centre for newfoundland studies · bryan, 1964; }1aslow, frostig', lefever· and ·whittlesey,...
TRANSCRIPT
CENTRE FOR NEWFOUNDLAND STUDIES
TOTAL OF 10 PAGES ONLY :. MAY BE XEROXED
, e,~oL.Lt.. Ctu%oe~l1:., ,QmtSSon .
:· '!' oo 1cn -.._J t., ... , ·.. \1
0 . .,. .. ~ ... ... .
, . . ... . .· -. . a
I !,\ ..
· ~ ,
\ ..
.. ~-
. .. ~-' .. . ' .. . - ..
• I
. .. . · ~-
. . .
0 : ' .;,/ •• .- ! . ,, .. : · .•. . I .. • .... • • ,·_ •. • : ... : , .. • : • • • . • • . '· '·· r • ' ~ •
~ .. . )· ~ · ( ··. ·-. ~ ·, ·.: ·:· _:·~· ·_ . . ,.:. ·- .:· ~ . . . ·
-· • .. "' c::. ... . • • · • • :.~·· " ••• ••
. ._- _ . .. ~ ·._. ·. · . •. , · - - ~ - ~·- - ~ l. '::: · · :- · · .. r. G. , • '0.--~· ·· · .'• . \ . • '" ~:: . " ·..,. "" ... . ,
'" • ' I o ~ • • '• • ' • o • f ' ~ o • ~~ .-. ~· o ._ :; o o ~ ·. • . .... . 0,. ... ~ :. '~ .
..... - .. . . . , ···., \ . • J< .. • . . . . . .':' ..
;\} ~·- . . . - ~ . ..
~ ' . . . . r
;., .. " ,. . . .... .
... ··)>· . . !'. . d ·-
... : . ,•, ,. ' . .. .. i ' . . .
.... ~. . ~ .. ' ·-' t . •
• o(t • •
' INFORttATiilN r_q · us~s', · ·· - ~VIS Aui::usAGERs ., · _ , .. ~- · s- , _.
• .rH;~:.uiS;ERrA~wN 1i~s Sr.JN . , . .• . ~A ;HESE A m inCRo.FILMEE · · MICB,QF-IIJ1ED ~XACR Y AS. RECEIVED · .. . . · 'fE~~.E QUE .NOU?-1~ ~V9N~ -~REC~~ .. ·•
-~ - ·:' ' ~· . . . ·. ~ . _. . :. ~ . --~ .: . ~ ~ ' · .. ..; -:· ' .. i: ' ... .- . _;, . . . .· .... -·
· ~; s , copy, was_ pro~ fr.om a:m-i c~o:: • . Cet~e copi e· ~ - ~~f.ai'te ~: p~ti ~ __ · ·. :·) !~-che_ copy 6~ the 9riginal -docum~nt. · • .. d'une· microfi~e - du--·-document :--,1· · ·'
: . . · , The · quality ._ of the copy . is·heavil~ ·- . .- ori_ginal. La qllali.te.de·la copje .. dependent. u'pon the qua 1 i ty 9f the. • : d~pend · g~r~rrdelner(t de 1 a quJl'i t~ : >.
: . _ . · original thesjs S~,Jbmitted for .. . . 'de la th~se soumi_se pour le . _· ': . . ..
.•
. : ..
~ ) ..
· • microfilming, Every·effo'rt·'has -. .- - · microfimage .. Nous '_avons ·_.tout_ • .-
; , . · • : >. .~~.~] i ~;d;~t~.~~;~~.~~~~ ~~~~~~ :• :· _: : ' ,;~;!r.~;~~e~"~~r.~~~~£~~~.?~ 0 .: · .· :, PlEAS£ NOTE: Some--pages rnay . .have ·- . . NOTA BENE: L·a qyal_it~ - d'impress.ion· · ..__ /
· · _. · i nfPi ~-t~n~t _pr'i p.t .. ___ Fi 1 med : as · · · . · ·; . ·de -.ce·rtai ne~ pa~~s ·pel:ft la{~se~ ~ - · · _ . , . re e1ved. · . _.!. . .. "' . ·. • -~~_sir.er. .. M_1crof1·lm~.e te_lle que ·
• a ' • • • • • • •• ..: • . -\ ' · • ~ noys. 1 .'a vans ·_re'cue : . . . . . . ·. . ' . . . - . . . . . ;• . " . . .. . . . • : .. : . .. 1 . ·· . . . .
·. -
... ..
,,
. . ·, .. -
. . . .. . . . ' . ·canadian Theses Division · ._,.cataloguing B_ranch ·
· . . • National L ib.rary of Canada · · pttawa, Canada· ~ .- KlA . 0~
,; . '
· <:I "· ~- · --~ ....... ..
l • . .
. .. ·.\ ......
.. . ~ .. •, .
··.
I •
.· ... -
. . . .
. . . .
,.
.. -.
· , D~ vision odes theses · can!idiennes o. Di_recti on du cat,alogage
Biblioth~.que nati .onale .1du Canada ·ottawa·, ·can"da . · Kl A .QN4-
•
. . .. . ' -~
l
...
. ' . \ .
\..'~
'·
· . '•
.. ·-
'.
. '
. .. ..,.. .. ;.- .- ··-:·:-· . -
.- . ,
..
.·
. ""
· .. · ' .......
, , ..
' ' .. /
. . : '·. '
. ~ \
: . .
••
, . ' • ' t' ( :. ~ ' •• • • ••• ; : : . .. · . . . .
: .. ·. · . . · .. · ' ' .I o ' , , • ~ I
-/. • I • .
4 : •• ' ··.. ' ' .. ''
. ' , ~J: · .
:
~ ' . • ~ l
J' I • ' • ~
·'
. ·' ..
... . . ' ....
• ,1 _ • •
'• I • • " , J : J' ~~ ~ ·
r· - . :· .-:: .. ~ ' -· ·.· . .. ;"_ I \
. THE IN~,LUEN<;~ OF METHOD , <;>f ~ .. ,. .............. ~T~TION, -s.E~ .. OF
· EXAMINER, !\ND : s:~;:x . oF s ~.rsjEcT . o · }rHE. RELIABILITY · . . •q, • . \ ' • . .• '; ' ,/ - • .
. AND . VALIDITY OF THE MARI NE FROS'l'IG '. : · .. . ' '. . ' . ' . ..
' 0
'DEVELOPMENTAL . TEST .. \
•0 ' • . . ~ .
' I PERCEPTION -·
f. / ·
. ! •
' .,
··(Q) ·'
by
~- M:i.ldred F~an~,e~ stl . · C:r;oix I '
'•
. . ~
• ·'' •.
·. · I .
A . ·Thesis, presented to . .
'J;'he DepartinE7rit of E<fucational P~Y:G~ology I ' ' , • .
. '
~emor ial Uni ~ersi ty . o~;: New~ounS,land ... .. ' , ~ -~-. ,&,:
' I
. I · , · ~ .
·In' partial. l4i.fillrnent !- . . .., . . .
of the requirement'S £cir the odegree . . ., • :!-... .
Master of Ecfuca'tion ~ . ~ , • I . .
APt:il 1~?6· .. · :·
'· \ ' 0 . .:.· .,
·.·
. '
: .,
. .. (
' '
,.t ..
· .. -\ ·y f .
' \
' · ... .
j St. John's .._ I Newfoundland ··. . . .
, . .
. ,. .' .
. -'J
·"' ...
\.
·.
n
'· '
~ .. >
•' . .
.. . . .. , :. \·;
' .. .. , . . :i ·. . . ' ~
" ·ll
•
'\ ' '
\
..
..
I
I '
' '
\
0 . ....
• . .
.. ..
,
".
. . ..
...
' • · .. .. · I. I o .. I
"" • • t
I '.
• . .. ... .. .... ' ' . . . ·' / · . . ' • • ..
i. >;)' ' !
. '
.· .. .:.
: .· .. -
The purpos~ of: th::s.:fy Was tO· iqves'E~~ate :tie.
re_liabili ty of · the Frostig D'evelopmental ·Test of Visual .
Pe;.ceptiC::n.(FI)TVP); th~··~ffl! ·c·t~ o-~-~~e s~x .. ~f· e~~in~r,·. :the .. . . I . ..., . • ..
' s¢X ,of.' examinee,- and mode o ' admi'nistr;.ation. · Th!=' FDTVP was . t I : • •
'• • . 1'( • • • .. • • • J • • • •
' '
- ' .
adrniniste:r::ed . by twenty exa riers to 1·23 . subjects stratified · , ··
ac.c6rding ~~. - d~mOgJ;"~PhY. (- ;uJl .0~;· U:t;"ban)' 1
• . f;1ex ·<~~~tt or ·~·em~l~~; · , . .
. ' .
' · • ,
.•
·,
- . ~
...
:
- ~ .a ' ~ I· . • : ~ . • , q ' .l
grade (I . o'r II),. and mdde oft .administration' . (group or indi.:- ·. /'" ·:
vtd~~ll in des1;-ret~st : e+~~; ~X=iner S~X~sure~t s~> ' · · . .
. . combina'tions w~re :chan~ed -~ci~ ' one: test~~~ occ~~ion to t4~ . . . ~ .. . . . _1/'. . . '. ' '. . . ., ..
other for 'eac~ - stibj~C·t. · Ba·, ed'' on. 'the results)>f a S~Udy Of ·
· tl)e. in~er-'?'ter rei.iabiliti I , : p;.~toco~: ·wer{randpmly. .
ass~gned · to four persons _fo. cor~ng .. - _.. . · · · . . . . .· .· ·i ' ._ .....
P~rcentil·e ·rank · dis utioris. of· 1the total ~·?JllP_~e. · ·
: . .. i'
. ,· '
., ye~ified .that the ~ea~~ ;es obtained i .n ·this ~tudy _were · . ·. . . I . . . .
_. very_. high" relati~e. ~o'V' _orrn~ :- establ~spea- _by Frc;>s~ig ..
· · .·. .. . _ T_~e. ovez:all ·_. ~es~;?'1e'st · ,~e~~abi'l,i tY'. _of the . ·~DTVP w~s : lower ·_than · r~~orted by ' F·r.astig_. . . The ~est-.retest reli-ability · ..
. ·
•' . . ' . ~
. .. ( .. .
' . . . '
~· · findings .· £·or . th·~~gr6up . a~ihist'rati~n were .~-~nerally higher
· 't.na~ ~hos~ · -;~u-rid . . ~Qr · ··indivi-~ual admi.nistrati6ns ·. Grade I ~ •
. . :· ~~Liabilit·~·es -~.er·~ . m~ch ~a~~~ · _tha~ Grad~· I. reiiabiii-ties • .
..
_. · Fpr Gr~qe _i, the group- a~{~.1~t~~·t~-on ~~oduced the h~5Jher · 'r eliabiii t~eS ~ ' < · . \ ; \'· : . . •. • . ~
.. I The arialys.i~ _:of vaJ;"i~nck 'showed few . ·differe~ces, for . I . ' ~ I , , , • • ' I •• . • , •
· ~ ~ • \ I • •
. .sex o f srili~ect, s ,ex . 0~ examirte'r .,.· , an¢1 . aqm:tnis_tr~t±<;i.n mode .: . . . · . ,; ' ·_..,' ' _·,, , .- _· .-.. . . ·. ' ; . . __ -.. ,,
ii \ ' • ~) ••• • ;r • . .: .· . ,
·. :. '• . - .:.·
·r' I ' · ,
~ · · .
. -. .. ,
• . I
..
I / C:
:'
... • ·'1 • \ ··, '"
I .... . . • . '
, :
, I ,
..
.r
-} o - ·. I' - . '
I • •
I I
c " .. ·, ..,..,
' : ..
In. ·a\1. cases, . - th~ raw s .. co_.res fo'r each ·· s.~scale ,. and· the· ·sum ' · ·
of s.C~-d- · score~ · we;~. ·a·n~ly~ed'~ · Th~ s~x. of ~Utded:>-~~·~.- .·- .· . : ... . . ' . . . . . . ...
si_gnlfi_cant only·· for - subsc.ale · i ~. -Fo.r -subs~ale IV;. a :;ig-: · ~ • .. .'" • .... · . : .1"
nifi~~n~ two:...~~"' int~r~ction ·was f~unc;l _for sex o'f' subject . , , • ' .. 0
. and sex. of exa~~ner. _For ·•the sa;ne· subsca_le a. si.grli,fi~~~f-t ·, , \ -- .·· / ' .,.) ~. · ·. . ..
·· three way ihterac-tdon ;as fotin.d for 'sex ,o'.f. · fn}i>ject;·.: sex -of · .t ' ' ' ' . I • I • ' r. ' .' • '
examiner and a'dmin_istrati,on tn9d.e. . . . - ~ . • ;' ·.' ..
, 'Findi~g's; · su·g~~~~- ~hat Grad~- b~I r~ahii~ tie,s. are. t~o • • • , · .t : · ·' I ' . , .. ' . . . . .: .
16~ to war.ra~t -. F'I1Y :· us~- 'of . t_he_ ·test f~r .. _dila~no~ti~r ~ernedial . . ' . . .
prescrtptions'. · ·For Grade. I ch~ld~-eJ;l, the: .~ro~p . setting is • • .c.. . • • . . ' .
. . ' .. ·._.- . .- : . t~e inJ'ic~b~d adm:i,.ni~·tr~tio~· rnbde·. · . In._ add~tion~ ·. al;J. , ~xis.t1: . " . . . ' ~ . ; '
. ' '~ I . ·'
' .
-~· . . I : ' .
..
. rtf .. ·
... .
., '
·' . ' ' ' ;I--
. ·~ ..
·,~ :
( .
' I .. ' ~· < o • •
ing evidence - 6~ the validity ,of· · t~e · FDTVP , mu~t b:e qu,es~fonea • • • ' .·: • • 0 •,
because · of ·the natqre of ·.the""s-core·' distribu~~ons. . .. , I • '
..
' .. '• . . '
., . '. · .. .
' · ·.
' ~ . • 7-
\
·., t .
' '
~ I ~. ". ·'·
.-.
.' •
. r-:-:; I•
" .
. .... ..
'• .
', . . ' , , • 0 4
.... . ~-: · .. :
·''
.. . . iii .•
~··
·'· .
f /
., ., '
•'•( ; -.
.. ..
' • ,,
. . . ,i
: '
. '
. . .
. . ~
• .... . 'I
:.j •.
Ill : . ,·
•
. '
•
' · . ~ .
;
. ..
. ' '
, .. ~ '
' '
·: :. 1 . "" •,, ' · ~, ~
' l ' ___ '~ .. ,
,-.
' l
. . . '
. • r ·~
-~ .
·' ·:
' ¥. . ./.
··~ .,';; ·'
·. ·,;
.~
. .. .e ' ,
I ,
'J
I •
. ..
-." ' .. .. · ~ .... . '·
•. : . .
.. .
. . ~ .
: I
. ' ·, .. . f-. · . . . . I
I ·
. '
- '
,; ~ ,1
• ' !' .
. . . .· . • r • • f· •
_, . .. .. \ .· . . ' ~ .-1 I • I • f t .:r
.. ·
.: • • I, . . .. . . -· \
. ., ..
'· ~· .. .
·' J • • • ·r· .. ·~ :. ' .
,c.- :. ' 1- : /.. . . . .. ·.-·.
·. , ' c
' "
/ .
' . ..
• '
-1 •• }'' ACKNOW~EDGEM.ENTS ~
'• /. ' ' •.
~ . .. .... . ... . . :--h
. ' . .. ' '
~~':·- :. :n ' . -. . . '
· ' ..
.. ·! "'
_ .. .. ·' "'' ' 0
·.· ~- .. . .. . . . .:- . ' . . . ,. ,. ., .
• . ...
. . .: , , • c ' . ..
'rhi~ 'study' i-s the \ ~esul t · ~f tbe' wise . -counsel and the ....... • • .r • ·;.· • • ' 'l • • ~
. . .. .
.,.
'\ I ',·
.. .·. Jflll . . I
.•
. ~ J ~ • ! ·. g-~nerbu~ ·contributions of . a _miinber -;,of ··pers~~s ~ ·. ·.· · ... . · ·:·. ' ·,~
·-' ..
. . . ,.
... ,
... '
· .•... . ' .
/ I~ I .
' .• r ..
·' , .
.·.
....
. \
I • • • ' ' • ' •' D . ~ ~ • • ~ • 0 : U •: l,r 1 1
' ' -
p-io ·or. Wiliiarn 'Sp~in,:· my supe~v.isor:,. my .sn'icere .. .. • 4 • • • • • ' ' ' • • •
gra.ti ~~:,:: , his lidvic<!. and i.ssist8.nce •· .HO:s cri joicisnis, :
:-s~~·s ,tion.s~ ):-~·d -~~n~.lden~t? hav·e gui~ed· ·~y- effo-~ts ·_. i~ .~~is • ,. l"-.:9 • ,
·. · ·. ~ -
.. ;~ ' ti' ~
: · . .b.\' ' ' . "
~ ': k._ • I ~ -.:
> ' • • ••• '· • • ~ \ . : • ..... ~ . ' .
· stuc:Iy .fx:om ·th.eir ~ormative, .~ . .
stages; to' the cbnc.ludi-ng s'tate- . · .~,.. .·· .·· · · · ' ~ , . .... 'G A· ,~ ~ ,.rr\ ........ , t .· ,.. , • \4
-~ . . i .. 1 \ : '\• ,
.. . .merits.
1: : . ,• ' . . .. '
·-. My .. thanks · t'o Dr. Lorne· rTaylor' ~or h~lping . tb. cJ.ari fy · ...... .'. _.- ~ ·:·. -.- ··· • • . ... • • • • • • too ... • . •• 4
. . · I .. . I . . ' ' prob'lems Qf the· on""[ going :Study~ H · ·. ·•
: ' . ·lx>, . ' ' . . . . . . .
Tc;> · the p~in~ipals-a!ld· the· -~cho0ls ·who'. parti6ipated ·. } ·; · . ' ' l . . .. . . ' .1 ••
•. ' ' ' 'I . ' ' '' .
. in '· this .s'tudy, mi sincere app~eci,ation'' 'for. ~ thed.r help' and 9 / j . • ' .
s uppprt·. · · · · · : · · ··• · ·
I - owe a · debt_ ·of gra_tituae· -to the ~an~ ·generous
. persons .who t·· s~.sted. in · ~o11ec~~-~g -. rn; da:ta ... .
. ~>;· :·/:._· .. ·. ' .. :· . ' ·.·. ·. ·. '\
It ' ••• '
'<!)
. . ~ . . :.,·. ( :
. ··i' . ~ ,.• .'
.-;/ . . { ·· .. . ' .
: ; c ,[1 · . ..
J
. . .
' .
. . ' ~ .:
.. .
. . . ...
I ) .. 'I . ·-
. ·
, ., . '
• I
' -' • • 'P,, •
.. . ..
.,. -~· I ~ . ·.,.
• I 0 , , I • . . ' 'i • •' ~ ' .. ~
~ o iV · . . , .. · · ~ . · ·. :. ~-~:. ' . ~~ ..
t.'t ~' ,. (' - ' .
0
< • ·l /
' ... ·
. •.
. ' ,,
• I
, . I
.. .
~· -: • : ... ~ l
, ...
, I
r I
.. ... I • •
. <
,I
- ·~~ . ~. . . "'\.: . '
-, Jk .. ~'
. ' ··
. •
' .
. '
·. I• ' ~·
'" • '\..' . '
\ .
,.. ' .
. · .. qHAP';l'ER .
. :t •
·· · II.
/
. .. . . .. , "'I
I
'·'
. .
- .«l • ·.i 1 . · , :C,. . ,. · ~
\, .•
TABLE OF -CONTEN,TS .._ . '. ·I •
.. · .. •'
TABLES .... ·.:
. . ,. .. ~ ..
'P I •' .
\ ·" · .
STATEMENT. OF PURPOSE • , . ~
. •, . . ·. . ~ . . ' . . .
0 ':
. . : . . .. . Signtficance of . S.tudy .. •.•. ·• . . .
. Hypothes~s . .·• . •' . Limitations of .the· Sttidy.
' ..
REVIEW OF ~HE L.ITERATURE . . . . . Introduction · .. . · ~ ..... .
. ·, ;.~ I '
. ' .
; i J
J. . ·.' . .· I; '
. } II. Examiner· 'Effed:.s . . . . . . .. · . • , ..
Personality Vari~bles ...
S~x In_fluences · ... ' . EX~f?Ctpncy - ~ffect ·, • , ·•
·The M~de o~ A.~inis.trat~on · ·. ·s ·corer ·Differences
Impl'ication~ for Te.sti'ng .. .. ' ..
PAGE .. iv . ,
vii
.. l ' I
1 . '
6 -
··7 ' . ..
8 ·, . .. . ) a
·a . 9·
10
'15 ..-;
0·~i?J ' 16 . ' · · ~ . '.
