recreation Activities of Young Mentally Retarded Boys in a Residential Pre- Academic Program." American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 57 (1953), 594-600. Widdop, James H. "The Motor Performance of Educable Mentally Retarded Children With Particular Refer- ence to the Identification of Factors Associated With Individual Differences in Performance." PhD Dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1967. Wirtz, M., and Guenther, R. "The Incidence of Trainable Mentally Handicapped Children." Exceptional Children, 23 (1957), 171-72. Wortis, H.; Pollack, M.; and Wortis, J. "Families With Two or More Mentally Retarded or Mentally Dis- turbed Siblings: The Preponderance of Males." American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 70 (1966), 745-52. ; Jedrysek, B.; and Wortis, J. "Unreported Defect in the Siblings of Retarded Children." American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 72 (1967), 388-92. Zuk, G. H. "Perceptual Processes in Normal Development, Brain-Injury and Mental Retardation." American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 63 (1958), 256-59.' APPENDICES APPENDIX A APPENDIX A Included in this appendix is a review of each of the fourteen test items, with a description of the equipment, procedure, directions, and scoring for each. Gross Motor Items 1. Straight Arm Hang Apparatus: Bar--a one inch (diameter) pipe, thirty inches long, with a "T" connection screwed on each end (See Appendix B). An eye-hook assembly was put into each end so the bar could be hooked into the chains of an outside swing set. Thus, the apparatus was adjustable to any height along the length of the swing chains. Procedure: Check to see that the bar and sub- ject's hands are relatively dry. The bar is adjusted so that the testee can reach it (arms fully extended) while standing on a box (ten inch height). The grip (palms away from face) is checked to ensure that thumbs grasp under (fingers over) the bar. On starting, the box is removed, so that the feet cannot contact it. Subject should be hanging with arms straight and feet several inches above the ground, so that toes cannot touch unless the bar is released. The tester should eliminate swinging (feet, etc.) movements of the subject during the test. 199 200 Directions: I want to see how long you can hold on to the bar without letting go. Hold on while I move the box away from under your feet and don't let your feet down to the ground until I say 'stop.‘ Scoring: Time, in seconds (stop watch, or watch with sweep second hand) to nearest whole second. Time begins when testee hangs free (box removed) and ends whenever feet (or one foot) contact ground (or anything else). Possible range: 0 to 60 (maximum). One attempt (if the initial attempt is considered invalid, a second trial may be given). 2. Standing Broad Jump Apparatus: A standard (folding) gym mat, ten feet long by five feet wide is extended on the floor. On the top surface, tape indicates measures in feet and inches. (Feet and half-feet are written on respective tapes--to facilitate scoring.) A base (12" by 12") or square of masking tape should be placed on the floor at the take-off end of the mat. Procedure: Testee stands on the base at the lower (scale) end of the mat. Proper stance and jump are demonstrated by the tester. Testee is given three jumps--all are recorded in inches. The testee gets as close (but not on top) to the mat edge as possible. Directions: Now stand on the base and get your toes up close to the mat (may have to help place feet in proper position 201 for some subjects). I want to see how far you can jump. Just one big jump and then stand still so I can see where your feet land. Scoring: Distance, in inches. From the edge of the mat (toes before take-off) to the back of the heel (or other body part) closest to that edge. All three jumps are was recorded, with the best one considered as the individual's ' final score. Possible range: 0 (unable to jump or to lift feet together on take-off) to whatever distance an individual is capable of. i F .' .1 3. Sit ups Apparatus: Done on a gym mat; watch, or clock with second hand. Procedure: A demonstration of the proper sit up is given by the tester. The testee lies on his back, hands clasped in back of his head. Feet are extended and together, held (over ankles) in contact with the mat by the tester, who counts the repetitions. Testee is to commence on signal "go," and continues until told to "stop" (sixty seconds). Directions: Keep your hands on the back of your head all the time. Sit all the way up and touch your elbows to your legs, then lie back down and do some more. Start when I say 'go' and keep doing more sit ups until I say 'stop.‘ Scoring: Number of complete repetitions in one minute. One repetition--starting with the back in contact with the mat, sit up (maintaining hand contact with the 202 head) until elbows contact legs. The testee maintains hands in contact with the back of his head and returns (shoulders) to the mat to begin a second repetition. Final repetition is counted if the testee has risen to an upright (trunk and legs at 90°) or forward (toward knees) position. It is not counted if he has not reached this position on the "stop" signal. Repetition is not counted if hand-head contact is not maintained, or if elbow is used to push off mat. Range = 0 (unable to do any sit ups in proper form) to one's individual capacity within sixty seconds. 