•, 20
. \ 22: :
..
·· - III. Me~suremknt ··of the V'i~ua1 . Perceptual
_,,t • • •
, ,:
. -,
~~ .. ' I
., •'
· Fa.cto.rs ,. •·' · ~ · .· ..
· Ag~~~The Developmental Factor . . .
Pr~ctice ~ffecits ., .. ' .
·· ·Factors .... .. . . . . .. ~ . . ' • •
· . . )· v
. ~.
~3 .. ' 23
.• I
25
·- : " 25
. · . ...
•, ...
· . .
L , ;
.•
.•
' .
.. "' .. ..
J
-"
~ ·; I
'• ·'
, . ' \
..
·. ~ . '
. '··
.,
.. ~· .
. ~
. '
. . I' "' '
i -' f
' \~
• '
. . ..
. ·,,. ,· ' ":
.. . ,. . ' . ·."
,,
·' .. :cHAPII'ER . . : : ' ... 1 . . .
. ~ .
·'· ·.
" .
\ .... ,, (,
I l .~.
:.
IV.
..
v.
·IV.",, T~e;.-~D~yP~ :· ~: ·. . . ., . . . . . . . ...
· 'Introducti9n . . . ' . . . . . .~ .. ., •.. -t .. ~ ' I ' ' 0
Research· :on. FDTVP • '. · ; · ; • • • •
6 ~e.li.~bl~f~t:i ~-t~di~s 11
• ~ • • • • • • . / ' . . . ~ ; . .. . V. S \:llllill.ary · .1 - ~ • • • ~ _.: • p •
. . . . .I . ~ . • ~ . . ,.
.• , I
GE~.E~ PRO.CE~Ur.' •· •• : . • . · ·.''. ·:'.~:: ·. sample., . • • • . · • '0 • • . • . • J • • • • :" • • • •
. i . , . I· . .
Speci.fic Procedures . • . .. . ·I
I I .Adm~n~str~tf~~. ''net~~_,!~ .. : ~ ••..• · ~- • •
Scoring' . . i..d·,: ·• · • · ~ • • .• • . • ~· . . . ! .. • f'- .: . •
-Statistical Analysis : · , · I t;_l
. . . . I
.. .
· ANALYSIS· OF THE I DATA •• . • '. . • • • • . • • • • . I.
. . . I· .~uppleme~taryj ~at~ - fot _the·Total Sample.· . .
,., supplement:ary j 9ata. for Grades . ·I ...
oiscu·ssiON . • l . . . . . .. . . . . I
~e.Liabili ty. · ~ . .. • • • • . 1-
• • . . .. ' .
Supplemental:y Reliabi~i ty. Data • • . . • . 1 . . . . . f
l 'd' . . I . _., Va 1 . 1.ty. • • • • .• • ••
SUMMAR; AND IMPJICA,;I~NS .OF· ·THE . STUDY ; .
. . . . . .. \ .
WITH RECOMMENDATIO'NS • • • • • , • • ·• • • •
. · Summary. ·• • · • . •
Findings .. . ~ .
. ) J
'I' • • • • • •
l
. . . . . . . 'Implications o.f the ~tudy · . • . ~ ~· • . .•
'
. . ·
. :Recommendations for Further St~dy
· BIBLIOGRAJ?W( • -~ . • \ ·. : .: . ·-~- . • • • · •
. . . . . '
... . . I
.·1
'I ' '
· Vi .' ' ,·
..
• I ..
' .
..
·.
·28
' -32
·33
. 34
34
37
J • . '•
1.. .
· ~ • I); '
' . .
.... '\•
. .
3:1 . . '
,.
. . 3_8
···. 39'
41
51
53
'57
57
5.9
61
' .
67
67 ''
68
6.9
70
>71
·' l ,
. . ·· . (
. .
\ . · ..
·,
-· \ .. ' I \ •\
. ·· . .. . ."''
' ·
·. i . J
' ., . I
.. · ..
. - ~
. ..
..
..
' .
. '
·,_, \ .11
\ .. . · ... ·.\ ·.
. ·
' . .' '
I \
. '
\ ...
, .. .
.. i
. I
~ -1 i
. I
. '
.., • :, . ·----.!_-
..
TABLE .. III.l. -
... ' .. ' . . ·.· .
.. ~
. ' ..
tt•· ~ . I
I " I I I
..... · . .. . :
' 1~ . ~ ......... ~
··1~T ) . ;. "'-
.~ ~ , . I
OF TABLES ·I I
r ~~ I . .
I Frequency .Distrib~-t:ion of· Pup_il Sample
. ' • • ... • ' • , j
Grouped According .to Adrninis·t ':r;ati.cm . . . n.~.~ . ,
Mod~, Grad·e, . Geograp~ic· . Loa~ t.l~t,h J . ' r • . . I
, • ·! : I ' . . . . . . and Sex ' ._
, • ' . I
~II ~ - 1'· .. Age Range by Administratio~,Mode · . 1~ · . "' . >·( '
d G d J ~' .· ~n ra e . • : . • . . • . . · . · . · . f.\ _II~~ 3 . . ! in-ter-Rater·. Reliabili ties of :
I I I •
. :
. IV. 1
. . · IV. 2 ~
IV. 3.
tv·. 4 ~
.rv. ·s·/
' .. FDTVP Scores .' • I • . . . . . . .. ..
·· Test-Retes't Reliabilitie~ for Group ·
and Individual • • • • • ; • • • • t
Analysis of- Variance·: Admin1s.tration . . Mode · 11 • • • • • • • . • . ·. . . . ....
)· . ' Analysi~ of Variance: · Sex of Subject . . . Analysis- of Varianc.e: . Sex of Examiner.·
' . . . . ' . ..
Analysis of Variance: ·Grade -i and · . . ,... . . -~e II .. ... ··. · • . . . . .. . . ~
IV.· 6. Analysis ·of .Var..:i.ance: Occasion of.
· : . · Testing . ·.. • . · ~ . , .. •. . · IV. '7. Analysj..~ of · Varianc~·:
I
Sex of Subject . ' I ',
and Sex of Examiner .. . .. . . . . . ' '
IV. 8. · ·Analysis of Variance: Interaction~ of Sex · . ~ ' . . . . ' . . . "
ot Subjec;t anq Admini.st~ati6.n Mode;: •
r · '•
(\ ' vii
' .
•,
' .
, .
..,
. ... .
.. ~ ----·'1,. · . . ' ,.
. . PAGE ..
4 ·,,
35
36
38
41
. .,··
42 -
4·3
. 44 .
·.45
46 '
47. '
.. ,
..
...
i'
..... """\ I , , -
;.
''
.~
• ..
"; 0 •
·-:~ .
,tJ
.. .
.. ,, . . . : . ,.
• >
·.· ' . :
. . TABLE
IV. · 9.
\t
~ ..
,I
1-PAGE ··
' : : " .. · .... _ .. .
. , _ . . . ·I : ..
' · D ·,
... . . .
·: .
-~
. ..
Mode • -. • .. • . •. • • • ··o .• •. _·: ! . , · • ... .
Interaction 6_f · sex ·
49
Analysis of Va~.i,ance-: . . . .. • .. . . . ,.,,,.
of Examiner and Aclliiini~tration Mode. ~ 50 • I
IV'.ll. . ·Comparison of Mean scores. by Grade· . : -and. Maximum Possible· Sco-res· . • . ·• . '51 .
IV. t2. . . ' . . . .
.Qistribution of Percentile Ranks ·for . u . . ' .
' I
I . - ·!
Total Sample with · D~scrip.tive 'l.
,. s t~ tis ti·c s _,,_ '* • • . • _. • .. . ' ;; • 'l . . . ' ' . ~
)V.l3.
IV.l4.
) ' . • . p ••
rr:est-;-Rete;:;t Reliabilities· for Grades ·• ' • . t"' ~ . ' ' .._ : 'I • ' ~ •
Dis.-t::rib~'t\tpn .o~ J!'erc~nt_.i~e R~~~ .. for._
Gra_des .. with Descr:lpti ve· St.a:fl'iitics . ~ 1 • • • ' ' • • •
5~ ~ .. ' . . .
J~ . ..
. IV.ls.· .iest-Ret.est Reli-~bilii{~s: Grade py · . .. Admini stra tim) - _Mo-~e . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ,,, I ' . · ' •
v. ·1·.. Interaction -Effects: .. Sex of ·.Examiner· by.
· Se_x of Subj.ect by AC4ninistration . . ' .
,_ Mode • . ' . .. . . . . . 66 •• 0
•' ' .
'· (. ·.
. ·' . r
.. '
··' ·. . ·. . \· . .. ' • '
' • . , { . ·: .
,.:.,.
·' . ... . ' ., 'Viii ... . .
. . '·
" '
' . ·.··.·..,. I.
' ·, . ·-·
' .. ..... ..
. . '
.. ~ . . '
', .
' ; ·~ .
: . , ~- .
.. . .
... . . · ' CHAPTE!R I ·
. ~ .. . ' . · . . • .
.• . . . ..
. , ·. ··'
. , ·
,. · ...
~\ . . . ' • ~- .. ' ' . -.. ' . ~ ~ ~. . . :.. . . . ·-·· .. · .... . ~-, .....
. . . I . . . . ;' : 1 ': .; • "; : :~ ·, ' ... Jj I• :.:. . : .. • • ... ;_: ::(
. . ... . .
~ · .
., . .. .... • '' • • . _! •• ' .• •
.... . '
.. ' '
' . -.
...
. ' . ' . . . ' .
.. .. . · .. . , . . . ..
. '
- ., . . ' . (.' -..
. ..... , , . . ... , .
.• , . ......
: • '. : •I ," /\_
. . . . ~ ··: ''• .:.....J STATEMEN'r · 0~ PURPOSE ·.
· ' • ,.
~- . . . .
l '
.·1
'·
' ;
. · .. . .
....
','
. , .
" ' ··.
bility and ~alidity. of ··:the. E'ros.tig · oevelop~ental - T-~~t ~£ . ~ . . .. . . . ·. . . ; . \' \ . . . .
·~is.ual ~erc~ption '(~DTVP) ·uhder · in'dividuai and' :group llllfl'es '-• ' ' • • • • .. • 0 , • :
• • ) • • • • • • • .. • • 0 • • ~ • • • ' •
. of ~dr!linistrations .• · I~ addii;io~~ -the influence. o~ th~ · s·~x
. · ' . qf 'the exal{\iner, . a-rid the S~X ~f- : · s~b·j e.~t 'wa~ s'lfudied. • \ \ 1 ''-* o , "• I o ,' .' ' ' ' ' ) o • o o ' o
SIGNIFICANCE ·oF· STUDY . . : • · ' , , '' . . '
~ · . ~ ' • • ' • '• '' I ' "
' II Relif!bfli!.y· is a ~eC~9-Sary. but not ·' .s -ufficient ' cqndi- ·. . . . ~ . ;
; ti~n _- for .. validity" (S~arii~y : ~nd· H~~kins·; p~ ·- 114) • _· _--~t ~ ~~ .-.: ·>
. import_a~t -to "ask about the preb-~.-~ion 6/ ~eiiabili ty , ~·t. a ·· ... : ' • ,• I • ' ' .
, , , f • • • , • • r ~ t • •
· ffieasur:e _ be.caus~ ·one must ge~rali~e from the 0b9E?'rvat.ion :i_n·. ' ' • \ I ' ' I ' • ' • , ', ' , ' ' • '
'hand -- to,_: some· ·class. qf:·ob::je'rv(ltioris· to .which i ·t : pelOngs. . ... . . . . . . . . . ·. . ' ; .
I f • I ' •
· ·. Croribach; Rajaratnam; ~nd ·.Gleser. (19 63·) · characte'rize a~· good . · • • ' • · ' ' ' ,. • ' I ' o
. . ·-
, .
.· ,·
. ' . ~ · ... : . :
' . : ' ~-· '•
··. measuri'ng._ i'nstrument as ha~ing ~hre~ qualities: · valid-ity·>.· .
' ' I , ' • -.
. ' . ,. ,' '. . , . . ". ~ . . : ~ '.~ . . ' ··. :- . ' ; . .. : ·-
.'reliability, _and usability •. ·. ~his statement· echoe·s thro}lgJ'lb~t • . • • • • l~ . . • ... • • • .• t, \ • 00 • , • • • • · .. •
- '~~~e ' liter~tur~ ' as . ·~asic - ·~en~t· ip,·· ~tat-~s~i~~l researyh • ' J
•• · ~S~\~q~i~ t; 19 s~: c;,onba~h, i9 6 2': ' ~nd i Thorn'dike, 19 6B i ; Keriim3~r · (l~Y65) states: ·u. ·: . • cori..cer·n. ·fbr r~liability
~ " ., . . . · , ., : «!".· ·. <l • • • • ~ • • . . ... :··. • • • • • • • • • of . :·~ ". · · ~·1 ....
comes from .the necessity: for: depEmdab'ility in . mea·surement-~· ;, ' . . . . . . . . . ... '·
~ ·. . • I • - • • ' I . ' ,
. (p • . 42~). · It , is generally. "accepted that ··the· da:t(\\ of al1 - . .. • • • .... • " f • • ~ • • • • • • • .: .·' • • ' • ' • • • • • ' ·; , · • ' • ~
. : psycholog~ca1 a~d e ducat;ional measur'em€mt ' i•nstrum~n·t~· cont~in . . . . . . . ~ . ~ · , . : .,:.., ... . ' . ; ~
.. -, '· f ' ..
I ' ',
, . '
l . .
.. '·'
·. '
' .
' :· . . ... ' ' ' . ' ,·· :
. '.
' '
' '
. ' .
l I •~ , ,." ,1" ~ • 0 ~ • , ' ' t, • o ' • f 1 o • ' ' • j ~ , •• 1
, , ' ' , • 1
, • ' : • I , , 0
, ... ·,. . . :..· .. :.· .. ~~: ... ' .'ca... '!.: . - ,~t· -··. . ·• -~ . . ~: .· '·: :.. ' : . . :. ! ~ .... . :· - • :. ::-:.: . ·o - . . . : ~ . \ . .. . . ·:.. .; ·. )~ : . ..
. ·f ~. :·.-~ .L. :~:.. _) .:; : .. ~ ·. :· ~ .· ,. I -. : · . . , '" . , )- .·' -~~·;.:~; ;,l . :·~: :~. •- .· . -. . ... ; .. ~ :.·· .·· · .. :{. ,· ~- r · .. : ·. '..}i;·.:-·: . . '"' .,._:· ~ :·. ·.-. ., ,' :j.::·~· · .. ···eriors cOf .rneas':lrement .. ... TO< the 'ex:t~~.t . t'J:}.at . they· do, ' t,he d~ta · · ~~ . .·
f ~~i: > .. a. ': , · •• • • • ' :' ' • • •· : :·" • . , .' , ~-. •f. :. · , : ~.' ': ' · .. , .~f. · ' l ' ' , .
·~:- .:~ .. :.' •.' .• . 'they y~eid will ... not be;·.valid· .and · th~refope. an'y 'conclusions ·. ...... . . .,.. ·· . . ' il. ·, ' . . . ' . "' :'. . . \ 4 . • ' t t • ' . . • ~i . . . . • : . .. ....
~ .. , .·• / ' · ·:_. ,4~aw_?.._ltom ·:~~~m ~ill; .. ·~o.t:,-· .. ~.f ~~u~~-~· ~ ·. ·b~,· -~?~~~:~ . :-:·:·~ ·.: .... ' . :.:: . ~ . .-_.·::. /· . . ,.. ~
; . . . '0 o ' I
0 1 ,
• ' o' • ~ · '• • • ,t " • o • ...... , -. o• \ o • ' • l l , '· ,":. ' ' • ' I " •
·.one ·:j.Il)po'rbmt · th~me· uh?er:J.:y-.i~.'iJ .th~·. the~re~i.ca~··, qu~s.-:.· ,... :. . ·-· , • • • • • • ':. • • • • • . # ' • • • • • " ~ ' • ... , .. • : • • • • • . • . ' • ' ... •
: i:iOn of :~.;±~ab~J,:ri',lv~l~es :tne. ~d,~ntif~c~~~.on. of /l'~s'sibiE. ._ •. ·. ·.-~ .••• ~ :, <: ~ •. _:: : ..
·sources of· unr~lJ.abJ.li ty. J.n! the · meas.urement· J.n·st.r~ment·: : :... : · · ·. ·
. , .. . ·. A~in~~t~ati;.e proc~~~re:~, .~i~~.:ii~~~.~:-' .a~~:: {~st;~~tj:o~s·· ·:~;~ ·.:·. ·.·: . .-...:· ~ - ·,~ · :· · · .... . .. · among 'the pri·~~;ry~ . ~o~~c~~, 'of ··.·p·d~~.:ti:>ie e~.'r~~ .. . (Crqnba~h ; . . {;~ ~- ·; ·.- ·. . : ~ · .. < .. . '.:-
•'.
,. ·:
, . .
• I o ' I
.• ,.•
.. ·'.-: . . .
I •
" ('
1>. .
I ,
~ · • ' . ' • \. ' .. ~~ • • . ·. ' • .• . ~ . . • ' . , . . ·• . . . . • ,; ~ :4' . . . : ~ ... ·. ", . . • . 1 ; • • • ' • • • • •
. . · Ari.asta~~, 1965 ;_ .. an~ S:f:~n.le,y :. an~ :.HciJ2k~.~-~ ~ · ~91~.-·~ .~· .. ·~~ter~.~~ ~ -~~to_ ·\ .. • • 0 '. 0 • • • • • , • • • • :. • • • · : • • : - ...: • ' • ' .·! .; ' -this q~tegory is .t~e_. . problern :~·of~··wh~t~er · .. ' the . .-~·e·s_t~ · is ·· d.es;l]n~d · · . . ·, . · ~ . ' ..... :· · . .. ..... . ... : . '·. ' ~ . .; :
· fo;r ~~d~viduals· ~¥ . ~.ro.~p ~~in~stra·t~o:n-: . ·: . . . • · ... , ~·. ·_<::: < · __
. · st~n.d~~·diz~t-ion : ~f._' i~~·iv~d~?{~nd , .. g~o,~p . t~st~ i~p,).i~-~ _:.: .. - .~~-.~<" '/ _: .... ~:·· ~if_fer·~~t-.· ~pro~edur'~s .... in:· ~m.~n·i~te~)~rig ·~~.d . ·.in~e;p;~·~ihg. · ~he:· .. ·,· , . .:--. ··~· ·:: ~·.- :-:.
' • : • • - . •• ' • , ' ~ .' . ' • • · : •• • · ·. ~ : -· ·.· ·.~·: .... ~ •• 0 • · · . ·.~; ·
· tests·; If . tije score·s obtained by di'ffe:7ent · rneth~gs of· adrnin..; :··;.:· : ·.:: ·. . J ' • •. • -- . . . • • • ) . · -: • • - ' . !I • : • • • • • • t' ~ . ' ~- . • . ·. ;:
istratiOhS· are. ·tO b~ comparable, .th~ · te.~t : C~~structor~. ;m~~·-p . · J .' •.:,· . .. · .:;. • • • • • •• • • • • •• t • • • • • • • • • • • ll, • ' • •. .. ,. . I· ' ~ . • :
' prov1.de detaJ.led. dJ.re·ctJ.ons for ·the adm~nJ.stra·t1on· of the . . .. . . • .. ' ' . . .. . • . ·, . • . . . :•, . ·: • ·, ' ,: .·· . . • • : I • ' " ~ \ •• . : .. . ' : •< • ·. , .. • .' ' ....... o • .::. •. • •: : . .
tes.t (Anastasi, · 1965) ~ This standardizatiori :mus.t, ·in .. theory,.. · : . ~::,, .. ·:· •' ;' . • ' ' · I J ' '
0
' • 0 . • ~ ' ' • 0 ' : 0
' ' ' :
0
' . . ' • . . ' : ~ . . ' . . . . . . . . . ~ .. .. . . . extend to· the exact- :materia'fs . employed·, time· limits,- oral -a .. , . • .• , .·:· :
I • • t
0
f' ' . , ' 'l 0
' >o • ' I 0
0 0
· ,
0 0
00
' , ,' "0
. · · ins~ru~tidn~ to· ·aub.Jects, : pr~Iimi~a-:r~ dem~mttr~·tioris.~ :wa;s :· o .f .· .- · ·:· · _' • , ,' . • : • ' • '• : • • I • . , • . - ' · ., ' ,' , • • - • • •. • : ' - , • ; . : :, ,'_ ' • , : ' . •' : , ,' ' . . • :;
hand'ling ·.queries . about.· items,. and' other·. details·. o~. ~he teS't- ·1 •• • • • • •• · :: . . ... . . ·- . . \ . . •' . . ' . . . . . ... ' . . .
ing·· ~ituat:io~~· . : ~?ihE!~ 'impc;>rtaij.t · ~.tep : i~ ' t;b.~ · s~~nd:a.rdi~.~ti~n .. · :· ... · .. ·. ·· . . . . ·. . . . · . o' ·· . ; .. ·'. ·. ( . . · .' .· . . · . ··
o.f ··a-· test for :the· group· or· the. indiv:id~~l: . ._is .t1.1~. · establi~h.:.. · ·· ,._ I ' , • • . '' • •' , : ,'\ , , ~ , ' " • • , '- . : : · • . ·*'': ' ' ' 7, . ...... o • • • •• '·:' . ,·,·, fJ ' ' ' ,/
.. . , .. . ' .. .
ment of · diff~r~nt. norms .,~ ·thu~ . provi:ding for a 'dif_ference in . . . _ :- · · .- .. >. Q • ·~:
' ' f • o e ' • • ' ', • ~ I ' ' '
the ~n:terp~eta·t~on· <?f · results ,{,!\nast?tSl., . .f965) ~ ~ • -.~ J
. . .. . ··,
. . . . 0 •
0
' I 0
' , ' o ' 0 • I
0
0 , 0 : • I <,1 • o
1
... ' "' ' I 0
'';l'h_e advantages· 'anc~ d_isadv~ntage_s .. pf .9r"up)md·· indi:~··: .: . ...
. v~d.u~l . test's ' ·h~\re ·b~e~ . d·~~cus~e~ ·i~_ ·:·t~eo~y .· ~ <i6.~ c·i~-i~\ i/~ . . · . . . · ..
o , 0 o I
·. (: .-
' ' , ..... · . .. . -~.
o ' o I 0 • • • ' '
..... · , · _ .. -,., '· _. .·. , h • . : :- i · ~ .. . . .
. .. ... _ ·: ···-
. . . .... . .. · -.·.· ~ · . . :·: . . · ·. •, . . -. , ' '- : . :. _ ... . ..
-~·· . . ·'
~ . · '
.. . ' .. ' . . .. / . ....
o I I .... • ,. '. " • J .
..
~ .
\
. .-~ 0 .. .
. " ( ., , ,.
.-3
• I made that group tests provide and convenie_nce
• I . ·- . Of JnclSS testing 1 Siinplif'iCation Of the· examiner'S role.,,
' • • • r '
r ' • J • •
/ objective.scoring, andbetter established norms (Anastasi, • •
' 1965). The ,advocates·of individual t~~ting claim that indi-
vidual tests provide - _~n opportunity to establ~~h rap~ort, . . obtain coope.r:a tion, ",maintain the interest of · subj e~ts· , and·
.. to iden<ti:f.y temporary COz:ldi tions of the subjects _ such as
. ~ . .
, · illness, ·fat.l,.gue, o:r;- anxiety,', wl)ich could hav.e a · bearing on ; b - '
the fest- resuf~s (Li6qui~t~ , x - ~<i
196s;•and Keough and grnith, ~ ,. '
1953; ·G~ilford, 1956; Anastas~, . . ' . . . . -· .. ' .-.
19 67) ; In short, · the ' dyadic ~ .
relat~nship of the individual testing situation should \ ~ " 'o '1
re~ui t in less 111~asurement error .-~ecau~e of. the .abil;i. ~y . of . . . . . ~ . . . \.' '
the exami_ne'rs to i _ntetvene directly in. tes:ting -: ·. . . . . ' . . . --II .
. Most .standardiz&l test-s are qesigned ei the'r to be · . • ' . · - 0 _,. " . ·-= .
• ~d.mi~istered to : gr~ups · or. to i~divi,dua.-ls (Linquist,. ;1953; ~ ' . • . ' . • · • . I ' .' ,
Anastasi, .196_5) .. .How-ev:er ,.- a Jew test : c.<:mstr~c'tors claim that
thei~ tests may be . administe~ed interchangeably i~ _ either w~y. . . . . . .
•
-·
The ftender-Gestal t 'Test, the. Eml?edded Figures' 'Test I and the. :,_ ~~ J • o ·,, o ' • I \
· ·Marianne -:Frostig_ ·oeveiopmepta1 Test ·of Visu~i Perception
d;i ted · a~..,__ e"xampl13s · of double;,· -~drn.in:tstr~ tion te~t~. There ~ ' . . . ·
., are .. _-·
is
~-
_:/ ·- ~ no· "evidetic~ .to dat~ of a~y. research on the contrasting r~:J,.i~
" ' .
,• \ I
. '. "--:-·
' . - ~~ilities of
1those speci~~~ ~e~t~ un~~r group and individual
' ' tt . 0 ' ~dmin~s-t;ratioris,.. There a_re, 'however,· ~orne v~lidity stud~es - '' "- .. . .. . . -
reported wnich sho_w I ~onsistent· 'dif~erences b•etween gt'oup and '
~ irrai~idua·1 · administration m~des .. (Keough ·and Smith, 19.61:. • , • : , • ' ... • I ' ,/l ~ .•: ' , , I ' • . .JI
Jackson, 1964) ~ · The study· by.Keough and Smith on the • J .r: c. ·' - ~-
\ , .
' Q I • " ' , 0 0 :,
·.-:·
. '
-. ·"'?~··
"
. ..
~~/ -fi~ '
...
'.
0
. ,
•.·
< ~ ....
.. •\
a~ , y -~ ··. . . .. . ti
·.
. , \ ,f
l " , 4
Bend.er-Gestal t Test indicated no sign.i·ficant ·differences . ' '
betweep the modes of ~in~stra~~on. Correl~tions between
g~ou~ .and individual y adrninist~red Embedded Figures Test .
· indicated suff;i:ci . tly hi'gh. ~ agreemen_:t. to warrant· subst,i tution / . \ . .
of: groupofor i~~ividual forms· (Jackson, 1964).
It is apparent from the preceding . dis~ussion that from . . . . . . . . ·theory 1 1 there iS no ::'ay . Of ,Pre?ict,_ing the COmparability
(vaiidity an·d reli<;J.bi li ty.) of a -test under group or individual . '
ad.nlini s tra ti'ons. . ..J
' ' : ·The constructors of, the FDTVP cla'im .that' the test is•
' · . . ~qually .vali,d ··and: reliabl.e ·· und~r 'either--group or individrl'~l \ . . . . . . : ., '
.· '
a~}nis~ration. ·How~ver;. ~h~re ._ ... i ._s·. no ~~idE:mce·~pr·~fented .in
. the. ·test. manuals 6r . in the li~e~~t~re . reviewed which ~auld ~ ~ .
' .. · support su~h a claim. ' ,.
A 'study quot.ed by :Frostig, Lefever~· and Whittlesey \. ..
(1960) '·usin<? an. ·individua1. admiJlist~,ation, same ex~_irier, and
'a three-:-w~ek ' intervar' _betwe(m test-retest, rep~rts a ·produ~t-
momen't correlation. of ~98. . I
A seco~d study (Frostig et al·.,
'1961) . using· gr,oup adriiinistra'tiori., two examiners, .and: a two-;,.
week interval, ··repC:,rts . ~ correlation coeffi~ient of .80: 'It , . ,":' . . . . can be inferreCf fron'i this data · that a_ssuming cornparapil.:i,.·ty
. . of !:!amples, •an asswnption which doe!? not seem ~arranted;
' ' . approximately 2 0 per cent of the score variance of the FDTVP
. ·.·
. ' ., . is due to the examiner and to the mode of adm:i,nistration; '
: -,~ ·however, ·this variance cannot be parti tion~d as· to · soutc~.
Th~ .evidence stro'ngly supports ti1~ hypo.theses. ·that mode o.f ·. .. , '
.. ·I ., .·
..
. r .
\
··.
:•· ······
.·
• .
·.
' .
,,
,. ·'}.
' .
"
,•
. '
'
' .
' II
administration, or the examiner_, or both are ~ignificant
sourc~s of· error variance iri -administering the FD.TV~ .-
' 5.
The · literature also suggests .that sex of examiner and .· sex·of supject are related to the level of perf~rm~rice on · ·
tasks similar· to those ' pre'sented by. the FDTVP. : Consist:~nt
f.indin9s of sex differences in testing are repo~te~ as mean v . •
differences (Melker and. Garfield, 1951; Mas'ling, 1960; .and
Harris, 1971), and as variability differences (Stev~nson, · . . . ,,
1961; · Stevenson, -Keen, a1:1d Knights, · 19.63) • · .:rhe. ·steve~son ' .
et al. (19.63) study reports females with m6re variable ..
~ responsi ven~ss in scoring than males.. These findings suggest J
~' ' . .·' the ability to contro.l moti vati.on ·of subj~~"t: in · ~ndi vidual
\ . and group :t_esting .may be ~artly a function of se;K ·. of examiner.
.·
\ I •
Given that the difference between group and individual adminis·-,... . . .
. . ' tra~ion ·methods· ·is the nature of ·the . relationship . between
examiner and ·subject, it is possible that ·the :sex of . the ~ . ; ""
I
examiner and subject will in~eract with . administra~ion mode
'to show differen·c~s - in · reliabil~ ty and validity • . . I
It would appear that since the ·PDTvP is u~ed fairly . ' : . ..~ .
. . .. . · ~
extensively to · make both scr.eening q,pd. pla~ement ·decisions~ .'·· . . #
~he .question of . 8ffe~t - ?f . mo~e ~f. administration on th~se '
decisions becomes impprtant; t
Iff · as · is . sug~ested by the . . .
data, 20 per cent of the score variance· of the FDTVP is due
. to .er.ror of measurement, .s.eri~us ·. 'pJJ~clrn~n~ .decisi~ns can be
· made by using reliabili~y _finding~~hic~ · do ~t· ·con~ider .the
effects of adin~n.i,stra'tion mode .• . r
' . . ' -/
I . t •• • 1
"' .. . ·
.. '.
. .,. T
' . } .... ., •
. .
.#·
•·.
' .
.. -, .
..
I
'J
j- t . '
.. . ,. . . . . . .
• • ' • • • Q
Thl:S_ study has eat tempted· to study · tlie reliability .
and validity of the FDTVP using · stratificati~n of ·the ';fvar- .. • . ? ., ' - . . • • •
iables ',th~refore partitioning the source~- of·. e~ror 'vari.anc~ •
. HYPOTHESES
1. 'There .ar~ no differences ~h ~he test-r~test reliabilities ' ~ '
' • v ' ·
r obtained from '. group. adrninistrat.ions and individual. .'
a~inistration;s of the __ FDTVP. _ . ~ · 2. There ar,~ no · s~~~~ficant differences in mean sqore~
ob.tait:J._ed from gr;oup' admini~trations . ·and individual . . - . . . .
administ~at'ions of the FDTVP.
3 . . There are no _signi.ficant differences . in mean scores ' ~ '
•• '() • t .
ob~ained from male and female subject~ on .the FDTVP.
4. ~There are' no 'sig~if-.icant differences in meal) s .cores ~ . ~
obtained from male examiners and female examine'rs on
the FDTvP. u -
5. There are ~o significant ~ifferen·ces in mean scores ·' .
obtained from _Grade ·I and Grade ·rr subjects on the ~DTVP. " . .
6. Ther·e •are n~ sign~ficant di_ffere.nces in_ mean sc;:ores ·· . . r
obtained from therfirst ' testing occasion and. the retest-.. ing "occasion of . t.b~ FDTV~ o() . , .. , "
• • • 4
7'. There . is no significant interac~ion .of s~x of sl:lbject • • • • •• t
- '.1 • '
., and sex of examiner 'on the FDTVP.
,. . . There is no significant inte,raction of s e x of .sub ject
a nd ap.ministr.ation ;mod~ ·on the fD.TVP·~. , I
-·· ' I
~ . '. .:'·
/ .
. . " I
.\
· ~
·~
• .
. \
·-
I
' .
, .
..
. '
.·
' .. . . .•
·. ...
I ' -. . . . ~·
~. :.
· I ·,
7
9. There is no ig~i,fi~ant: i~teraction of sex of subject 1 ·j .. .. · ·
sex of exami er I and.',administration mode ,on the FDTVP :·, ". . ' ' . ' ' .: /
10. There is no.: · ignificJnt interaction of sex of examiner . . ..'· .
1 ~IMITATIONS OF THE 'STUDY ·
.. this study 1 as there must in any .study· .
~imiting factors· the' reader must bear in mind t9 . . '
> ' ' • "' • •
The foilo.wing the results oand .~onclusions. . " . noted:
(a) The generalizability of the findings. 'wi .. ll be •limited :t9 ; ·
populations .simi~ar to 'tha sample studied;- and ·· ·
. · ·.· : ~b) . the. findi~g~· basedj.on the Frostig . D'e~l:opment~l Test. of
. 1 Visual Perception . ay no.t be appl'icable to all Ytisu~l
··~
l .. , . . perceptual tests but only to· those with tasks · sim±l ar . .
to 'the FDTVP .
. ~~
... # ' •
I
~'
'" .
I •
. .
... '
' ' /
' . f '.
-··
.,
., ..
·,
·'
.. .';
•'
. ~·
' . r
h : •
.. ..
.IJ.
/'
·· '
..
I.
.,
, :
·'
. .. \ \. \
·•· . •
·.
• Q
A 0 <' l . ~ . . . ' . . ' .·. . '· .
..· , . _, ...... . . . .. ~- . . ' • . ; .
. ·' • • . , ... '
· .. ~ ., ; .. 1.' . . \
.... .. . .
: . CHAPTkR . II \. I .
. • ':!. ( . • . . . .•
_" · _.. REVI,E;W , oF· THE LITERATURE
. "'
•· p'
I. . I~TRODUCTION
. .
: .
\. ·
. ' , ... ~ - ~ 'i .
Th~s cl;:lapter J..~ a review of the . :literature relevantr . ) .1 •. . .
to the study, 'and presents the conclusions which evolve from / p :
that review .. The ·revi~ws ~ a~e qivided - into three segment~ .. . ,• ~ ·. ·. : .. . . . ~\ . . . .
which are not i 'ndependent .<o'f· ~ach . other 'J:hit ra:ther are. corn-. . . .
plem~nta~y to · ·the ·. overall purpo~e of;_th.is stud~. -.-·. • • • • 'ot' •
Section ~I presents studies · on 'th'e examiner-subject • : ' • · ' • • 0 \ . • ' • •
·inte'ractio'n. Seotion III. d.i!scusses th~- factors influencing . . . · . .. ~ - '. . . · . • ~, . " · . . . \' .
the· measurement· 'of visual percept:i,.on. .· ~ec'tion IV sel·ects " • • ( • ' • • • I • • • • • • o /' \
one visual perceptuai ' te~t, . the. ~ro·stig ·oeve'l.opmen.fai ·r£.est . I
: ) . ' . . . '
.of Vi~s~_al -~>rc~p~.i .. on, :·a_nd review~ the Fesearch on ·that · test •
. ) . ,I.I • . ·EXAMINER El(~ECTd
Research in experimental psycho~ogy ha·s shown some-.. . . . . . ~
what strik£ng l!esults which -indicate that examiner's '{Es) may .. . . . and' do infl't.lence .. t_h~ir data (Ki.ntz .et al.., i965) ·.· McGuigan ·
(1963) ·states; · ~While w~ h~ve traditiona~ly recogniz~d th~t ~ .
' the characteristic of an examiner. may indeed ·influence ... . . . .
f"'behavior, . it is important to -··observe that we have hot : ' ' I • • ' ' l
. . ~~eripusl:-y. a_ttem'pte~· to study h~m as an · independent variable11
! il . 8
, . ~- . ; · I I
' ·~ .
.·
I
•
,· . ·,
\ ·· .. ·,
-
I '
JO I
. ~; ; .
. ·!
--. .
. . .
. • ·.: · . . . ' , ..
- . . ,.
·, ,,
. • .
'.
. . ~.
. ., .. ;t
' .
. • , ;
.. -. a ·9 I ' . .. - 'l
' ·. ' ' . .
. (p . . ~_42). Stup1pf, ·,an influential scientist. of Germany, ·.
-~egan· .the .. st4ci¥ of, the· e~~ine_r· as· 'an. i~de:penden.'S, ~~t.iable . .
been· con-·in 1904, but not until ~ecE!ntly · ~as the problem
' .; :. ·sidered by ··e~~~riment~·l ~ psycho'iog~st·s for ' $ ·tuiidy , L
<'¢o;rda~o . 'an_d __
·' '
> • .. . . • . t •
Ison, 1~63; Mc<juigan, 1963) '.: · K_int:z; (1965) . conten.ds · that • • .~ • • <D ' •
• . wherever an. experimenter-subject relationship -exists, the . '
-~ .. ! J ~
possib.ility · ,also exis.ts ·fQr E 1;:-o contaminate his data by one • ' • ' • I , . '
·Or more_ <;>f a. mul.ti -t;ude 'of ~onveyance.s ..
~o .,contentions 'recur · in the literature: .. . , · ' . (i) -that . .
· · · an .E bi~se.s · a s~·bject '.s (~'sf r~sponses e.i ther di:rectiy.-· as ..
a resu:J.t . o£ ' hiS personal, chara~te~istics~ for i.nstanc.~;t;,one's ·.
' sex or p""ersonal'ity., or indirectJ.N: tnl]Pi.lgh the nature . ol the . ·, .. 0 . . . ·. . . . . . ' . . I ' I ' •' ' ' I • \
. :te)..ationship.; · and . (ii) ·the E 1 s 'interpre~atiori of ·ss 1 res.ponses .: . . • • . ' : • ~ ,. : •• I , ~ . • • ' : ; • : • . ' .,.I,Jf . ., ' ... • .. ;·
· · ~ may be biased, •for in~tanCEh in s~cor.ing (~cGuigan, 19.63: ' I
' ·. . ' .. .. Kintz e.t al., 1965) ·• · ·
. ,. \ I I • •
This . section presents. · ~es.ear;:h .find~n~_s on exa;llliner
influences under the categories . o.f personali i;y 1 sex, expect-. , . ' . ' . . ' ' '
ancies·, in.terpret.ations, for · inst~nce, , in scor.ing·, · and witlli~ ~ • • ·.. . ' • t- • ' • • • • • • • t •
t.h~ . ~on text qf his relationsti'ip with a suoject.
~
.. ;P~·rsonality bvar,iabl~s ~ . ' ' '
0 .•
·' • f • •
I~. a'tte.~pting · to 'as~ess effec·ts Of· .personality ~
£,actors .of E·s: .in the . experimental. l;litjat.ion,-. ~cG~_;gan~ :~-1960)_·~ .
0 ' 0
II o ~ ' • o I
·, compared trait scores of Es on personality tests .·.with · . · ·· · . ,. • · <. .
dependen't. va~iable scores of Ss • . ' However I no si,gnificant • • • 1 • • •
. ' results Wli!re obtained. Sanders and Cleveland (19S3) using '
... . , , ..
'• ·,
.• . . ,.
·.. ·" . \ . ,.
. '
) .
• .J
" .. . .' . i
· l . ;-'
., : '
. .
•' . ·· . .
'·
. .
<l> .
, ' .
. ~
• \ .,I f
I '
.. ·, . : .
\ / .. ·: '
\' . . ·;y:. • •• \ ' ' t l . . ::
••• 0 J '
' -· r: ' . ·'
10
. . . . . ,~
· tende'd · to eli:cit -mbre . s~b·~ed: ·£lex~bil.ity ~nd··. iesponsivenes~ . . ·~ . · . . . . ' . . . .
· than . cov~rtly anxious Es on. the R9rshach ins truman t. ' .. · . • 0 • • • . • •
. , _
I . .
. · ·R~sen~hal, - ~ersinger ~nd . Foc,i~· Ci962) reported that ' . : . .
' ,• • ' \ I
not only Es' personality· btit the Ss' p~rception .of this ,.
personality cc;u1 contribute ···to the· E ~ffe~t~ . -?=nvestigation .. . . . of Ss' peiception. of E has · been ,tindertaken. b~ two ~elat~d
studi~s . {~~sent.hai. e~ a.l., . 1960'; ~~d R~se~tJal ~~n~ ~Pe.rsingerJ. .· ' ... . ..
1962). B·oth studies suprl>rted the .hypothesis that .nafve . .
Ss inay · h~ve a predetermin~d !'set" about. what :a : typi~·al E is · o' I ' o II I • . , •
I • . • • . . . . • .
. like, for ins.tance, scientific or intelligent. Lord (1950) ·. . ' ' :- ,. . . . .,
and - Masling · (1957) .maintain 'that· an E, -by acting "warm" or .} \ • o o o I ' • I
·' ' : "cold~' can influence a sUbject's respon~es to ·a p~ojectiv_e
test. · ~·
' . .· ' . These' studies presented· ·se~m . to indicate that · the ·r.
· persqnal ~harac-t;.erist_:i,cs .'of the. - ~xami.ner play a role in . r
. influencing ei.ther the ·behavibr ,of the ~~aminer and/or- t:he· . . . ~ .
behavior of the . subj~ct . .