4. Dynamic Balance Apparatus: A balance beam of two eight foot long 2" by 4" boards, joined together into a "T" shape. (The two inch end of one is fastened against the center of the four inch side of the other, and braces fixed on each end so that the beam will not wobble.) This apparatus is, in effect, two eight foot beams--one four inches wide, and by turning it over, another two inches wide (see Appendix B). Beginning twenty-four inches from each end, the markings are in feet (1 to 7 on the four inch beam, 8 to 14 on the two inch side). Procedure: The wider (four inch) side is exposed first. The tester demonstrates the proper walking tech- nique. The testee should advance one foot in front of the other, stepping heel to toe. (No large steps or running 203 should be permitted.) The testee is aided to starting position on top of the end of the beam, if necessary. He is given two attempts (if a second is needed) on the four inch side. If he fails to go all the way to the end of the beam on two attempts, the best of his two tries will be his score (he does not attempt the other side at all). If the testee walks the full length of the four inch beam (first, or second attempt), the two inch side is turned up and the procedure repeated on this side. The testee gets two chances to walk the full length of the two inch beam, regardless of the attempts (one, or two) needed to complete the four inch beam. Directions: Let's see if you can walk all the way across this board, without putting your feet down on the floor. Take little steps, and put one foot in front of the other when you walk. As the testee walks the four inch side, if he steps off, or when his foot touches the floor, the tester says fistop." The testee is told he has one more chance to walk the beam and is returned to the starting position again. If the testee walks the complete length of the four inch beam (first, or second attempt), the two inch side is turned up, and similar directions are given for this side. Scoring: Distance in feet, to nearest one-half foot. (Mark which testee had passed with back foot, before stepping off beam.) The best distance (of two attempts) is the score given. If the testee does not 204 complete the four inch side, his score will be within the range of 0 to 6.5 (feet). If he completes the four inch beam, he gets a score of 7. When the beam is turned over (two inch side) he has two more attempts to increase his score (8 to 14). If he fails to walk the full length in two attempts, his maximum distance is recorded. Possible range in scoring = 0 to 14. 5. Squat Thrust Apparatus: None (performed on floor surface). Procedure: One repetitiOn of the four-count squat thrust is demonstrated (l)--from standing position, squat down, placing hands on the floor; (2)--supporting weight on the hands, thrust feet back so that legs are fully extended, and weight is supported on toes and hands, keeping knees off floor; (3)--bring both feet up near hands, to again assume squatting position; (4)--rise to standing position. Testee is asked to demonstrate one repetition, to indicate understanding of the task. When tester is satisfied that task is understood, he prepares testee to start and says, "go." After thirty seconds time, the tester says "stop" and records the number of complete repetitions. Directions: We're going to see how many you can do, so go as fast as you can. Start when I say 'go,‘ and keep doing more until I say 'stop.‘ 205 During the test, the testee may have to be reminded to place "hands down" to start another repetition, to fully extend legs (in thrust), to stand all the way up (at the end of each repetition), etc. Scoring: Number of complete repetitions in thirty seconds. The final repetition is counted if the testee has reached the final step and is rising to standing position when "stop" is called. Tester should not allow testee to perform incomplete repetitions. Range = 0 (unable to perform task) to individual capacity (within thirty seconds). 6. 25—Yard Dash Apparatus: Two bases; two stop watches. Procedure: A straight distance of twenty-five yards is measured on an outside (preferably grass) area. At the starting line, two bases are placed (about ten feet between them) so that testees may run in pairs. One tester stands at the finish distance, twenty-five yards away. An assistant starts the two runners, and on the command "go," swings his arm downward, so that the tester at the finish line can start the watches. The testees should be directed to run to a place (baseball screen, etc.) approximately five yards beyond the finish line. This is to ensure that they will not slow down at the twenty-five yard distance (timer's position). For this test, there is one repetition only. (Unless a child begins running too soon, falls down, etc.) 206 Directions: I want to see how fast you can run. I will say ready, go. Stay on your base until I say 'go,‘ then run to the baseball screen (fence, etc.) as fast as you can. Scoring: Time in seconds, to nearest one-tenth second. A higher score indicates poorer performance (more time elapsed). 