Sex Influenc·es
. ~eve~ajl studi~s h~ve . been concerned with ~nv~sti_gati~g_
,the .'manner in hich · results are influeJ+ced by examiner' dif-. : • ~ ' "' ' I ,...
'ferenc~·s in · sex.. Carlson ·and carlson (l9q0) · commented that
s.ex of subject arid sex of examiner is an omnipr~sent but __;_.-··
large'!}; .i.gno.red vari.able. The ~ex o~&-a~· · · . . . ·..---- · . .
such d~v"f~~~ phenomei:Ia --~ ·--~:iormi ty and · acquiesc~rt~e ' I
1, ... . ,.
0 . '
' . · •. ·
·.
· . .P . .
. .
•'
. : :
\
,-:.,,
..
..
\ o'
(
,.
·. .. ~ .
.,
' ·
., . . . v '
'<
.•
(
0
. . ' """':: .
I .
(Crutqhfield, 1955 ;' ,Beloff, 1958; Tuddenham, 19.58). ', ~~e4 : I 0 ' I ' '
11·
affiiiation· (Exline, 1962) , · empathy· (Dymond, i950r ~Y$.*!iinson, ,(
: .1967) ,· classroom learning (Page, 1958); verbal conditio~ing . . , . . . . .. .
. · .. '{Binder, McConnell and Sjoholm; 1957; Buss and· Durkee, ·1958; • • • , • J • • ,. . 0. . • . .
. . ••. • 0 . . • . . . · '
-Sareson and Minard, 1963), and E bias · (Gewirtz; 1954; • . . • ~ • ' :. - • , . . . • ' ; • : 'l •
~te.y~nson 1 1961 i . Rosenthal., 1966; Haa.n anA· Livson, 197.3) -~
Recent s1'ildie-s '(Phet~rson, i-969; HQrrier 1 1910; Silv.erman ·
et al.-, ·~2; apd .. Piac~~te, . 1974)1. 'invest~gati~g .. ~~~ e~~lu~_: · . . . . . ' • I 1 ' , • '
· tlons 'of _-. E.st!~ a 7tl~ct;.i~~: ~~ theii:- ss~ and ··.c~.mpet~ncy,~ show • - - o o I \
t~at' · result·~ v.ary .1with sex of examine!-".· ·: ....
. . : 1 Masiirig (1960) . warns that sex .of E and S are ·:among . • 'l/ "'·': • • ... .. ' . : '. • .. · .
the ·)ntrnero.us _si t.uat'ional factors · i~fluencin.g· ,psychol6g1cal . . \ . : . . . ~ . . . .
• <' • . \ t . , . • .· •
,t .
. test performanc~ •. ll,arris ·(1971) J.ilfewise.points :out. the
nec:essity of· ~oting ~.he sex of exruhiner:;. and. ~u.bject · ~hen : ~oin~ . \
psychological · research~· ·. · . . . ... Curtis . and ·· Wolf:. (1951)' and ClC!-rk ' (1952} report~d .
th~ t . seX o~ E infiuenced .t~e ~rodu~f respo,hses cin. . :
· projectiV,e type tests. · Gewirtz . and Baer (1958) and Stevenson ·. ' . - (). . . . . . . '
. '. (19~1) r~i~et:~~e_.:t~ose :~nciu~iofs_ . 'stevEm~on (1961) ?ffe~~ · .~xplanations ?,f ~hy ·this '. is·. so. ~e says 'the . Oedipal -theory
~f F~eud provides·. a. meaningful focus ·for· his. results~ for ' ' ~ I • o I ' • " • ' t
in~'t.ance, . female .adults may 'have" a significantly greater. ' ' ' ' ' ',. • , • • -.1 I '· , ·, r ; 'n • ' ,I '
e'ffec·t C?~ . the perforni~nce 'of· bo.y~ than of girls in the age _ . . .
. .. . ·: • ' . . . . .. . . ... \ '• .' . . . range of fo_ur· ·to seve·n: · .years, ·and male adults have ·a sig- . . . ' . ·. . . . '.\ . . . . . nificantly greater effect op· ' the performance of · girl~ . than
'\ \ I \.
· ·of boys · for the sarr.e age rarlge (Stevenson~ 1961}. In ~ I' . \ t.
• ' r; I > 1 ... ,1\ . . '•
I '
I " \
.'
' . .
..
, '
. :
'· .
. ,, ,.
'¥· 1 -! 'I_ ·· ··
. . ..
,. I . . . ' . ·
.... .
. · ' . ., .
' .
. ... 12
anoth.1k- study, st'eve:nson, een, and. K~ights {~96 3) found 'that
'thje le<ist effec.tive · combin1t~~n ·~~as· of male examitier with a
... male · subj~ct, and ._the I\IP~-~ ~~ffe.ctiv~ · comb.inatio~ was a f~~ale · ·· examiner .. ~~~h a f~m~l~ subjkc~·_< Results obtained in, ·this·
·. ~tudy ~ere explain~d · in \~r+s of anxiety . levelS: ra~~ed by
. "'1·-.'
I • '
· male examiners compared to t hose Jraised by female : e'xamine):-s. . . . I . . . : . .. . ·. ·· .· .Stabler ( 19 6·7) explained his -findings ·in terms of .
differ~ng. s~cial ·intera9tio~~ in~~lved betw~en 'E:s · and · Ss. . ' .• :. • • • \ ·1 - } ' .
He found that maLe· Es succeeded in having -€heir Ss · respond ,j :\ ' . •
,'to th~iJ;. au tho~i tati ve ,)con_una~ds whe.reas ·fem~les. w~re viewed · ,. . '
· as having a minor rol_e i.n au~hori'ty.' Similarly, Gray (1~59)'
. repor~ed · ~h~t ide~tifi~ati~n .~with an examiner ~Of· .th~ Splne
.sTx is .psyc~o~ogi.ca'lly mor~ i~~ortan~ f .or boys· than for ' .
. I . girls. Gfay' . for _example' found . indices of male child . .
identilication with· a ·.mal!=! E ~ere· signifl~antly correlated . .
. !
. with th~ · ~djustment · C:,f boys, but that the r~l~t~onship · did. . . . . . . . .. . .~
n ·ot hold for gir:I:s. ~ith £emal~ Es. Stevenl?ori (1961) hypotl,l-C. ' ' I
esizes that the .' ef.fectiveness :o.f social · reinforcement . --..
t. .. • ,• . • .. • •
provided b~ an adult ,exam~ner .~s . a 'fu~ct~o~ . of the degree·
'to which ' child~en are · depr_iv~d .of corttact witl:l ·mernb;ers 'Q-£ . -~ . .
the adult's · sex. •
Masling ~196.9). anc;l Ha rris (1971) a r e among many ' ' I ' 1 ' '
· r~searchers · ·{Bl;UJ1.Swi_ck, ·195.6; McG.uigan,. ·19,63; and KlEdn , . . . . . .. .. ~· .. ,
Cicche tti 1 and Spohn 1 19 67) who are conc~rn~d 'ov.er res.earc~ .' . ~. .
. c6nducted ignorin~ the , posi~ble • • ' ' • • .... I
. on r~~:m.lts.; Har r .is· (19?1)'. states · that . ' .
i n f luence of s ex o ·f E .. and Ss .'.- •
aS. a · mini mUm s t e p to
.·
0 . J
•,
'
..
·. '
/ - . ·;' . . .. • I
' ./ I I I
. I
I . I
I I. I ,,
. r
-}
. '
, _
i
• •
I ! I
I
'. I
lJ
13
. . . \.
. :·control ,for the · effects. of sex·, one can :'ei;>orf the number
and . sex of. Es and E?s 1 t:hus\.i'low.i:ng .. others to · replicate the· . ' • .
·study. Alsq, if sex of E· has a ,ciifferential effe~t o'n ss, cipposi_te .sex Es ~an expec.t.-o'differences in -their data when : '\
' .
they · att~mpt to replicate each other ··s work (Harris, i9 71) . ' r • • I• J,. ' •
Whep these sex differences appear a:~(1:rd:.eracti6ns (Masling I • ' ' • ~:- I· 1 ,. ,
. and Harris; 19 69) 1 rather than· simpl~( ~·s ma-in effeG'!:s ~· • • • • ? ' " . . . . .
· (Klefn ~tal.; ~967), ~Waueness of S~X becomes particularly
'). · import·ant·~ .. ·· Btunswick.·-·(t9·s ·6.)" · .~ays that··ign_oring' the· possible "' . " \1 ..
' I ' • ' \.
in'fluEmce of sex ·allows a ·sou.rce ·of error variance into ohe' s ·.· ~ \ .
McGui,gan· (1963) ' states ·· . ·, experiment that could be eiiminate.d •
. 'i . ...... "i'
that broad sampling of .,..t;he· examine~ _popula-tion per:mi ts the .' .
· · . psychologist to place mo~e c'cmfidence in ·hisf conclu'si:on ·that · . . .. . . / .
differences are due to one's sex ~nd not.~o the· i diqsyncrasies • ',I '
.... . . o I
<;> f 'One man ~d one W0m9-n. ·. I . .. .
. · . Jackson ( 19 6.4) obtained · ~esul_ ts showing_ . data_ . for male . . . . . . .
subj~cts r~vealed mo~e differentiated performances . in measures I ' ' o I
~f ·.pe~l~ept4al :spe~d . and .spat.ial ~rl~ntation than. did data·-f or • . \ ' . . e "' .
fum~l~ subje~ts: This finding . of a diff,eren_t pattern of ' I
~orrelations -among cognitive performances in .the two sexes · • • • • . • • Q ~
~ .. . .. . . . i$ consistent with , pr~vi~us research~(Jacks~n, 1955; Bieri ·
• ' • • • ' { o ' • f ' • I ' ' . • : • ~. • • '
~.t , aL, 1958 ;' Witkin et al., , 1962; ·Messick and Kogan~ 1964) . . . . . .. . . .. ' . .
,, and suggest·. once again ·· th~ fr_uitfulne ss ·~f · fur~er e~plora- · ·. . . . ..,
· tions of, the ·, diffe r Emti'a;t condit~ons out Gf which co,gn~ti.ve · '·
. d:i.ffe rant i a ti_on eme~ges. in males and femaleS! · ..
' .
"'\-. . .. ..
. t~
' ...
. "j .. -' \,
. ·'
'.
. \
' I
~
-' I
· ' 14
Tlire~ studies which hav~ reported .. e~idence of .examiner ' .
v~rfability· as~ociated with sex ·and race of examiner .in the i .
· administration of the 'Stanford-Binet a e ot . relevance·.
Cieutat '(1965) re;ports a s~gnif.icarit fference between the . ' '
~ I , -
scores elic.ited by "female and . ~al~ E.s" n the Stanford-Binet ~._. • ..,., ,r--r_...,_
': (Foims L-M.1~;;.~:Gl1e female . Es obtai:ned sig ifi<;:ant:iy· higher
s~ores . tha~'le Es when. testil)~ mi~9-r~t\· gro~p· cliildreh
· ranging in:. age from 47 .to .. 52 months~~" The ·overall mean 9£
the six .. female examiners .was · 8.9.'61, a'nd that of the mal.e . .... . i· .. . .. . .. examiner~ ~as Bj~l9. .. ,
.... . ' .. Cie~tat · and· Flick 0.966) . pfese~'t addi;tior?,a;J.Ievidence
• • b. • • ~ . <i. ' • ; of ·.·E v·ar1ab.1-l1 ty . on ·the S~anford-Blnet (Forms L-M) · scor~s of
.44.a . four year· .ol:d N~gro .children.' Marginally s;i.gnificant;
inter~ction·. wa·s reported, bet~ee'n ; the. sex of the examiner and . ' ~ex -of. sribj.eqt·.
0 \ • • • - •
that· examiner ·se:?( b.ias was .r:>rese~t in mos-t:: ·cases where the
test .i~ems. we~e of medium diffib.~lty~ · · , . ' Forreste.r · and Klaus (1964) , ~~pc:>rt a stU!iY . of 25 .five
< . I t f • • .. ' - . . . ' ~
· . and six year · old Negro kindergarten -children. . f) . '
'Sex· of :examiner
. '-~as found to be a significant variable on the 1937' revised . . · . Stanford-Binet. . ' . , .
/ -'' · · /{e ··Bo~i t;z: (~~ 9~~.) · verified tqe · find:ings of Cieutat . . . .
. : Le Bovitz suggested tnat the pr.imary. . . \ ' . .. . sourc~ 'of bia~ iS? tllkeiy to ' b.e ~?lat~d ·t9. ·~xaminer ,cha.racter-
• • • o ' I o ' ' •' • • ' ' ' ' .. :'• • ' • ) ' '
istics ?nd includes faCtOrs such as sex. ,. I
. ·. ' I
. " . • , .
i 0 J 0 1
f • \
' ' . ' .. . ;, .· ·
...
. .
.,
.. ,
II· , . I,
; ' ..
. ·'
• • , l
' .. ·"' ··' ·~··, ·
.· )-· -..1 . \') . .
'
, ' 0
.. ':
·" . 15·
Expectancy Effect 0
Pe~hap~ the component ,of examiner ' effect which .is the
cause , of gre~test conpern is that by· which the E in some way ·· . . '• ~ ' . . . . ..
inUuences .the Ss to ~er~o~~. ~s · t~e. E has hyp~thesi~eci . · · ' ..
(Kint'z ·et al., · 1965). · The_ reasons for concern about expect
ancy effe:.~t ·are becau~e -so littl'e· ~~own about ·it and so . . '
little research·appeais to be dev0ted to it.
·Several studi~s wer~ fou~d, howev~r ,' regarding the ... • •I '
q
expectancy effect • . Rosenthal and 'Fode (1963) demonstrated ·' \
I" . - - ' , \_ - •
~he pro~lern -~~early ii? ·. an ··experiment ·. w~.'th _two . ~.t:o.u~s. · of . .
rando_mly assigned aniillals. . This· study concluded cthat ' . . .
examiner ~~pec~ahci~.~ · · oij:l· ~ubjecl:s. ~~~e inf1uencing factors
on s~j~c::~s'• performa~ce,' .for exam~~e~ the ~xpected '.bright.' I ' • ' ' • ' '
~ubjects. perfor.l)led s~g~i~~cantly better·· than . the expected
, ' <3:ull,' subj ec~s. Allen . an~ -~ldm~ · . ~pport resuJ. ts
oht.ained 'by. Rosenth~l. a~nd ·F~~.:Ci9 .~8)·, that ~x;niners' ex~e·~-. . . ~ .. · . . . . ·~?f~ .
. tat.io~s of subjects will 'affect .~ubjects' · performanc.es ..
.. ":'. . silrion : (1969) exposed· ·a ~:·di~~~nt effect. o'f ex:Oiner - . . ~ . ~. . .. " . ·. '....:, · ,. . . . - .
'·expectaa.cies: fleytclearlr.?~~onstrated).that expectatiop.s . . ' .. . . •.·• J\1... . -- .. . • : . :
~ •• • ... • · ·~ ~ 8
will a,ff~t · the sc;::or~ng proc~ss ~.-.H~ maintains that"'.the _ ... - -. ~ ... . ~
~oti va tio~!]. .. ~.r~perti.e~ . .. .... . /' ·.... ' .
· . ·any given individual in . , . . . .
of th~:~xpecta~cies formulated by
any gi tren. si t~ation a.re a :. function
. '
..
''
..
-·
·- ....
. '
. •, . . ...
. •. ·"
. . ' - . . .. . . . .,;:..-- .-
: · not ·only of= the :· E' s own par.ticular persona,lity .·~rganiza1;:i..on, .....-:- "' ...-- :
': ..... ... :.:: _ ...... ' .. ~-. . ,
.~ ·
. . : . : . \ . ! '- . . . . . \ . :_. - ,.,. --- ·-- . ' ll . ' •
but are also quite obviously. a func~ton- o~~fie r~latioqpqip . ' . ' -.. . --- -... ---;-· .
(') ... . ' . .
between the -E and subject ( s )· ~-- --· ... -- ' - --
.·· .. · ..... .
I
. . . ,
:!l.
, .
!. ...... .,
.. ,
' .
0
'' I .. .
~
• • J ' • T
. . ' I •
. ' . ·' . ' "· ·,I I ... :• ·.· w
. . .~. . ' .
• I .. , •
a '
.,
. I
, .
- ~
____ :-..------ . -
. '
. •'
0 •
• . . ·
. •'
. . •. ·, ,· 16. . . . 6 . ...
. . . . ' . ' ~ . . . • . . . .
· · s~u~r · (1975) clar1fies · Simon~s (19~9) suggestions . • • • \ • '' 1: ' ' • '• If • ' ' I ' ' ' ' o ~ .. ~).
and .'offers .. po~sible ~xplanatioris why expectancie's have, dl.re-at .
·. '
' •; 1 ' 0~ ' 1 I~ ~ • • ', • ' • "•, , ' '
influences qn resp'onses . oi:md . interpretations ol those . resporises .. ·~·. ·. . ' . ~ . . . ~ . . . . . '
. .. .. . Ba·uer maintains that ~xp·ectancies based UPC?n imp'ersonal·
. . ' ,I . ' • • . .
stimfilus inputs ~ay. ~e. reinforced · by inforin~tio.n obt_aine~ ·· · ._ .... ~. J:: ~ • • • 4 .. . • ,; . . : ~ . . . . . . · . ..
from personal 'interac~ion wi"t:h teaphers, ·p-ai"ents, · or .with' .the .. • ' 'o • . ' .. • . .i • I . I ; • ~ I • ~ : • ~·. • ...
subj.e,ct himself. . SecondlY, an 'eXaminer .. mi9ht' posSesS q. sOme~ _· ~ -
. .. .. .
.·
_ :::.}"h~t - ~iff~rent ~xp~6ta~~y f~r.;a ···sub·j~c·Ec~~~- ·has " ~pne ·t·xce~- . .
•. tionail; well ~~ ~he .f.fi.~t pa~t of .a .test . ~h.an . fo~ a subject . _'~ 1 • . i . 1 ~ • ~.~.-- -·· • : ·: ....
_who has,:done -' rath~r poorl~ . on z;-~"5\o~ . o~ · th~ . ~e~t · . ·-. : . I ...
· (Bauer, ·L 1975). ....:....,....:; ".:.. . ;
Adrnini'stration ·
· .. ·.·.\ _ .... -. . I
" ·. , . . ~· · . ~ ........ ~
; : IJI' ~.; · ~ . . ~ . '
The . 1: 4 ' • '"'~·-·. .. ~~ : • .~ • • ·: • ' . .:,
?receding survey of ·:the literature o.n-exam~n~r .. .• . .... . Q · .. ·:· ~·~ .- .. . :.· ·' -:··:·.
co . ple~~1f .the nature of the.working ·· · . , .. influ~nces . ,
for instance, whether- the s.tudy .. .:j.s . ' ' ' • I '
·: ·carri'ed·· in ~ grou~ o;- an indi~id.ual · settin:g. · . ·. t. T~e : .\itera·t~re .; .eview 'to date
.of he .· rel.atio~hip . ·betw~en e>taminer ·However, ' I . . . • "\. .
f~w · 'tudies. ~-~~ ·:d~·yoted to· th.e ~p-rirQe l;mrppse . h '. . :: . - :
of studying·
·.
. effe ts .. Ullde:r:::~differipg ~ela-~ion~J:iips· ~ . , ~:·~··. . ~· :- ..
• • .... - • • ~ . . . . ..::, • . ~ : I . ' ·o
Masling ~ (1959) ~dr~sses0
the preble~ under the; area·.· . . .. .. • I' ' , ' • : I • 0 ' , (\
··of -inteilig~nce _.testing· ~ · . He sa:ys: . ,' , ~ . . • "' ' • I • .. • ,' . " ,' • : • ' , , - -· - - ~·: .. ;;
. During the course of .their training ·.mast. t~s~ .. · ~ are exhor~ed ~o . establ:l!?h . "::appc;>rt" a~d· · a9Jno.n-~ned . . • . . · · · ~;,. ·. to be. "ob].e.ct1 ve ~ "~ . The .'l obJ ect1 ve..!!.--examlne~ J.:S · · · . . :· .. ; .• • .
,charged wit~ ·the responsib~l--i-:t¥0£ derivinq as v~l.id: .· . ... an . estimate of the'~i--ritelligence ·.of the subject as , 1
- ~ · ~' . · 0 ' · ·
·.·~··· · ·. · ','
.. ·. ' . . . . ... . .
. 0 ••
. · . ' ..
· .. . "
' . . ~'
' .
. .
• ..
0 .
: . . .
.I.. .
. .-
::,; # ••
. . . . ·. :_..... ., . ., ..
••
. . r_
I , 0 0
~ can __ tie . obtai~d, without ; regard for hi~ . personal .. "attitudes ~b _. t . the subj~ct. ~e· i~ th~s expected · .. ' .. .. t~,--~-~-~!~~<:1~ - d~~-ed an~- lci~!_)e~so~alized. . . · · ..
I I
•.I /
J. i ' . •
M.aslin~.' s study- attempted t0· irtv~stigate the · 17xtent . to which • • 'I '• ' , ' ' ' • J • o ' •
.. ~n .exa~in~r cciu. d di ves'f:: himself:. .of personal 'bia•s in ad'rqin-;-4 I .. •. . . • "' ?)
..... istering and sc an· intelligence ·te~t whep .the. ~xayft.her . · '"- ·~·:' ·· . ._ ""' , .· . . ..., . , ' · ~ - .
_.l aCted in ' ei ther_la highly interested (I Warffi I) .ffiaime:r; in a,n . ,' •
. in~i via,.:.al . i;.!'st ·-~g ~e_sSio~ oi:. iJl a p~;s"ist~Iitly re~ec;i:.in9, .
dis~nt~rested . ( ·cold') mann~r. Masling• s (1959) -' .resul:t:s "' . . \\ • . ' ·.J .
i~d~_cated · .the _ s~J:>j~ct,s' r~sp1 · ses ~ere: ·_better whe-r_e · the ·
examiner h.3:d a dir~c.t con.tro I
, '
oyer. the . rel.a t'iopship in the .·· · ' .
. . ,dyadic set-up.· · · . \·: {t:
' . .· . · Gorqon and Dure a ( 1 Q 4 8 i · found ·th~ t . a gro-up,
. ' . : . .... . given the 'I '
Stanford-Binet' 'under· c_onditions of a larg_e group:~ informal ' .
. -. setting I 'efl._rned a rqe~n IQ ,'score ~ ., . I '"
-- · . / .
6 • -~ 5 points. lower than · a ' .
~maller- gr~up. I ' I I . ~ ·, ,.
· Hutt (1960) conclJded that poo;-lY. adjusted ch~ldr~~ . _1
. ·~core 'better .on ' pe;f~r'ma~ce tests in- a ·settin_g' whe~e examiner
,-,) subj~ct :~~~>te~_action is hi~h as opp~~ed to in~ormal ' group ·_· . . a!.-~
·situati~.· ·-~ .. -
. .. I . - . •-7'-. .,
- . ..... . ... 0
c: \1 • • -~~~~er . {1970)' in· line with' Hutt• ·s _study (194~7) I
... . . .
.... <>~
' '•
. ~ . . .noted _ that·. a - possibleo sourGe ·of errot: in . ~co:z:es obtai;ne_d
. . ... ·. . \ . . -
from differences in t e st in~tructions -demonstrpted . that test-': • . ~ ,. • • - • • • l • • •
.; ' .. . ~xious boys were odep'endent o_n -~ow the examiner str'uc_tured
his ·relationship . wi.th the: boy,s ~ : · Test-anxious· boys apparen~ly · • I •, • ' ' !.. ' o I • • • •
. .. rel~ on sources oj 9ontrol 6u~sjde themselves for dir~ctions; .. ·support; and approva~ •
' , ...... ~.,.. . ' 't_ . · .• . ·:-· .
' ,_
"
..
.. , .t _,
l
\ .
.. <
,. -.
'·
. '
.'
. .. ,"" .
.•·
. -,J
.. . .... ,
.. .
• I
,•
,'
, .. . .. . . .
-..
: ... . ... : . .. ;1.8 . · . ., .
oAl). ·studies ~Hu'tt:., ' .1_9~ ?"; ·Go~don al).d Qure~, lJJ.QS·; ) • · V ' ; •' ' o r/' ·
· 'Masling, 1'9~9'; ·and Bau~r', _1960) _rei.terate the. conclusion :
that s1.1bj~cts •· p~rformances · suffer, not bec-ause of l .ack of I • /. ~ ' f • • , , "- e •
potentiai on ·-the subj:ecto/':7pa.rb ~ut . because. ·of the ;.J. vel of - . . .... ' ·.' . . . ~ . , , . ' ·.'' .. .
interaCtio~· between exarnine'r ·and - sub~ct. . : ( . ' .~. . .
Several studies of a different •· r;o :.· . t • -.
gro.up· and/or :-individual wo~king relati!)nship, appear ~n th~
.. . • t • • • • , ... .
literature .. .-· Those studies reflect o.'n.:the specific details ! .• . . ~ . . .
• . · ' t ' '·· . .
of ~n .individual. experime~t whicli1• di.ffer from those involved
" ' · • l • ' • I '
in. a group 'expe_.:t:irnent ~ These· studies· will be cited . arid, 'the ,.
con~lusions will be _p.resented .in an attempt, to clarify thi's .. . . . . ·' . .. . . . .
' . oth~r aspect ·of the .~ork~ng relationship. _
. ~ .- . -. .
.. . Jq~t:kson (l964) d·iscusses the advantages and dis-'· :
' • • •' • • ' '( o I ,• • .. . ..... ·advantages of ~ind~_vi¢1-ual_ .and -group· tests: His · cont~ntions
. ~r~ - in: lln~ith~h~~e ·.;~pr-~ssed ~=t<~uilf.or'~· ( ~956~ , · , .. ' .....
that research on indi-Linqui~t (19~3) ~nd Anasta~i {1965) ·. . ~ · · .vidual. diffetences requires l~rge s~mpl~s · if a~y confidence
~ ' • ~ I • ' ~ • • , 4 • •
' . . ' . ; is to . be . p£aced in' the. r epl'icabili ty of_ results in gene~ a~~
. . extrern~y difficult; a'nd costly :to .enlist h~ndred's of sub.:..· . . .
'
·:-.
' <· "' . . , . jects for the, period o:f time re·qu'ired j:or e~tens ;ive · iridi-:.
:· .· · vidual testincr. . . • . J. • • .
Howev~r, past· at;. tempts to construe~ g17oup . .
·· adrnini'ste;e~ te'sts requiring differ~nt . instructions · from. • fl :~ • • .\
• ~ ' • J 0 : .. ' ' . • • • •
those qse·d in individual. tests have met with -some success . . · '
, ••• ·1·-accor¢ling to repor.ted studie~ {~.g. · T~u;r:stone, 1944;
:- "<iuilf~rd and Lacey, 1947; · and Overlade , 195.6) . , • • • : -.. f
. . .. ,_ .. .,
: l
0 . . . ·. ,.
.· e . , ' ' .
.... ' .
:· ,
., . '
·. L .... .:
.. • r! ' ' ' . . .
J
.·
. ~ ;
1 ..
...
\ .
...
.·.
•
,
.-. -. . . ~
'-19
The relevance ' of· the ef_fects 'o:f a . diffe~ing wor~ing . .
~elationship on ,the measurement · of ·_visual per_<?eP.tua\ tasks . . .
is ' important in this study, Studies were found in this ·[ . I . . .
· · ar~a and .w£11 / be quoted · mfnly because of , their finding·s
- ·: .. and i _mplicatiC:ms . for' thfs present:· st.u9y.
· · · .· · Jac~~9n · (196·4{ ~ondu'cted · hi~ investig~ti.ons on' the - ! .
0 ~ E.~edded-·~·igu~es Te~t. A specific l:iecornmendation of this / · . . '\ . .
. . \ . . . -study p~ihted_ toward~ the nece,sity ~f differing ~nstructions . ' . . . ~· .
for: · a cjl:'oup ~ode of administration than for an :tz:id.ividual .·\. ,
mode~ For .a group a~in~stration, for inst~nce, each .sub-
...
.ject ~~~e : in dir~c./.;_~ignme~t wfth the sti!";,~us objeci: ·
_ so ~hat_ t:pe- ~aximwn differe~t·. orienta-bien of ~he desigJ?- is
pos~,dble ~~d ·such .th·a~ -- the p~esentat,ton ~s __ identifi.ed . for I • ~ •' •
ali -subje€!ts .. .:
Fuller (1969} and Lasch et al •. {i·974} in st~dying . ... . .. . t-he Minnesota Percepto.::.oiagnostic ·Test a~d ·to ·the_ ··det;ailed "'· . . . ' . .. . . .
~ \ t • ..
. : instruc~ions involved in differi'ng .the mode of admi-nis.t~atiori, .
. ,
for instanc'.e, iight -· reflecting off t~e .s~reen may i~pair · · ·
results, especially those at .aqute angles to the screen and
difficulty .i,n perce.,iving the .figur:es·. 'Lasch et al. . (1974)
·postui~:t.~d that ~;~imulus card_::; ·co9.1a_1 be ·kept· in direct
.ali'9~ment..' with th~ copying pape~ '\d~;ing a gr..oup. adrninistra- .
0 '
,. I
. .• . ' . . . . ·tion ·iri -order .to ,convert the Minnesota Percepto-Diagnos~ic
. . ~ '
Test to a group test from an individual' tes.t. Howard (1970} --
further comments on the ' ·pr_ev,iously', discussed _studie's ,with
her work- _on -the Bender-Gestal·t test.- . She demonstrated the ·
> .
: ~
. ~,.-· ...
• \
I '
-
: \
·•'
' · I
·-,
' 4
• I
, - ~
: '
· J
..
,.
. '
. . _,
I .
. : ;
(
' •. : .
20
proce~ses whi.ch occ'ur whe'n_,,subjects must al ternq_te eye r
fo~us between- near and distant -s .timuli, for instance, from·
,the screen and the paper.
· T.he studies (J·ackson, 1964; Howard, · 1970; and Lasch
et al ~ ·, .1.97 4) are quoted ~s example:;; 'of 'studies which hav4?
noted. the .differences . of· group and indfvi.du'll adriti.nistrations. ~
.t All stU:dies 1o r~~ognize. ~he differen~ inst~uctions re~uired, · · and ·.'maintain: while qome differences may involve re~iab.le and · ·
. l
consistent effects they might prove '·neither necessary . nor 1
' \ . . . '0
relevant . t~ the pri_mary .,. . a ·im in ·test construction, yet ·others
may prove indispensable ·. ) • l ' ( I
Jackson) (1964) stresses the· implications. of el'theJ; a · J ' ' ' 4 I ' '
' . group s.etting or an individual setting sa'ying that it is·
. ~ . . possible that : tqe dyadic interaction may I:ave effects that ·
. . ·- :. . . . transcend the primary purpose of the test, for instance, a ,
• . • t .
··.~ubje~t' s performance may be altered· dus./€0 his embarrass-. ~.
ment over failing . ~!1 item. . .!. .
-. ·. .. ··Scorer Differences · \ ' . ~-. ,
J
I
·'·
't .. (. .
' . .
·~ . The en tire -field." of sco:rer differences 'has re.ceived · . --v- ' .•
a"ttention -by resea~chers of ·psychoiogical testing. , Evidence b
. f. . •
of scorer reliability ·differences· ori .'the -Bender-Gestalt . Tf?St , . . \ ..
have been reported ·· (Mi ller et al., 19~3; Werner,, · 1966; . .. Eg~lan?, Rice arid Penny, 1967 -; _ and Broadhu:st an<;l ·Phi~lips,
1969). In geneJ:al, the . reported .. int~rscore'r reliabil.iti~s . • • .. ~- • . ' . • • • • • . : .. '1 • • • . . .
: .. vary be.tween • 79 .a~d · .. 96, a'nd ·on :the whole ~xceed · • 8 ~; thus·
... .
I· ., . . .
I ' l '\
·." . ~- - · 0
1
.. , .. ·,
1 • . ' .
. (]
' '
·\
\ 21 • . • • 0 \ ~ •
ipdicating_ the . testIS interSCOrer ,~e.liabili ty 'is,, 11 ctdequat~ o 11
I~ I
Howe~er, Egel.and, Rice, 'and Pepny .. (1967) reported . . ' ~ .. ·" . . . . .. :
one of their sdo.i:e.rs .on the ~emde.i'-Ge·stal t ·Test was more c' "
J . , .. lenient than the other two. · They hypothesi.zed that sucb a
. . . . . . ~ variation arnbng trained scorers would l~aq one to · expect
. everj m.ore variati.on among ... ' .naiy~' ;,r i11experienced . ·scorers I
. of the test. Simil'a.rly, . Broadhurst·'~ and ·Phi).lips ·(196.9) . 0 . . . . . \ -
tried to ·explain why one of· · their scorers deviated rna:t;'kedly . . . , . . . ' • • I •
· from ·the other. th'ree. Thus, the question was raised whether·
the · deg·ree of clinical experience and handling of ,the test . ~ :. · '
inf1uenc'es interscorer· reliabil~ ty. .. . . Morsbach .et al. (1971) attempted . to answer:. this At
q"\:lestion. . The findings suggested that inters corer relia .... . • • • r• • f oi• • • •• " • ~ I ' •' • ... ·, · • • '
·bil'i'ty .: coeffici,ents were . . genel;'ally su'fficie~~ly high ln both .
t~e "exper.i~~~e~11 a~~· ;,i'nexperien~ed11 ·~sco~er · groSps • . How
eve~, t~e .u.~t~.aine~ ·~;~~P· ·.w.as . rnu~h ·~or·e.-.horno~~·ne~us in its I . . II 6 ' •• . . .. . .,
scoring than the clinical ' .group since the latter group · .· .. - · ·-· . . . . . . . tende~- ~0---~p~i~ . ~n~o two ~:ubs~.cfi<::ms, one with rather severe
· ~. .
score~s arid the. other with · t~o rather 'lenient scorers .
./ Morsbach (19.71) "found tha·t th~ ·-: reliabil.i ty ~· o.f th~ · test was -~ I ' '' , ·
•\ . ,.
,.
sufficientiy high. :ia!l both ·9rC?'uJ?~ ~<:mc.luding that qu~stions ·
._.about ·the.·reliability .. ot the · t~st · see.med to be due les·s to · ~ ·-. . . .
variations of scoriJ1g ins~~e ·the scorers and more to ~aria-; ,.
tions between scorers.
., The , W~schler. Intelligence scale for Children (WISC) . .
has received · t.reatrnent in .. the ar"ea of -differential scoring I ,.
c . " II
•
' . .
• ••
·' ·
. .. . , . . ~
.'•
'•
I
'·'
... '
{'
...
.Ji . .
;
. ,•
. .
, ..
• I :· 22
(Glasser and Zi~erman, ·1967; Madden, 19?4'; and RotJ;unan·,
.1974). Madden (1974) sfa~~s: "Directi~ns . for the,scoring
of the mazes s.ubtest · of the WISe, as given in the manual ' . I
(Wesc~·l\, ·1949} are ambigp~us." . ~ ..
Exclu.ding de:liberate departure's frorn"'-established
. ---:..·
. et al., 1971) ' and examiner expectancy of suc~ess (Oickst.'e~n
anc:J Kephart, 1972).. BOth . ~tudies were done on the WISC . . · . .. 1 ' .
· Three other ~tudies (Sat1er and W~get, ~~70; . Miller · . ~ .
and,Charisk}r,. : 1972; a~d · Rothrna.n, 19.74) rE~po.rt di.ffere~~ic)1: .
vulnerability . in the .. wise particularly in Voc.abulary:, ( ·. · . -. . .
Si~i.larities, .and._ .. comprehe~sion.' • • 0 • . t..
· · F~om the. literature rev.i~ws, it can be seen that> : . '
examiner differences ' can be elicited. in the form of scorer .. . . . ·~ . .
d·i~fererice due to a. wiqe.~nwnber ~f ·conditions; for examp1e'f . . . . . '\ . . . the ambig.uity ·of scorin,g ·instructions. by ):.est constructors.
/
Implicat;ions for Testing I .
The preceding ~urvey of . the . 1itera~ure has r~vea1ed . ' .. .
., the existe~ce ~f : the . ~;Xperircie~te:r ~ffect i; s~e;r.al .aspects . . . COl • . • • •
. of .Psycho1_ogy. Postman and .Jarr,ett (1·95'2) comment:
. . We have . . P·aid too ·1fttle attention .· to th~ · c~ntri.bu'tions made' by variations in E I s behavior to 'the examiners results. · · The dffficulty which m~ny resear~he~s experi-
. ence in repeating 'the results of other .investigators may be due to ~oP.r fal.lure · to attack· sys't~at.ical1y t'he . ' . role of differences among Es. (p .' 253)
... . ..
' ·
. '•
• I
.. . .
: ~ :
·I
"I
.. .. ..
I
;,
. . I •
"
. . '
I ' '
... "". . ,- 23 .
. The ge_neral ' area of testing ~hich would include · IQ
.tests, perception ~ests, ap~ifu~e t~st~, r~a~in~ ;~a~irtes~ . . ,•
.r ••
':tests, . amqng others·,· seems to .suffer if. the' e·xarniner ·S.ubject • ' 0 • •
·:· ~nfluences are ignore~. kv~n . tho~gh there has · be~ · ri~6rous
'attemJ;>tS ' at standardization Of test items ~nd proced.ur.~s,
·the exami.ner still ' influences . tHe· test taken 'i~ other subtle · ,.. . ways (Kanfer,· .!9SB;· and Ro.senthal, 1963) • . . - . .
· It · is · o.fte~ questionable whether mimy tests ·have been ...
. pro:ven· _sufficiently ~ reli_able . and v~lid in' ·_their . own right;
and this examiner ~ariable fu~ther complicates the issue. . . . . . . . . .
'Judgment' of -an individ~al ,. ·s ' ~ . . . . :
. . . scor,e on a test must not only:
. be·vie~ed in' light 0~· which . . . .
,' . . . . . . /' tes.t wa~ use~, but must als·o
'take into .. ,consideration ·tbe previously ignored va~iable of . . ... the 'rspecific exarninero and the working •relationship. All. .. . . . . . .
• .• t
. p'er~ons using ·te_st ·.sc:oi: .. ~s must 'recognize the , ·str_?ng influ- .
ence o .f .- the examiner an~. make· ,decisions according.ly
(McConnel,· . Be.nder and Sjoholm, 1~57; M.cGu;Lgan, 1963; -and
Rosenthal:,'. l963). ~-- . . ' .. ' J ' ' I ' · ~
.t:1£ASUREMENT OF -·THE VISUAL PERCEPTUAL 'FACTORS III.·
I
Age--The Developmental Factor
Fidel an.d Ray (i972) state: '~Between the ages of . . .
threer and ~even years, percep~ual ._development becomes an ·· t . :
... extrem~ly sensitive i.n.¢licator of :the gel}~r.al devel9prnental· .
stqtus of th~ ·:~hii<L· i• Synder. and Syl'\der (l:-974-) in a study . ,. . . , : . . .·
of rna'!=-urational: ·c~~nges in visual perception on the Bender- .
~· ..
I ,
' '
; .
n
'• '
.. .
'' .. ~·
' ....
•,.
,
·:.
~·
.. '
J •• • •
(
'· . . \ • ,., . . ,..
~ . ,, ... ' .. ..:) . ·-. . ~ '\ . . ~ . . .~"· . "' ~ .
,. Ti' · "-
• ,.
• • # ' ~ : • t.; • . > 1:•
• • • • 4
"' '~ (I •
. ~ , . ~~ ,.
-~ ·. 24
. -Gestal-t;. showed rapid-maturirig· skili ·from age six to ' .seven ..
. ' ' . ' . . ' . '.. . years_· and that levei of difficul.ty decreased consider~bly
~it~·: chronolog i·.c~l growth 0
.Gou.1et (1974} in a ser;Les of concentrated studies . .. . . . '
'investigating the effeqts of age! schoo_l e?tperi.ence and the' ,•
developmemt . of vi~ual perception,. used .. a battery of tests,
for -~xa~l)le; the F·~ostig DT~; the . Visuall~mo~y- ;est, ~~e • • • ' • I ' \ •
Visuai Mot~~ Gest'~l t T~~t, th.e Il~inofs ~est of. Ps;cho-. .. .
·linguistic Ab,ili ~ies, the ,.visiial· Sequ,e.;nti~·l Memory T~st,, and
. ·the visu~i · suptest from _the .Reading Aptitude . _Test~ He
· ·obtained ~esu1 ts suggesting that the interaction effects. ' . .· . ' . .
·indi~a.ted .a greater. ~hange in six mqnths for. the kinder-.. . . . . . . . . - ·( ~ ' .
ga~ten chilclren in .comparison to any other. ~rade ; .
'· ' t asch •et· al. ~1974) suppor~ed ·the·. results·. 'obt~i~e·d ""· ' .
..
o ,• ' o I
by Goulet (1974). ·and further claims that exp~t:iments · ,based·. , . I . . • ....
upon visual·. ·perceptiqn ought to have sampling defined • •' ' 0
strfctly ~ccording ·. to age· rather ,than· .grad_e · s i nce: :n ages .. 'may ...... . ~ary , within a given claAs ·due to rete~tion, · double promotion,
' . .
etc.·" Pot,ter (1966) showed·. a correiation b~tween age and . . ··
. ~fflcien~y o~ .pero~p'tUal.' recog~:j.tion. ,Henning arid Kornr~.icli ( 1971} .·attempte~ to replicate · and extenq Po·tter' 5 study
,(1966). The -latter study 'obtained results · sh~wing a marked. . .. ..
deyelopmen·ta l 'effect ori the r e cogni tiort . te.s·t for t he ·chil-
. •. ,.,. I •
dren o f . ages '· ilhr ee to seven years o
·'
1--.. •
. . : .