7. 300-Yard Run Apparatus: A stop watch; a watch with sweep second hand. Procedure: An outside, rectangular course is measured, 25 by 50 yards (150 yards around). Groups of testees (five to eight) may perform at once in this test. The testees must run around the rectangular course twice (finish at starting point, second time around). A tester and assistants should be stationed at each of the four corners of the course, to direct and encourage the runners. The tester gives the group (about to run) directions and starts them. On his "go" signal, he starts the stop watch. As the runners go all the way around the course and are coming to his position again, the tester tells them to "go around once more." When the first runner finishes his second lap (300 yards), the tester tells him to stop, and at this point he stops the watch. At the same time, he notes the position of the second hand on his wristwatch, so that each additional runner to finish will be given a (plus) score in seconds--from the sweep hand. (Number of 207 seconds that elapse after first runner finishes.) Following completion of the whole group, the first place runner's score (total seconds) is read from the stop watch. This score is then added to every other runner's "plus" score, to give their final score in seconds. Directions: Do you see the people standing there? (point to all corners of the course). When I say 'go' you all should run that way (point) and go around (person), then run around the next (point), then around (point) and right back around me. You will have to go around again, once more the same way. If you get tired you may walk for a little way, but don't stop. I have a watch to see how fast you can go around, so try to keep running. Are you ready? Go! Scoring: Time in seconds, to nearest whole second. (A child who does not finish or run the course correctly is not scored on this test. Retesting, if necessary, should be given on another day, as this is an endurance task.) Range = individual capacity. A higher number of seconds indicates poorer performance (more time elapsed). Skill Items 8. Shoot Ball In Barrel Apparatus: A fiber barrel, thirty inches high, with an eighteen inch inside diameter. The barrel is placed on the floor with four pieces of masking tape placed (on floor) around the base, to indicate its position (may be moved by ball during testing). A shooting line (masking tape) is placed seven feet from the base (nearest part) of the barrel. The barrel should be positioned several feet 208 away from walls furniture, etc.; a ball, 8 1/2 inch diameter, utility type. Procedure: A tester demonstrates the task, shooting (two hands) the ball into the barrel. The testee is given one practice shot, then takes five additional shots for score. The ball should be held with both hands when shooting. The tester should reposition the barrel after each shot, and return the ball to the testee. Directions: "Keep your feet in back of the line and try to get the ball into the barrel. You have to use two hands to throw the ball." Scoring: For a score, the ball must not contact anything (floor, walls, etc.) except the top of the barrel before going in. Testee gets one point if the ball goes into the barrel, zero if it does not. The practice shot does not count. Range = 0 to 5 points. 9. Throwing (Accuracy) Apparatus: Target (see illustration 4, Appendix B). The plastic bowling pin serves to focus the child's attention, and the strings make scoring easier and more objective: ball, plastic "wiffle," softball (4 1/2 inch diameter) size; throwing line (masking tape), ten feet from the target pin. Procedure: The task is demonstrated by the tester. The testee is given one practice throw, and then five throws for score. The overhand throw is demonstrated and emphasized, but not required. 209 Directions: "Keep your foot in back of the line (tape on floor). Throw the ball, let's see if you can hit the pin!" After the practice throw, and during the test the target pin should be referred to several times, so that testee remains attentive to task. Scoring: Total points. Each throw may be scored from 0 to 5 points (see illustration). Scoring range = 0 to 25 points. Hand dominance is also evaluated during this test (record throwing hand used in each of the five attempts). 