· , 'I
~ . . : ; .
' .
. ·· ... '\..
.: . ~
~·
' '
I' ' : . '.
..
...
:· ......
. ,
·,.
·' .. ~ . . ·
0 '
- ' ' ' .
Practice Effects .· .
Potter. ('l966)~ _artd H~nning ·an~ ~orn're.i,ch (197~> . . also
studied pr~~tice ef feC"ts· as: related to perceptual: '.liecogni- ' ' ' . . .
~ tion ·tasks. Bo.th s~':ldies. concluded. that ptactice. h . .:td an . . . . ~ffect only on -the · youngest children, t:hat is, th,e nursery
: .. and k~ride~g~~teil a(J;.s. · F.or; th.o~e :i:~~l<l.re"n, . the res.Ults of
· euman Keuls' test reveal~q. that· the · tra~.i,ng ·group did . , ~ \'
~ signifi~antly ·bet'ter than the ~th.er· gro~ps ~ : Thu·s, th.e . . . ' • I
'tracing' effect was pronounced in the yol,lng children but
'vanished with older, 9hildren. . ' • , ; t · I .
This con<:=·~u!,:iion was earlier .reported i'n a similar
. e~pe.riment by ~Zaporozhets · { 1965) I
and. supports the educa- . · .
. . '. . . , . . . '
tional theory atld practices of Montessori educators .(1964) . ' . . .
·"- .. ·.studies on· Gerf'eral Perceptual·· Factors· . . ' .
· The effects· of method o'f measurement upon test per-. .
ceptiqn performance of children with various exceptionali ties
have been repeatedly·. demonstrated. Golds.tei~ ( 194.8) ··and . . ' .
Sarason , (1953} have showa that brain-injured children are· . :, . ' . . ·. . •' . . ·. ' ' . . significantly inferj.·or i .ri th~ir ability to translate pe~- ...
' '
, , .. ~ cepts ·i~to words · w~eriJ co,mpared · to nonbrain-.Lnjured ch.i.i'dre;{: ·. ·
. ' " · . ' . . . .... . . .
cr:uise .· ·(1961)" found ·that . brain-injured chii¢tren are more J • - ~ • • ~ •
dis-cract'ible t~an · nonbJ;ain-i~jured· .Children. Bor'tner and . " '
~irch .(19~.0} found tha t . although ·brain- injured child-;ren ' . .
are able to perceiv:e geomet'ric forms, .they a're umibie to . . '
reproduce them accurate ly . .
·' . . ~
.. . \ . .·
. . '
.. .I
. ·'
. ./
1-p ·
.. · ... . ..
. . ,..
' · .
\.
' '
. '
,·
. . . .• . ~:
\,
Newc9mer anq· Hammill ( 19 7 3) demonstrated the effe.cts
of. a motoric· rn~thod · o£ measurement upon. performance by .. • • • • ~ I
aamiastering .the .Motor Free .:T~st .of 4-i.suai·. Percepti:.on ):1nd . . f . .. '
the Bender-.Gestalt Test to chilc:Iren with yarying degrees of. · .• . , 0 • •
motor handic,ap... ,The. ~ine' motor coordi~ati.on requ'irements
in .the ~ethod of measurement fo't" . the Bender-Gestalt ' test I ' f . • '
depressed. performance a~d yielded an unreliable 'estimate o.f
visual-percel?tua·l skills (:ij.i.tter and Sabatino/ 197 4) • : . ' I t •
., Werner and ·. Straus's ( 1941) · found tha.t brain:_irijurecl'.
., '
children were sigilit'ic.~rit,ly· inf~rior to nonbrain-i!lj~red . ,· . . . '· . . .
children in .perforrnance'.on visua.l : fig?re-ground p'erception
ta'sks. In a ·· fo llow-.up . ~ tudy, Rubin . ( 19 6 9) heeded the finds
.of distractibility . as a possib'Ie intervening factor and
with slight modification' of the method o{ measurement . . ' . .
procedures ~ound no difference in the' performimce of the
t~o g;roup s • .
A study_ (Ritter and ~abatino, 1974) sugges~s that
there ~'il be a great.er con.tri.but:~on of rn~thod varianc'e to {\) I •
scor e's than is 9£ten ·assuftted. Tlie pri mary impl icatipn for
' .
' . the practiti one·r is·· that t~sts a~e measuring more tha.n .they
pu~port ':to measure, and th~t caution .sho~ld be. 'exer~i~ed in
the · inf~rence .of skill deficief}cy because of poor •perceptual \ .
p91rformance . b '
. Ritter and Sabatino (1974) · support · p·r~vi6us hypoth-. . . .... .
eses (Corah a~d Powell, ·.1963; B~~ a:nd. ·.~~ba.'tino , -. 1973) · a .f
v1sual ·figure-ground · perception ~d . . form discr:i,rnina tion · as ....
• '
~ ,
, .•. r ..
d •
...
, .
. ·(· \
...
I I \ \ I l I
.. .. ' I •
.-: . .
·. 27 ·'
• ' I
being essentia~J.y. the same .
Domrath ( 19 68) assesse'cf the role of _·vfsual- pe~cept~o~
0 in the performance of -ce'rtain constructi~nal praxis 'tasks . .. . ' ,. I . .
· by •secon~ grade: -chi1~ren. A ·. "~erc~ptu~l "· · hy~othe.~ _f~l~~ed G) .. • • •
the views ·expressed by Mayer -Gross and Detmy-arown that con--.· . ·. . . '
struction'~l activity is. essentially a motor expression· of ' .. the ___ visuo-p~rceptive.~fieicf.J~ HoweveJ;, Kleist ·(1953) raised .
. 4 . .
an alternate .. hypo_thes;i~ ·that .. constructional apraxia· 'resurts "'\ 0
from an impairment of' the linkage betwet;m the visual per~ ·_.;, ' I • ' ' ' '
' \4· ' • . cept and the corresp9¥ing mot.or pe~formance . .
. . ;c.... - , . . ~ ~ . ~ · . . ~ ...
' . IV. THE ' FDTVP'
0 Introd~ction -·"' '
0 •
To. facilitate, t:~e early detec.tion and; caq;gorization of such perceptual impairment, a preliminary instrument was devised and~ normative data ol5tained
0
so . that the .. 'deg1;ees and kipds of · deviation~ from .tpese ~orms could be assessed. On the · basis of ·the results of testing
· a sample of 434 normal children and a sample of 0
71 children,"ages --3~ to a· ye.ars, a· new version .of th.is test· was developed. · (Frostig ~ Lefever and Whi~tlesey, ':1961, p . . 3'83). . ..
Th~- - above quote serves as part of the rat·ionale pu.t
. • I '
forth by the .. authors of the . .,Ma~ianne· Frost~g V~sual Te~t of ; · ..
Perception · (FDTVP) • 0 The FDTVP _'is composed of five subtests: • 0 \ •
0 Test I: , Eye-.Motor Coordination; ' Test II: Figur~-Ground· . . . \
· R.~lationshipsr 0
Test III: . ~
' .. . -... Constan~y of ,Shape; Test IV:
0 0
Posi t"ion in Space; and . Test V: Spatial 'Relations. - I
' (
'In t:hat article (~rostig et al., 19 61} th~- autJ;tc:>rs . . ..
emphasized 'that .FDTVP' s areas of perception are in accordance ·'0
, , 0
,, ~ ,.
•'
...
,.
~ ' . .
\o
~:
• !':
~:
. ,, •'
''
i I
. ' ' ' .
•'. ' .
' . ·~ .
; 28
with -the findi11gs of cruicJCshank et .::1.1. (1957) and Hammill, .,..- r • ~ • ~ -
Colarus·so _and .Wiederholt {1970) trace the evolution .of the . . ...
. . F,D~VP and 'claim tha,t the authors of FDTVP integrated ·: the • ' . ·' I ' •
. wo.r:ks of Th'~irs~one .(1944), 'cruicksha~k (19~7) -' ~rid Wedell "' .. ·
'(1960) to arrive at ,t~e .finished ·_product •
. The authors 'c.J..aim that the -FDTVP i~ suitable for \1 . • '
. grou.p or individual a~inistration. An l.nd,ividual adrnini~?-· ·
trati.on can be' completed in 3 0 to 4 5 minutes and a • group : • I '
from 45 tq 60 minut~s. ' .
Frostig (1963) states: "Scoring ·
is' objective·, ·and .requires. 5 to J,.O minutes" (Frostig Manual,. . . . •' ."
·p.· '467) ~· · In h~r a .rticle CE:ro~ti_g et .al.:; 1961) :she says! ..
".W~en · scoring. was st~nd~rqize<;l,. ' the inter...:ju~ge reliability
o.~ · trained '.judges was · fourid ··to. b~ hi9h, . 9 0 . or above 11
(p • . 38 6) • . • ..
Research on : FDTVP .·
· F.rost~g et al. ( 1961) cl._aim tha~ .t~;te · su~:ij:est~ .'-do J ' . . . •
measure distinct areas of visual'percep.tion. · .corah )' a
· P~wen· (~:·63); Sp':"~gu.; (1963), "Ohnmaclit ~nd Rosy-119:7),
Allen (1969), Crawley et al. (1968), Ohnmac;>-Vanci Olson
( i9~~) , 'oisoD: eL~1~ (19~8),. Boy~ an~ .n,.aie (19.7i)), and
. Hammill. E.t ~1. (1910) hitve conducte~cto:t: 'ab~J.yiic s~udie.s :oh the indepE.ndenc,e ·of the ',F~TVP J~b~.:\ts '. ·These . resea,rCh~r s
employe,d a vari~ty o·f :inter.lig ce·, ~e~qines.~, ac)lievem~nt , • • • , ' ~ ' ~, I '"',• J • ~ ' • , .. • , '
and other perceptual tests, in .addit·~on to . the FDTY.P sub- , '~ • ' ' • ' • o 1
• o Q I .. I '
tes~s. . Regard1es~J .. par:i~"~ar ~easu>?es tnc1uded in' •·
~ , .
' .
. -·
\
. ..
. P
'
.
---..
...
"
~
" . .
,, \ < ..
o;
;
; ·."·
0 :~ ·~·
~
.. !
.\
. '
. . . \ . · ... \'
I. ' I
I \ ,.
\ ..
• • • I) .·· ,... .:
.'
· '
-·~
• I '
29
. .these factor . analyses ··and of _the_ -typ~~ cif subj~ct samples,
all studies have · 'failed· to i~entify ~iv~ .s'e~~r·a~e • • •• •• • • • • ' : '• ", ' • • • Q
factors .(Hamm~ll,· 1970)' • H~wevE!!r, ·t¥!o 'except~ons
~-
perceptual . '
found the ' 0 Q"l. • • .. .;,. • . • .. ' • • .. .
s.ubtests of tpe FD't'VP ' loaded ·on twcLperc~ptual · factors, . the':: . ~· . ' . . . . \ ' .
·.two" being ~orah- and ,PoWell (i963) ,and Cr~awley et . ai. (19 6 8). \, - ·- -. . . . . .. . . . _o , • .
~ - - . Ward ( 1970) . examines both the . 9orah (1~63) and the. • • -:. '
0
0 I , ; ' • ' • o
,-
, .
..
"''· .
. .
·cra~iey .'·(i96~S) ·stijtly expos.ing · so~e - limitations o~ ·both, ' • - ~ , ' '• o .. ' •' t) I .._ • , • ' I ... ' • I ' ' o· • ' o.> ' ._
~.g.,.. .:the small heterog~nepus· samples . us~4!~ . Two other . • . I ~ • • . •
st'udies, ·Silverstein · (196"5} and · Ward (l970)• added· to the • • • • • ,· .:. .. ';, 4-•• Cl • ' • • • .. • • •' •
. ·controversy about the validftY. of. sUbtest 'scqres as pre-~ • • 0 'i, l ... ..
dieters of . reading achievement . . Silver~tein ·(1965) and -~ . I . i
I r. I
·ward (19 70) concluded from their factor analytic studies ' . • .
. that a number of 'dis'tinct area~ of. perception 'c'an be:
d~1ine.a:te11 ~~ th~ __ Frostig, FDTVP, and ~ .Achieveme~l;. · ~tudie$. ~ Th~ - l ·i teratu~e report~ . studies ... done .dn the i:rost:lg -
\ . . ; . . . . . . . . . ' .. .
· \ pe~ceptual . quot-ient and ~e-asures · o'f read.ing achievement ' . ... . . \ . ... . ... . . . .· . . ~ '" . . . .. . . . . ' . ·.. ' .. . \ .(Bryan, 1964; }1aslow, Frostig', Lefever· and ·Whittlesey,
"1 . . . . . .. . . . . • . ·. . .
\;t9G4; Cohen·, 19fi6; Olso!l, ~966; ;aiJd Taube~, ·. 1.966). ·
· \ . . Th~s i.nves"ti~a~or found fOu~ s:tudies that dealt with
.. ;the p~~-di.ctlve -~~lidi_ty of . t~e -.F~ostig ~ulitests. Olso\1
\'ci966). foUn~ :· ~at . F-r~~'tig Stibte~ts I,· · II, ~y and v_ were I
. . b·~rrelated ~)..gn.iflci'aritly .. with_-s-~cond-grade . achievement for ·.
· ~l;ij.r~;-grad~rs·, Subtes-t· III w~s. · ·~he best predi{b~~i Of·. ~~ad- . ·~ j . ,.,.. . . . . ~ng ·a~h-ievement.' Cohen (1,~66-) ·.repo·rted . that .. S~bte·s·t ·l:r~ .!. ~ '
. :~ay h.ave. ~~ecial sig~ifi.ca~c~ - in· .re~~tion tq ·· ~eid~n·g · . - I'
·a.b'tieveme~t of the social!~ disadvantaged children .in . hi:4f: -... ,· I· . (
.. ,1'
J
. ' \ ' . . . .... .....
-·
' .
I .. ' • I
l o
• '
____ ._ .... ..
..
.•
• I
... '·"
•·. . . ' ... I . { .. /
•' .;
. , 0
sample, sinq~ · it correlated m~st highly with reading·of
..,··a11· the perceptual .an.d 'intelligenc~ · tests. that -fi~ ad~inis- ~ .· _/, ' . . t •.
· tered .. Similarly, W.:i,.ederholt (1973) c_laimed that - Frostig~s 'Q . •
r .. confidence in Spatial Relations as a predictor "of academic .
. 'I. 0
' 1 . . " . . Mlo¢lno.sky. ('1972-), in ~ · ·st·udy U}>ing · ,t~e B~nder-Gest;.aJ.\ ·
skills w~s justified.
c . • . ,
. !
l J !
·I
I . ·1
. . .-~~ I '
.. II / . . . -· . and the Frc:>stig:_ tests a·s pred.ic'tors .of first grade rea~irig ... ··· ... ·:·
... ·- . . .. .. ~~ -~
at:hievernerit among ecbno~ically deprived .children, · found· ... ,.-.... ·-:·· . . . . . . . . ~·· ' '
t.hat. ecop.omica~1y deprived children sco~e cons~derably/lower. <"' . , . I .
than :the Bender and Frostig. stanc:iardiza tion samp~es ': ' - . .
. . • . . - • ' . . d . t
Mlodnosky . (19V'2) .·found that Subtests I arid II ·_are ·not · good ' . . . .
. ,· .... . .
prediqtors of reading success . . Mlodno-sky --~upports : Olson's # • • • • •
. d
·-· .' (1966) premise that those two subtests are pre_di_,9tive of ,, . . . . ·. ..'
'late~ reading or that · these are rel<\t-ed to skilis, such as".) . ., \ . - - ··"'!..
I
handwriting, .. that werel not · measured' by the· studies conducted. • c 0 . .. - "·
· Mloqno:5ky (l972) que~~ion's Subtest III and sugges~s th~t
· . Subtest III measures' an ab.ility to pay ..attention arid follow • • . • ' • • • • ' .. • 0 ,· . - '
~
: ··'complicated ins-tructions in additiq.n t~ a visual p~rceptual I ' ' • - ,. "' • • · · , • ' • ~ '. • • (' ' I • • ~
_s!<iil ·.-- ··sub~est .'V, 'a:ccordi~g to · h~r ·study, .needs furt~ex; 1 · · ' ,.
_, . ~ . . , . .
. .
. ·
. research in order to· be -a better indicat.or o~ ·reading success . ... 0 ~ - .. • l . ' · ., • .
Thus, Mlodn'osky' s , study . conclud~d with serious reserva--t·:iori~ .. ' , I ' o • , o ..
about the F.ro~tig test ·as \ ' ... I - ~ ' '1- .. o f I o ~ 0 o lt • '
a good p'red~ctor ·:of read~ng. succe$S. · • • ' C) ' • ' I o
:b~ a study U?ing_ ~V~rage; ~~bjects · . . .· '
. .
Leiburt al!d. Sha·~k (1_970),
· in Grades I, II, and K, suppo.rt. Ml.odnosky (19721
) that:10.'per_; ·• I ; .· , . •
. i
formance on .each subtest ~nd rea9,.~J?-9· -s~cciiss -~re uncor-· · · · e '
' ·
related on the ·FDTVP. · 0
. I
.. , .
. . . .... .
.. .
D •
-.
. ' "·
. ·.
I
...... .. ·
. '
. '•
c -
. ' .
. .
' 6
~
. · '
.. . . (, . ; (t
..
\ , '
· ..
I
\ \
\ \
.·
. I
·.t
" ~~~
l
f' '·
• J
•,
~
.
' . 'I
~· . '
:'. .. 31
Sm;i.th anc;l Marx (1~72) :s.:ugge~t that t;he ' FD'f'VP ' \ ") • .~ • • ot I Q
measures a single general factor of perceptual organization , , ·~ . .
which . is we~kly related: to IQ and unrelated to readitil· ·· . .
ability.; this .study ·used the FDTVP, ·.the WISC., and a reading
; . tt?St. . wied,erho.H:. · (19'7 3) investigated the ' p~eciicti ve · ·
validity of the FDTVP using kindersa.rten 'and first grade
b .
· "Frostig' s c:onfidence in Spatial Relations as a predictor ·
e 'c9nomical,ly . d~pri ved subjects . . Hi's . r~~ul.ts indicate.~. the' · J • ' • •
of aca:·demic skills was justified. F~ostig (1961) . postu~at~d ·:1 • • '
.that. of her fiv:e' sub.tes.ts,. Spatial Relatio~~ .would be the < • , b
: I) . • . :. . : .. · .
... . mo·s·t · s.l.g~ific::ant .()r~~i~tor: o_f ~rit~ng and . re·a~\ri~ · a~i~~ ~y; · .. ·Wiederholt (1~73) agre~s. Wiederholt's .results did ~ot ·
support r.rostig'.s hypothesis regarding. eye-h~nd c9ordination, • " ~ J&
'figute ground: and forl1l ·cpnstanc;:y, · howeV'~-r. Wiederholt· . . . ~ ':..
·; . 'recommends "that t,he :FurvP should ·be revised due to the '
:,._. . i~~biifty . of ~ome .' · ~f · the s~btests ·and ot th~ · · .. tttt;il ~raw • . . . . ' ' . . 1.: . . . . ..... ~ ·. J . • •.
score
to demonstrate useful leve"ls. of' predic;tion. - -:.·. . '· . ' • 0 • .. .
. , .,
.~ Bra·itfiwaite (1972) ari·d Goulet (1·974) conclude· that . ' . . . ·. . .
the .. ' ,, th~ .
magnit~de . ·and sig~ificanae ·of the . correlati:on ' betwe~n . . ~ . . . . '
F;TVP. and readi ng ·,ach~e~ement · test · scores .. de.cre~se ··.as ;. 0 . • . .
'gra-de level increase . . ·
/ •
. Br~i-thwa,i~~ · ·(1972) ~urnmarizes. his .' findings ·on t~e ,. 0 .. "'
r'eiat ionship> ,between the · Frostig Tr.aini~g Progr~ (de'l{ised . . -
by the au.thors' o.f the \DTvP as SJ?e~ial a train~pg .prog~am
based. on ·the· test con-struction . and used for . subsequ~nt . . I .. ' . ~ ~ . • n . •, . • •
..... r
. • t
I , I .. ...
. . ~
• 0 • ~ •
' '
I - ., .....
...
. ...,..
.. (
... .
·.
. '
~ ..
' . .·
'·.
v • ..... l" I
. ~ ...
,.
I
0 0 ; ', ') I , , ...... • 0 • ..
' . " '<::\
.... ·.
imP:t?O.V~ent .in ac~demic pe~fo~ance· , . ·F-ros.ti.g {'r9·6.1.': i;>: . ."394)) ·, '_:, .· · · ' • ' ., ; , • 0 • • ·~ • • I :. , , • ' . ; ' "
. and _.re.ading achievement . . ·His conclusions are that children . . . . .. . . . ~ ... . . ' . . . .
~ whose perceptual quotient j_~ .low., that' . is' ~nder 90' wili . ... . :; . , . . '
gain . in ·Visua_l · perceptual ~kyis af~e:r: ~Ornple~ion Of the
I '
. . .· . J:'.rostig ~erceptual Training . _Program 'if , and o~ly if, the .·
. . ' . . . FDTV_P is the . criterion · measure. He- .further cautions ·. that . . . . ' . . . . . i~~r<;>ved vis~al perception . skills: th~ou~ 'c'ompietion_ o~. ·
.;-
t~e tr~ining P"FOgram will not,- so.l~~-y . ens?re success in ,•'
l:"eading (B.rai thwal. te .. ··19 7 2 f. · ./ . . '
. . ( . . .
S 1r.u9.ies.
·. l I •
' · ·. (). :
The only r~liab.ili ty ~tudies re~?rt:ed. 011 the Frbstig. ' I
. . cr-re. 17hose · reported by Fr<;>s'tig et · al. _ _ ( 1963) . ,~ · ·
'! . '
The first study (1960) was .jconciucted usirtg an indi-/ . ' ·. . . . . . .... .' ;l.ridual -administra-tion~ -~arne examiner,· . and a ' three -week I . . . . . . . . . .' .
. , _' . · . ' /interva~ .between test-'retest fep9rts ·a p~oduct~rn~meJ:?.~ c·o~·- · · / relat-ion· of ·.9 8 ~ . . . . ,
' . , ' Th~.- second . 'st;udy . by .Fros'ti.g ( 1961) w~s : dorie .'usipg. a
group administration~ t~o · e~~mipers, ·and a two-week. inte~val . . . . ~
reports ·a cpr~elation coeffibi ent of ~0. -.
It can be infer red that approximately . ·20 per' cent of
the score ·vari ance is due to. examiner .- and mode. of· adini'nis-I '
. tration since a correlation 'of .·8·0 'was obtained· with no . . -' .':
parti tioni~g . of ' the source of· error aGc:ounted ·by exami ner's : , ..
andior admi nistr'a·t :ion mode· •. " I • •
'.
' '
r · 1 . \ .
. . . . ·. , •
i '
.' .
. . . . .
' '
., to.
. .
. ' .
. '
.1,
: -
•
7 ~.
D
. . . 33.
V! SUMMARY , I
I
, I . :· " ~
,, A survE7X . of· the litera tu.re per:t.i'nent to examiner
varia~les, pel?ceptual factors,. and the Frostig TVP has been I
prese11ted. While the reseprol_l is re~evant td the problem · . ' I
of· ·.thi~ in:vesti~tion, s~ver~l point~ emerge~ . . . \
. L Examiner; ~ubject, and. e·xaminer _subject inter-
2.
actions--especially sex--hav'e been demonstrate~. ·" •
to influence testing outcomes.
Differences bet~een scorers and scorer expectancies
influence the variability o·f scoring.
3~ ~he testi~g situatioh, esp~cially .group ~ersus . . individu-al· administfa.tion, has sho\'lll to,. be dif
fereri~ial for some tests.
4. · Examiner and subject will interact with situation.
5. No studies of :the$e factors were found for the
FDTVP. Reliability studies reported suggested
that some .of these factors were important.
,.
·" ,. '
...
' .!
,
, ·
• . )
4'. ' .
. . I • ~ '
, . ~ .
. .. ·. •
. ' /
. ~ . ,. CHAPTER J:~li
:
. ' r
·. ·
. ' .
- -~.
. . • .. {.~ ... · <-.. .
.. ' fl· ~.;-' -
GENERAL PROCEDURE I
A sample. of 123 primary school ~ age student·s
selected~ stratified ~Y g~~de, geographic ~ocation .. '
s
·school, and,sex. The sUbjects within each· leyel of strati-' . .
fication were randoml;y as'signed to either the individual or·
·~
·group mo~e of administration. 1 The FDTVP was ·administered to ·
the 'examinelas stratified" so that each sUbject had· a male ·
arid female . exjmi'ner:. alld 'that the;~ . were equal nwnbers : of
subjects· examlried· by 'male examiners· and female· ·examiners at • t . •
each level of stratification on each occasi'on ··of .. testing •
. : SAMPLE
.·
Table III .1 shows the number of subjects . ·in ecich level · I
bf stratification. . Frostig has thre~~rnonth-age grcn~ps :i,n her ' ' • I . ,,
n~~m:lng procedures~· Table III. 2 present~ the brea~down of
those' age groups for 'this . study. It can be obs~r:ved . from ·. • t:) • •
• ,n . ' I
Table 'III. 2 that t~_e sample used in this study we're·· normally . I . : . .
. I . distributed accord~ng to the age ·ranges suggested bY, Frost ig.
· c~~- sq~are findings on r~ndo~ization .ar~ .also i h1uded in
Table, III. 2. . \ . · ..
,. " .·. ·~~·..,....... ................. ·. -~ ... ..
·.·
.. ~· '
0 .
. '
'l ··'
;. ,,
J 0
r
0 . ,
.. l .. l·
~ Q -~ . r . . )
. .
I , 'o.
Admin. • .Mode
Group .
0 •
I ,'
35
..... . : - . :·· .... , '
; 0
,' . . . . . .
.. · -. '· ··· ·> TABLE I I i.l . . -·· .. .
• 0
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PUPIL SAMPLE· .·GROUPED ·· ACCORDING TO ADMINISTRATION , MODE, GRADE ,
GEOGRAPHI C LOCATI ON, AND SEX·
. Urban Center
Grade ;r M F
7 8
. .
,
61
Grade II M' .. F .
8
8 ° 8
16 .·. 16
32
•
,\,
... Rur.al . Center
G~ade r· Gr ade II M F ·M F
0' ... 8 8 8 8
6 0 0 8 7. .9
' 0
16 14 : 15 17
- ~o 32 ,.
•. 6·2 . ... •• 0
I N
..
• 0
' .. •I
J I ·
I . , .
. . ''
Tota·l:
. ; . ·· .. .
0 63
60
\
123 .·
0 ••
' .
• 0
•. 0 •
..
' I
. \
;
' " ... . .,
.. .
. I
• ·-. 1 .
-Age :
6-0 to 6-2 ' I
~-3 to · 6:-5
6.-6 to --6-8
6.:...9_ t6 6-11
7..:.o to 7-2 ·
'7-:- 3 to · 7.-5
7-6 to 7-:-8
7-9 to 7-11
Total
r· ..
I
.· ' .
. TABLE II:t". 2
. AGE RANGE .BY ADMINISTRATION MODE teo ' AND GRADE
Grade.:.<
I .
I
·I
~ II
. ' II
II
I'I .
·, Administration ( 1 Group , . ' r ·ndividua1
.• 7 7 ..
. )
6 f 9
12 8
4 •6 .
7' l 5 . B 10 '
a. 9 : .·
' s· 9
63 ·. 60
'·. ;'
...
.I
· .. Ghi:...sq·~are = 3.98 :with ··a . degrees of freedom; . · p > • OS.
'• . . ,, 4'
. ...I
• •• <
. ~ .
·, .
.. . ..
_)
'·o
l
36
'
·. 14 .. . •
15 .. ,•
20
10
.J
I
.·12 .. .. . . .
l8
17'
17
-123
• l I ' ' t
.· . ·. I
\l
/
•'
' '
'• .,.
..
. I
'~ 1- •
\f;.:
• • Jt"
' .
. ,-:?
' .
' . 37 . . . .• .
.. , SPEGIFIC PROCEDURES t ~ I
' ' '
A test-retest procedure was .followed. The · twenty
examiners, of whom· ten we):-e mal~ .and . ten female, adminis
tered the FDTVP to the 123 ·subjects on two occasipns. Caution , t , I
0 ' ' o ' '
0 ',
· wa~ taken· to· ensure that all. possible ·~sex cpmbinations of · t ' I I •
. . examiner and subjec~ were· equally r~presented. On .retesting, " ' ~ . . . . .
. . ' ' ~ " . : the_ exarnin~r sem'ubject sex cornb~na tions were changed fo~
each subject· • . . . ' )
Administrative Details J
The group administration time lengt~ w~s a maxim\.un· of ·
one ho.ur. The individual {administration took from 30 to 4'5 , . . "minutes. n
~ - ~ ' . . ,All administra~~ons occurred .between 9:3b 1_\ .. M~ and
I
2:30 . P . . M. All testing, took place d?ri~g . the .morith of.
December, 197 5.
0
\. . .· . ( t · · The t~rne. 1Qte_rva7 between the first administration and
the second administrati on was a min~rnurn of seven and a maxi-
mum of ·t ·en daY.s· According to •_ Frostig· et 'ai. (196·~) test
'r~test correlation c~~.ffici'e~ts tend to be low if retesting ' . .' i ' # • • ' I •
.is done after a lorig interval, that is, ·more than . two . weeks, " • • • • • t ' r . · . . ' , \
or if testi ng is donk by trained ·non-psychologi-s t s .(r :::_ • 69), • I •
. . , . .
or if training is i -ntervened between testings. Frost1g
{ 196-3) cm1t~nds tha:t _this is partly due -~6 · the rapid. develop- .. . . . . . . . . . . ' ' .
• ' , • I . • '
•. ~emt of visual perception;. which appea~s to be mqr e highly
correlated wi th age - than _wit;h IQ or wi th achieveme nt.
'~.',
,-
' ;,
. ' ~
. :
·. '
' ·.
,•,
~ ..
I
I • ~'
'• . . . ' . l ........ :
', : 38
; .. . SCORI~G
An inter-rater ~el~abili t/ ~tudy was conducted prior
· to . the t~tal. sC'ori~g ·of .the. test. · This was a pilot study
us'ing · forty randomly chosen test ·protocols, . ~·ach . scc;>red by I I
four different examiners. T~e· i .denti ty of th~ protocol was
· withheld f ·rorri th~' ~corers~ All scores were examiners .·used
'- in this ·study. . . . .
The ·results. of the 'inter-rater reliab~lity study are . . . . . Differences .. existed in t:he
. ' - .. . ; , • . .. reliabil-i ties Obt~ined on the ti. v~ suht~sts. T~e report~?-
-reliabil~ ties of th~ perceptual quo~ient . (PQ) as. . .• '7 8 'and . .. ' the percen~ile ' r~k ,CPR) -as .69 seem to be low.
TABLE III.3
" ' INTER-RATER RELIABILITIES .OF -
FDTVP SCORES
' .
·'
sub . sci:lles ,· .Raw Score Age • . Equiv~lents .·
. '
r ·
Il
III
. . IV
v
Sum . Scaled Scores
• 93'
. . . I '
. • 83
.• 74
• 97 ' .
• 94 '
• 82
PQ . w • .
•. 78 .
'·
' . '
.81
.70
. • 9.8
.• 82
PR .
.69
i i : ..
.·
/
." .
,,
' .
.:c
., 'I : ~
.•
' '
1,, •• • • •••
.. , . . . , . ·.
. ·
·, '
' .
:: /' .. '
' 0
'I . I . ., { .
, \ \ .
i . . . .
--· - -.... .
• '
: 0
-· .... .. ...
. ~: 39
. ' t : ~ dire"ct.·:re.s~lt of .those f~ndings, the investigator
decided ~~ · have several people score th~ tests with two stip-- . . . . ) .
(a) each scorer must have administered· the test; · I
'~ and (b) a sciore~ of the first testing· occasion could not . . .
score the .retest of. that same individual. ... . . J ~ : There were~severi different scorers ·for the~tbta+ sam-
/ . ' 1 •. ~
,Pl~. ,· Te~ts· ~ere :~andomly a~signed t~ each. s_corer. · Scorers
. w.ere instructed. to f~llow the direc.tions outlined in the . . '
Marianne Frostig m~nual (1963, pp.' ·17~29) .• ~ . . . . . . '•
•' STATISTIC~ ANALYSIS
Rel~C!-bili.ties were assessed in 'terms o~ the. correl'a-0 .
. tions · of the test-·retest scores for. the total sample, grades,
adm~!listra.'tion mode, ~nd fo:z;:- combinatj.ons of the ~att~r two . . . . .
variables • . In' testing hy'potheses about relia,bilities, direct · ' ...
comp.arison . of 'the r7liabili ty coefficients was the procedure
·foiiowed. ' . .
A' statistical te.st of the differences bet"'een· . . these r.~liability coefficients was not ?Vailable. · Kristoff
. (1974) points o'ut that little work has . been don'e to determine
' . ' . . ·the sampling distributions <?f otest-retes~ reli'abil'i ty coef- .
. · ficients·. , .
Validity .findings were reported .in te;rms of analysis . ·
of variance: for 'the,m~in effec.ts ·and the ·interaction effects
of sex of subject, examiners·, . occasioh · of testing, .·and
location df testing. . ...
'• . '·
(l \ . ,
( '
'·
....
' '·
.-- .
·'
. I
,I
. . ' ~ ~ ' .
. '
.·
/ '
' •
I ~~ t l
·.' 4
40
. '
All nu~l hypotheses· .~e~e -rejected at the :os ·level . . '
·of ' confidence. P~r~~~tiie ~~rik · dist~ibutio~s ~ere found . .
for the .total sample and ·for each .grade . to · supplem~nt the
0:na·lyses-.
' '
/ I
.. ...
., 0
/
I '
.·
•.
•,
..~ , ,;
' ' . ' \ . . '
I . .
";.l ·
\ '
, . I •
.,
' :
'
·. ' '
t •
. , .
....
\ . '
\ ·'
: '
CHAPTER IV
' I'
ANALYSIS.OF THE DATA \
' . . . reliabiii ties .obtained from. a group admi'n.fs- . I
tration and an individual adrnin{st~atio~ ~f
• I • the FDTVP .· I ·. . ·.
,lable .. IV .1 presents
"
t~e.data on the test-retest ·
reliahilitie~ for this hypothesis.·
.. •From"'. the .. table, ··it can: be seen tha.t wi~h the exception . . \ . ,
of subscale III, : the gro~p administration scores ~esulted ~n · ' I t • ' ' , t
h~gher1 reliabiLity coe~ficiemt~ than th~ .ind.ividual' adrninis_-• ' ' I \ .
. tration sc:ores. . Subscale I reported '-t;.he. l ·argest d.iffe~~nces
with a correlation for group testing. of .41 and the : individual · '. "t•
testi~g correlation··of .28 • • ' ,1 d
·.TABLE IV .l
. TEST-RETEST REL'rABILITIES FOR GROUI> AND INDIVIDUAL
~-lwbde. . No. III N
·SUB-V ·•SCALE I II III · J.V .. v PQ PR ·rc .... ~Ir
~ . t
. Group 61 ~41 ~78 .71 .39 .l:16 ~72 . • 42 ', /76 .6~ .33 .32 .54 .52
. Ind • . 62 .28 .39 • 74 • 20 -~1 • 72· . .29 • 37 . • 72 . . .21 .40 • 62 .63
. . !' . . . '
. ' ,,
. I I · ' • -I
. i . '
Y . .
. . . . I
. I
41 . . . .
'· . "!"''
/
• 1~
.,
~·
"
·•
' '
) ..
.•· , 42 .
•• .,1
.Hyp~thesis .. 2: There. are no si~nifica_nl dit'ferences in mean
sucore~ .obtained from ~ro\ip· adniini~trations . .. . . . . . . . . . : ..
' : · and individual adrninis:trations ' of the FD.TvP. · ~ . . . . . , ..... · . . -""~--- '
.. ·. . . ~ .. \... •. . .
~naiysis. ·of yar.ian'ce data obtained. from bo~h ·- group and ' .. . .. .. -~
· · individual. administrations tor sub1scale
' . raw scor~s and the .
·:""'·
.,
sum scaled ··score. \-_: '
. . .· .
TABLE IV.·2 ., . . .
ANALYSIS OF ·VA~IANCE:
Grqup ~ ' Mode · Mean .':- Var:i,arice
' . I •
I 17.'.,.2 . 13.745
II 18. 6.7 . .
3. 616
!'I I 1-1·. 58 ·11.908
IV 7.21 : • 9'37
V· ..
6.54 . • 92 0
sss .. 55~ '33 . 3_6.}101 \
. ' . ADMINISTRATION MODE
. Individual Mean . Variance
1~ •. r-J,
18 ~ . 3 0
11.025
6.835
6. 4'2
55.39
..
..
. 9. 311
. 4.191
10.7 p9
1. 526
1.115
39'. 698 ,. ~I
.-;
...
F- ·.,
'value
3.8876
• 4027
.. . 1. 0008
.6782
• 6782 .. • 8064
There were no signif icant d i ff'ere_nces on ·any. of the
variables · tested _. a t the • OS level 6£ confi d.ence. The null
hypothesis was ·not .rejected.
. .·
. .. • · ~
~-.. ··,..v
.-
I '
' .
\ , .
~.
.•
' ' .
.. ·.
. '
.·l 1
,(
· ~.
• \ . . . I
I,' '1
l .· . . · ;
I 43
. Hypd"thesis. 3: · T:Pere are · no sigrlifican1;: · differepces . in. mean·' I
' ~score~ obtained frorn ·m~le subj~cts ~nd · f~m~le
.. subj ec_ts on·, the FDTVP. ·
· -s .Table IV. 3. p:~;esents the analys,is of : varian~e data for
~ . ·- -~ ·. • .
. male and femal- · ubjects for subscal~ raw score's and ·. the sum . . ,. . . /
o£ ------- .. ..
TABLE IV. 3 ., . ·. .-------:·-------- (
I ,
,
: ..... ·.
' Sub- ' I· Scales
I ;
' II
III
IV
v . ' sss
<;i
*
. ' ANALYSIS ; op VARIANCE:
( "
Mean
17.11
18 . 60 , \
1L.'21
. ·~.99
6. 41
55-.-56 .
. Varia11-ce
'14.'005 . ,
3. 584
14 •. 195
~954
38.256
, . . p (1,107) 2 .os .. .
.. ·
' . , .
SEX OF SUBJECT
Females ·F-. Mean·. I . Varian,ce . . Value
·18 ~ 13 9. 015. · 4.1665*
~a· . 3B . 4 . ·267 I .5025
ll. 39. .n• 8 •. 559 _" .. io11 <•
~.OS l.047··cs .1343 .
. 6. 54 . 1. 079 • 72.46 . ' •
56 •. 16 38.102 ~3280 . ·.
. . . ' ..
·As cari . be seen in Table IV. 3, only . subs'cal~ i was
4 , • •
hypothe~is was r~~ected for s~scale I; · however, ~t was n9t .. ' '
.rej-ected for the ·other ·subsc-a1es .• ' 0 G
{
, . I
'-· . .
•. ! ~ .
T,
. \. .
. . . .
,, .
'·' ~ . .
,.
. . . I
.· ·• . . ~ · ...
\ ,
• I
. . .
' I
. I;.. · '4 .'' '
:·
..
o'
. '
. '
.. , ; \
' ·
.. u _ .. . 44 . \
Hypothesis 4·: · There ar.e · no ~ignifi~ant differen-~es .in m~an ·:. - . . . .. ':
s~ores 'obtained ·t'rom. mal~ examiners and - . .. ' . '.
fema17 examiners on the FDTVP"' . .~. ,: ·
, Table IV. 4 presents the!> cinalysis . o'f variance· for . . . . . . ~ ., .. . .. {}\
' ~ale and female examin~rs for' subs.cale' ·ra~ s.cores and the
sum s~a)..ed sc:ores. .. .• • / ,·.
;. ~ ~ . .
. , . ; J ,
I . ~ ! . _ ..
TABLE IV. 4
SubScales
I
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: )
·' ' .
Male Examiner .
M.ean Variance
i7.71 /, 9.886
' II .18 • . 35 - " 3~933 ,
11.·17 .
. . SEX OF EXAMINER
~- '
. 1 • • •• Female · Exam~ner · · " · . . .. . :- F- :- .
Mean Variance ' V:~lue
17. 531: 1.3. 63;3 .·.2-468 " ~ II
f
18. 63· .. 3. 903 -2.1340 ' J • •
·11. 4,3 . ' 10.281 ~ 1 ~ 0803
' '
. , . ·' •• 0 •
' . .
.. ·. ·
. .... . ; .. . ..
. . ···
. '
: 6. '98 .
·6.· 55
7. 07
6.41
.. 56. 04
1.150 ·.·: ; 6.-£)00 .'J ~
v • 862· -')''
' . ,., ·1'.17-1 ' .·.
1 .. 83-19 _ ... . , I .
::1 •
55.68 37.714 . ·. 38.755
.... . _, ... , · . . . -· .