10. Catch Ball on the Bounce Apparatus: Rolling board (see illustration, Appendix B). This controls the speed and direction of the ball, and thus helps to standardize all "throws"; a ball, 8 1/2 inch diameter, utility type; base (12" by 12") or a twelve inch square (masking tape) on the floor, with the front edge six feet from the end of the rolling board. Procedure: A tester stands on the base to demonstrate the test. An assistant releases the ball which rolls down the board, bounces on the floor, and is caught by the tester. Testee is placed on the base and given one practice trial. This is followed by five attempts for score. Tester should bring the subject's attention to the ball just before it is released each time. Directions: "Now keep your feet on the base when you catch the ball. It will hit the floor and bounce to 210 you. Are you ready? Watch the ball." (Each time the ball is released, the tester says, "ready, catch.") Scoring: total points. The ball must be caught after one bounce. One point for each catch, zero for a missed (dropped) ball. Scoring range = 0 to 5 points. A repetition does not count if the testee leaves the base to catch the ball. 11. Catch Ball--No Bounce Apparatus: Rolling Board, same as for test No. 10; ball, same as for test No. 10; base, 12" by 12" square (or a twelve inch square of masking tape), placed with forward edge thirty-six inches (three feet) from the end of the rolling board. Procedure: Tester demonstrates, catching the ball as it rolls off the board--before it touches the floor. Testee gets one practice catch, then five for score. A repetition is not counted (repeat) if the testee moves his feet off the base to catch the ball. Directions: Now you have to reach your hands out and catch the ball when it comes off the board. Don't let it touch the floor. Keep your feet on the base. Are you ready? Catch! As the ball is released each time, the tester brings attention to the ball and says, "Catch!" Scoring: As for test No. 10, range = 0 to 5 points. 211 12. Batting A Suspended Ball Apparatus: Ball, plastic "wiffle," softball size (4 1/2 inch diameter); nylon string, eight feet long, for suspension of the ball (see illustration, Appendix B); plastic bat, 30 inches long; base, 12" by 12" (or twelve inch square of masking tape). Procedure: The task is demonstrated by a tester and assistant. The testee is asked to swing the bat, to determine stance preference (left or right handed). The subject is then placed in correct position, alongside the base. The ball is brought back to the wall (see illus- tration) and is released by the tester when the subject is prepared to swing. The testee gets one practice, then five for score. Directions: "Let's see how hard you can hit the ball. Watch my hand and hit the ball when it comes. Are you ready?" (Release ball.) After the practice attempt, the ball is held in position and the testee's attention focused on it ("ready?") each time it is released. Scoring: Total points. One of three possible scores for each of the five attempts (0--if the ball is missed completely, or the string is hit first; 1--if the ball is touched or "tipped" by hat, but not hit directly: 2--where ball is hit solidly back in the direction of the tester). Scoring range = 0 to 10 points. 212 13. Ball Dribble--One Hand Apparatus: Ball, rubber utility type, 8 1/2 inch diameter. Procedure: Task is demonstrated by the tester, emphasizing the use of one hand only. The subject is allowed to move after the ball as he bounces it, but is directed to try to keep the ball bouncing in one place. (Dribbling area should be about ten square feet of clear floor space.) The tester begins timing for sixty seconds on the first bounce of the ball. If the subject loses control during the first attempt, he is told to stop, and a second trial is given (another sixty seconds). If the child changes hands, uses two hands to bounce, or loses contact with the ball for more than two successive bounces, he is told to stop, and scored for that trial. If the testee dribbles for the entire sixty seconds on his first attempt, no second trial is given. The tester counts the number of successful (hand to ball contact) bounces during the sixty (or less) seconds. Directions: Now I want to see if you can bounce the ball with one hand like this (demonstrate). I'm going to count all the bounces you can do, so keep bouncing the ball until I say 'stop.‘ If the ball bounces away you can go after it, but try to keep it bouncing in one place. Just bounce it with one hand, until I say 'stop.‘ Scoring: Total number of dribbles on the best attempt. (Or the first attempt, if done for sixty 213 seconds.) Range = 0 to an individual's maximum (within sixty seconds). 14. Kicking (Accuracy) Apparatus: Target, basically the same as for test No. 9 (throwing), except the thirty inch pipes are used (instead of seventy-two inch ones) as the supports for the cross piece (see illustration, Appendix B). The strings are moved to the wire supports which makes them hang ten inches apart; ball, rubber utility type, 8 1/2 inch diameter; base (12" by 12") is taped to the floor so that the forward edge is ten feet from the target pin. Procedure: Tester demonstrates the task. The testee is placed directly in back of the base (with ball placed on top). No steps are used in performing the kick. One practice kick is given (not scored), then five kicks for record. Kick is with the toe, not the side of the foot. Emphasize a "controlled" kick, so that the ball rolls on the floor (is not kicked in the air). If a ball is kicked improperly, testee is given further directions, and the attempt taken over. Directions: Let's see if you can kick the ball with your toe, so it rolls right into the bowling pin (show pin). Stand in back of the base, and now kick the ball at the pin. If the ball is kicked with poor force or direction, the tester tries to point out the prOper way on successive kicks. 214 Scoring: Total points. Possible score on each repetition is 0 to 5 (see Appendix B). The scoring range = 0 to 25 points. The foot (kicking) used for each repe- tition is also recorded--for an evaluation of foot dominance. APPENDIX B Illustration 1. Arm Hang Apparatus Bar apparatus may be hooked into chains of a swing set (with seat off), or a set of chains hung especially for it. The hooks allow a quick adjustment of the bar--according to the height of the testee. I: I” one pipe (1" diam., 30" long) D two "T" connectors (2%") two eye-hooks (center fits inside "T") 215 .N “u“..- :oHpHmoa OsHprpm ”VAII.=NH N \0 UN —‘-3‘ «w :OH - p - - - Illw. 216 sump =OOcH H: _ Hmswon mo :OHHHOOQV .30H> new Ewen :SOCH N: .Ampuoaasm one og¢ -1 - I ago new .mswon OcHmez on» Shem 039V .mcoH .O some .monmon Hz: x =NV mouse udeHHovox Astov Boom oostmm .N OOHHOHHOOHHH a: oon :SOCH J: swab doe 217 Materials (Catching, Kicking, and Throwing Tests). 1. Base supports. A one-gallon milk container (top taped closed) with one of the sides cut out. A twelve inch length of pipe (one-half inch diameter) is cemented into the center of this container. A connector (dual, one-half inch by one inch) is screwed onto the top. With the one inch end open, different lengths of pipe (one inch diameter) may be screwed into this base. Pipes (one inch diameter). Used as uprights for the test apparatus. Two thirty inch pipes, and two six foot pipes. Cross-piece, throwing and kicking test. Two thirty-six inch pipes (one-half inch diameter) joined by a connector, to form a six foot bar. Wire loops are taped to this cross-piece, so that target strings may be pinned to it (see illustrations 3 and 4). On each end of the bar, a right-angle connector is joined with a short (five inch) piece of one—half inch diameter pipe--which fits inside the top of the upright (one inch diameter) pipes. Plastic bowling pin. Target for throwing and kicking, is twelve inches long. It is 218 fastened to a string and pinned to the center loop of the cross-piece (forty-two inches from cross-piece to pin bottom). Wooden beads. Two of each color--for point value--according to distance from the target pin. Each bead is fastened to a forty-two inch length of string, the end of which is tied to a safety pin (can be pinned to cross- piece loops for kicking, or to other strings-- for the throwing test). Rolling board (catching tests). A strip of plywood (eight inches wide by seven feet long) has two one inch by one inch boards fastened on top, so that a six inch "track" is formed. 219 Illustration 3. Kicking Target Materials: Uprights-~30" pipes (1" diameter). Wire loops are taped on the cross-piece as shown (one in the center, four on each side--S" apart, and a fifth-~10" from the feurth. Strings (h2" long) and colored beads are pinned on loops 10" apart, as shown. Points: 5- hit pin. h= red bead (string). 3- blue bead " . 2= yellow " " . 1' hit base 08 outside base A ball passing between two strings (beads)--no contact--counts for higher (color) value. , :1 J: L i 15 A base yellow blue red pin red blue yellow base 220 Illustration h. Throwing Target Materials: Uprights, 6' pipes (1" diameter); Strings (with safety A pins on each end) of varying lengths (5", 10", 15", 20") from center of cross-piece are pinned on to loops five inches apart. To each of these, the beads and strings used in the kicking test (plus green) are pinned (as illustrated); Tape (color matches bead) is placed on string, the same distance above the pin as the bead is below it. ! (I I) 0 > 0 0 --1 .......... If-- 7' red red a blue yellow Points: 1:2" u 5- hit pin green h- hit red string (between bead & tape) 3- hit blue string 2- hit yellow string l-I hit green string 0. outside, above, or below green (bead or tape) ___-_.. ._.. t L - 221 “ m .8 — U)- .1 as 4.. will! .H .11 .. . _. , 2--...- I. DO. 1 .1-_ _ ._. .H HHOHM . OOOHO Ho ac» OH OHH .OHOOO H0 M soppon och penance .mxoonuoNe//¢_ In a :0.0 _ \- -+. \w\\. psmHe: Honcho 4 no peoadsm zmxoon: oaHr .oaeon on» we use esp seam .m omen co mocwge oopmop esp aapooHHo asopeo .oco whoop seam .0 OH 20H33 anon on» so mosmpm oopmepnuoocson one so nopeo .mooamoo m4 NHopmstoaddw HOHmcov ocHHoeH .mspmaoaa< vamom OsHHHom .m eOHHoapmsHHH 222 Illustration 6. Batting Apparatus Wiffle ball (h% inch diam.) is suspended from a fixed point, 10 feet above the floor. The string length is fixed so that the top of the ball is 3 feet from the floor. Ball is held against a piece of tape (5' high on wall) prior to release for each repetition. Arc of ball should be in a line perpendicular to the wall and across the center of the base (taped on floor). "1" "< 5' 7| tape fl --‘LL-- 6 ball 2 :3 3! base E ffiuoovu : l I l I I "1111111111111113