'· There .were no ·signifi~ant differenq~·s on ·any ·o·f th~. • J • • ••
variables tested at the • o~ l~~ei 'o'i. -conf~denc·e· . T.h~ n~i1 . .. . ...
~ . . ' .- ..
hypothesis was not r_~_j ected for any.·.- of~ ·t~~ subs.ca,les-•.
' .
._) _ .. I ., -... -
' J>
.., -~ \ : .
·. . ' . . ..
. I .... • I •
0 .
"• . ,, . · - .. ...
' • 0 •
,.~ . ·.
'. - ~
• I I
I ~ f •
: ~- r
y- . ·:J-· .
. .. .. .
\
·. ;
. .. ,~,
·.
> .
~ -
. . '
..
: I ...... .. ' , I .
·· ' .
45
) . There ~reno significant ' differences in
~ .. . . . . . .
mean: scores obtained from Grade . I subj~cts • . 0
and Grade II subjects on the FDTVP. '\o 4 ~ , • I
. Table IV.S shows ~he analysis o~ variance data for -' .
. the grade variable for subs.cale raw. scores and the sum
s9aled score. '
i i \ I
. \
TABLE· .IV. 5 ...
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE~ : . . '. ·~ D.
GRADE ':i: AND GRADE I I ... . . ' \ . 'osub_:: \. . . \
· seal
I·
o II
.III
IV
v
. qSS I
_.
l .. •
Grade ·r
M~an ·Variance ·
. 16.49.
18 ... 09
'10.47
6. 77 .
6.31 ' .,
58.43
-, . . 0
11.- 566: ·
. .f. 3~'6
12.583.
1.803
1. 023.
42.133
Grade II.
Mean Variance
).8.5%1 -· +'0.045
18.80 . 3'. 3 78 .
11.93 . 9. 4'13 .
7.23 ~:-?47
. 6 .• 61:· .974 •
I- 53. 40 \ '
. 22.."5'73
' ·
F- .. · Vafue···:
20~6970*
·: 5. 745* .. '.
~ 8. 0186·*. -..
9 .- 0736* . . . 3.9).36*
29. 337'*-
.·\* p (1 , 107f < • 0.5. .. I '
• 0
··The F ·values obtained in every case were above t he . ' . . cr:i.:ticai
gi:ade1;>. i
limit indicat;i.rig .s-ignificant . differ·ence~· - between .
The · null . hyp~th~~i-s-·-· w~s ·;~j·e~ted. - ~or . ~1-L ~ubs.c::ales. . ·. . . : . . .· . : .. : ; . . . ~~ . . . . .
' . : · ..
·._ . ,.
0
. . . .
·.
'··
'
•,
' .. ,
' ., I . .
. ! I
·,I
• a : .• •
<J,', • 1
. , . . . ~ . '
•. ,. o I' •II '
. . . . . f> I • '· : ...
I•
. . ..
.. • •.. .:1·
~ . .-.· .~ - -. .
• !-- .. . . ..
'•
..
I .
. ,
·' . I
. . · 0
c. / . ,
' Hypothesis 6:
' t
. .
·.
There are . no · sig:r;dficant differences ~tl~.mear{, • . . ,
• • J •
.. ..
. scores obtaine'd from· first occasion ofJ. 'test- .. . -'
ing and the re-test'- occasion on the FDTVP. ~~ ' . . ' . ~
' . · Table IV.6 presents · the analy~is of varianc~ data ·
;.~ '
ori oc;:cas·ion of te~ting: for sum scaled raw scores. and the .. ~
sum .scaled score.· ' . ' .
TABLE IV.6 . I I l
.. . . · ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: OCCASION. OF TESTING
. ·. :» · Te~t I Retest ·. · ··Sub- . . .
F- . "\' .Value scales·
I
II.
III
.,, I IV.
, .. ·v ' .
sss
· .Mean Variance
17.97 11., 77~ ... . ." I
18.07' .. 4. 81~ .- . ..
.10 . 56 1l.345 J
6.9;1. '1. •. 252
6 :·39 1.. 242' • ..
55. 28· 4 0. 782 0
·* . p (1,107) ~ ~os.
Me~n ·
17. 07
- 18. 84
r 11.83
7. 09 '
--,' 6. 62 I
· '"s 6. 56 ~ · ·
·variance
· .. 11.517
,2. 899
10 •. 918
1. 388
'•!751
35.764
. ·.; ,
21.4160*.
36.3170*
2.2210
10. 2415* .
10 .,9107*
~~ c~n be observed in Table IV.6~ ~igni~icance . w~$ . . ' ·
·'obtained at the: ·. as level f or .Subscales I, II, · III, v, . al)d · u
' 0
for the sum scaled score. , The nul~ hypothesis 'was n3ject~d ' ' '
. ~. ...
for subscales ' I, II, III; , v, anq nf~r,_i:;.he 'sUbsc:aie score; ·' 0
howe ver, it. ·was . not re j ected for ·subscale 'IV.
. '. ... ' ..
,, ...
· . '.
• I . ,. . • , 1) •
. . ,
.. .
.,
4· ;
.. (
'"(-;-.'
1>,
. ' . ~ 0 . •
0 .
· -.
• l
<;/.
. '
' . r·
.. ' " . ~·
,·
·. '\ ·,. '. \ ' ..
47
~·~ .. •.
. . ' ', ' ' I .
" Th~5e· is no sig~ificant inte~a9tion of sex
• • of subject an~ sex of examiner ·on the _'FDTVP.
·' ·Table IV. 7 P,resents th~ . analysis of vc;t,rian·ce data • I
., for; i~te;ract'i~n of .~~ 'of subject · and sex of e;xaminer.
~ ·
•
. , .
" \ .
. . . ..
,., . . , .
. c
S:U~ ~ca.le
I '
· I+
III
.rv
v . . sss
~-.
TABLE .IV. 7 .• . .
A~YSIS OF VARIANCE: SEX 'oF ··SUBJECT AND SE.X OF' EXAMINER
ME-MS 'ME-FS FE-MS .'·· FE-FS X • 0 X X X . . .
"" .
17.35 16.87 ' :. 18~· 06 18.19 I
18.33 18.86 " ·18.37 18.39 ).•
11.11 11.32 11.24 11.56
6.82 7.+7 7.14 6."97
6. 43 6.39 6.66 ' . 6. '43
·55 .• 11, S.6 •. 01 ' . 5.6. 24 . 56. 07· ' ,. ' . ..
:\ ,. ~ * ·P (1,119) ~··.o5~ 0 .. ' . :: . "
I,
i-
.· ,F.:.. . ,
Value ,
.7283 '
1.'7873
·.3798 . .
4.8404*'
. . • 8632
1. 5436
· E~~ept for subsc~le IV, · no significant interactions
were · f~u'nd between sex ~£ 'subject and s-~x of e~ami~er~ ' .The
n~ll ~yp,othesis was not r~jected for .subscales· I, II~ . III,
· V, · and for the .sum scale s ·core; . howev~r, it . ~as rejectted . . . • 0
for subscale IV . .
'•
I 0 \ '
.·
. i
,.
;
,.
.. ..
(.
. I
' 1. i . l
..
. .
......
' ~
' , . '·
. . .
, ..
· 48
Hypothesis 8: · There is no significant i teraction ·of sex .
of 'subject and adininistr tion -mode on the
, FDTVP.
Table IV.8 presents the analysi
on tJ'l~ interaction of se.x of· subject · -
~ variance data .
administration . "
· mode for ' the subsca1e , raw scores ·and the sum scaled ' ·'
score.
· TABLE lV. 8
.. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: INTERACT ON OF -SEX OF SUBJECT 1 " I • .. '
AND ·. AOMINIST~TION MODE ~\
Sub- GrouE . ' F-s-eal~ ME FE Value
' I 17.17 '17 .i09 18'. 17.97 2. 9'63.6 i .
II . 18.59 18 ~ 7.5 18. 50 . • s42s· .. ......
Ill ll.'ss· . . 11.61 • 11..25 . 1.-5007
IV ·7 .10 7.33 6. 81 - '2. 2515
· v 6-. 64 6.44 • 45 6.38 .1464
sss I • 56.08 56.58 ·. 28 .. ·ss.s1' . • 5615 ' -~- ,. ' •
~========~~====================~==============================
'· J. • ' •
The null -hypothesis wa not· rejected for the subscale
r~w -s~ores --~r· . th~ _surri. sc .... no signif_icance ,,. .
was founq at the .OS confidence.
.- .
I ' 1 •
. •'
,,
' •,
•,
-..
-~
. I
..
.· .
·'
'.
,.
. . ..
·'·
I t
.' .
· ..
..
~ -
/ .· Hypothesis 9: There is no ·signif:icant. ·interaction of sex
. . of subject, ~~x of··.~amirier, . and adrninistra-
. t~on ·mode on .the. FDTV-P .· ,
Table IV. 9 pres~nt:=; the analysis of variance d.:i'ta '
for the· .subscale raw scor~s . and for the sum scale score for. ' , •, • I
thLs hypoth~sis.
. . TABLE . "J_V. 9
. •' · ANALYSIS OF VARIANeE: SEX OF .SUBJECT, SEX OF
·. E.}MM_INER, · AND ADMINIST~TION MOL?E
. Group · Indi vid.ua~ · · Sub-. scale
------,---......-_,;;.- F-. ME-Ms ME-FS F~-MS FE-FS · ME-Ms' ME-FS FE-MS. FE:....Fs · value ...
... ..
I · 16.77 :1:.7.57 15.71 18.47 17.93: 18.56 . 18. o4 1?:91 ' 3.6748
-II · .. ·1.8. 45 . 18~ 73' 18.87 1~. 63 18.21 18.00. 18.86 18.15 .· .9686
III 12.00 . 10.21 11.18 11.77 • ' ·"' 10.2i 11~38 · J:Ll8 11.32 . . • 3798·
IV ·7.10 7;10 · . 6. 89 '7 .20 6.54 7.18 .. , 6.8? 6. 74 . 4.8403~
' v . 6.55 6.73 · 6:35 6.'53 .· 6.32 6.59 6~43 6.32 ~863'2 ' • . f ~
sss . 56.26 55.90 56.42 56 •. 73 53.96 56.59 5~.60 55~41 4:0810* . .
* · p , (1,119) < • OS. - .. · . .
Signi~icance was'· obtained for :subscia1e IV ahd for· the . ·. .. · .. .
,\ ,:
. swn sc~led score. · No . oth~r · s~bscale·~· were .signific'ant at I o ' • 0
the. ·. 05. level .of confide11ce." The null hypothesi~ ~as re')ept.ed· . • ' I . . ',
.. - ~
. ' ·· .
.. . . -~
. .· . .:·· . :
..-. I,. t '-~ ··
' ,• , I
. · ·o·
.... ·'\
. '·
.· .
·for sub~ale· IV and for . the · sum· scaled score; how~V:er, ·- ~t ' wa:~ .... -~· -- : .:· .. ·' riot rej ecte,d for. the other·. subooales.-.
' .. . ' '
!' . 0 . .
1,, , .. ... ~
F ' I
. : . · ,
.··
. j
,' I
. . . . . ·,
. . . .. . . . . ' . .
• • , : •, . I
' •.
. ·. . . . : . ' · . ··.· ·. -. . . ' .. ' . . ' , ..
.,,._
·'
\I I
. . . . ...
. ., . ! J I ,, '. ,·(''
: : -', T • - ~
Q
·~
: J· ..
50
Hypoth~sis io: ·The;re is no signi~ic~pt i ·nteradtion of sex . .
of examiner 'and .. admin-istratl.on ·mode on the.
· FDTVP.
Tabl~· IV.lO shows the ·analysis of variance data on ·
the interaction .of sex. of examiner and administration mode
for the sub scale raw scores a ·nd for the sum scaled score.
TABLE IV. 1 a· . .
. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: ' -INTERACTION OF SEX OF EXAMINE·R' AND. ADMINISTRATION MODE ·,
Subscale
I
II
Group ME , FE ·
17.17
~ .... ":1-
Individual · F-ME FE . va1ue
l
18.24 17.97 . r
. III
18.59
11.ss :·
17.09,
18.75
1.1. 61 11.25
• 7007
. • 3840
• 6387
,,- ·Iv 7.10 7~33
6'. 44
.... 18.11
1Q.80
6.86
6.45
s·s. 2a
6.81
6. 38
5~ -. Sil
• 2762
. '
v 6.64
sss 56. 08. 56.58
' • OS level ·of confidence:
. ( . ,.
• 335.8
• 93'42
.. \ .... '
The null· hypo_thesis· ··was· _riot
.. . I
. . ..
I '
... . . ·
. ~ .. . ·r-.
·'' ·• . ~ :l;
~· ' ·. .. ' .. '"
·.
I •'] )
•, ~.'
' . ..
' • Cl' •
'
..
. . . '
•
.... 51
., SUPPLEMEN~~RY DATA FOR THE TOTAL SAMPLE ~
The means obtained .{n this stu.dy a for· the o(er~1·1 .sub~
scale raw scores a~e high for some subscales ·in comparison . .
to Ma:r.:.ia;nne Fr?~t:ig • s. maximum possible score. · Table IV .11
.present~ a comp~rison 9~, Fr~stig's· maximum scores and the
mean scores ·obtained in 'this .study.
Maximum
Grade I
·Grade: II '
. .. ... TABLE IV.l1 I,
COMPARISON OF MEAN SCORES : BY 'GRADE · ·. ·AND MAXIMUM POSSIBLE SCORES
·I .. II III . · Iv·
score 30 20 17 .· B '
•
1·6. 49. 18 .10 · 10.;5 6:. 8 .
tr 18. 5.·" .).a.·8 · lr'.9 . 7. 2 .. ~
. Q
,( .V ,
B
·6.3
' 6.6
,/ • '
()
.' Total Sampl~ 17.5 ~B .• 5 11.8 7.0 6.5 { : .
6 ~
' ., I .
In order to i~vestigate the possible impact o·f score·
distribut!idns ·on the study·, · a dist~ibution of .perc;entile· • ' "' ~ •- • I , ' , . ' ; • ' • _. •
ranks was ·Obtained .for the total · sam~le. .• · Tabie ··Iv .. 12 presents '
~h~'~ __ ~a ta . . ·_. . . . . .
. " . ·r ."It ca~ ~e observed from Table IV .12 ~hat the distribu- ,
ti9n .of scores . is neg.atively skewed. The majority of the .. · I ~ . ,
schr~·s .' f~ll · at ' the u~per,oe~d of ' the scale with 26 •• 8 ~er. cent
of the scores f~lling at .or· above tP,e . 95 perc.entile. The·
I ' .
'
.: i
9'
..
r '.
· .
. .. 1
...... .. ..
..
. . .. . · . .
. ·.
52
· distr'ibution cannot be viewed as a continuous distribution \
bec~~~e of the large nUl'llber . of scor~s" at the' upper end of . . ' . '
the score ~istributton' suggesti~g a truncation of the
. theoretical distribution £or thi~ sample. The percentile
ranks obtained iri thi~ study tend to be much higaer : than· '
e.ipe.~te.d based 0~ Frost.ig Is : norms . . Since the .· P~e.;:.C.enJ:~le
ranks are ·b~sed on·: the .subscale raw · scores, it can .be· ' I
. inferred that th~se, too,; a·re higher. than expected. · . . ' I.
·TABLE IV .12
DISTRIBUTION. OF PERCENTILE .RANKS FOR TOTAL . ,, . SAMPLE W~TH .. DESCRI~T~~E S(l'ATISTICS ·
Percentile Rank
., < 28
29 50
' ·51
. 76
75
93
> 94' •.
. I
Relative Freq.
\
1.~
" 12.0
. 22 . ·1
37.5
26. 8
Cum. . Freq'.
.1. 6
13 : 6
25.7 .. 63.2 . . .
'. 100 . 0
' .
Freq •.
2
l5
27
46
33
·•.
. •. . .
'I'
l- --- ·~ -
, .
. . •'
Mean Var . f1,ode Mdn.· Range Skewness , . ..
. ... 84.9 72.5 '- 1.05 ~ .' 77.4 3 94. 9 . 95
' ,: · ~ I
·.- .'~~ .·
' .
r .
: .
' , ..
• . .... . '
·.
• 0
' .
.·
.53
'i
. . SUPPLEMENTARY DATA FOR GRADES
Since the ·FDTVP claims to be developmental, it· seemed ~
beneficial to ' rnake a co~parison of th~ test-retest relia~ . . . . . : bil'i ties· of younge'J; and · olqer . childr.en' s pe'rformances. · ]for
'thi·s purpose, .the reliabil.i ti.es of Grade ·I and II subscale ·
' ' . raw scores, ag~ equivalent scores,· perce.ptual· quotients (PQ),
" ·· and percentile ran,ks (~R) were 'reported. "rable IV.l3
o...! presents this. data:
/ TABLE IV .13
TEST-RETEST RELIABILITIES 'FOR GRADES · .
Raw . AEQ
I:
I II III- · . W V SSS· I II III · IV V PQ PR
' . • 52 .• 6g .78 .30 .26 .75 .52 .63 .73 .29 .21 · ·.68 .68
II ·64 o • • 09 .27 .65 .19 .57 .53 .'il .31 .58 .22 ~51 .47 . • SO
· '
0 '
·As can be observed in . the .table, · corre.lation coeffi-0 ,
cients · obtained. for Grade II, except for · s'ubtest V, are
consistently iower tha'~ co~ffic~e·n.ts repo;rted for Grade r · ' I . .
between test ·.and retest reliabili tief;i of the FDTVP. 0 •
. To further co~plernen t the . data . on t;.he gr'9,de. variable' · I I • 0 c. 0 . - . :
a breakdown of pe·rc.entile ranks wa:;; done. l.I,'able IV .14· . ~ · .
. presen~s this data: , I
0 •
. .. ' ., '
' I ' : (f •
•. '
. '
. . .
' · 0
.. , ~~
- ' v
. (
·•' '
. .
. . .
,, •
T~BLE' .IV. '! 4
DISTRIBUTION 6~ PERCENTILE ~Ni<s . fOR GRADES WITH DESORI~TIVE ST~TISTICS .
54
·. · -~ Perc.e'ntile , . Rank
Grade I ., Cum. Freq~
Grade II Cum. Freq.
'·, I ·. II . . 'Freq. Freq.
•\
.
0 ••
'
< 30 1.7 -31 . - - 60 13. 6. .. 61 - 7.8 1~.6
'79· - 93 '35. 5 .
'> 94 . 35.6
Grade Mear1 · Var • . "
..
~
·. 4. 1 · 1:.
23. '· 17 .. 1
36. 0
18 ."8
~ode · Mdn.
. ' 1. 7
.13. 6 .
4. 7.
·23. 4
-13.6 17.1-
35 .-·5
' 35·_. 6 18.8
Ra!lg~ . Skewness . · · · /
0 :I .. : ' 81.57 . ·.~09 •. 9 95 91·. 4 67_. 5 -1: ~5 . .
" .JI ·'73.64 448.9
"
95 80.2 '•
72.5
. ' ,f.
-o. so
. . \\ Both-distriputions . are negatively skewed; this find- · ·
' . ~nq is. in agreement 'with tnat for the ·.total s~ple. However,
Graqe .·r reports a distributi on which .ex:ceed·s · Grade II. in.its .. . ' . ·, . . . . : . . , . .
skewnesp: ·· Grade I has ·35. 6 per cent of its score's · fallitlg ' . . . : . . . . . . . ,
·. at · or above tlie 95 ·J?ercer:tile and Grade II has 18.8 per cent
faliing :in th~s - ~egion. ·, ;~~a~e .I with.,a :range o~ 67 • . 5 .. . . .
.. rep~rts s~ores . l~s va+*~bl~ .' than·· G~ade· II . w.:!-t~ a -·rc;t~~e of ..
·. · 12. s - ~mde · ii:, . sh~w~n·g the" greater ·variabi lity , elicite~ · '· ' .'~ - . . ·.· .. ..
: ·. the 'lower r~iiabiii ty coefficients·. · ·· · .. . •' . ,, .
. . . ; .\ .. '
. . .·.
;
·' '• '
:
... . ·;
,. . ~
.·
'.
. .
. . . ./' . :. . 'I
' . I . . !
./ I I I' ! . .
"'· .
55
Since ~Ufferences were observed betw.e.en grades ·for .
~e~~~b~~i.ti~s, it .. was ·fo~·.~idered. helpf~~· .~o cqm~a~e re lia:
b~li:ties of .the breakdown of grade by administration mod~. . . . . I . .·. . ,_ . ' . 'Table IV.lS reports the r,eliability coef:ticients. for sub- .
( :···, ' ..
, I . .
scale raw ~~otes, · age ~~ui va'leilt sco~es, p~rc~pt.ual q'uoti en ts· ·. ... . . I .. . . . . . . . . (PQ) , and p _ercentile ranks .'(PR).
~
Admin •.
·. TABLE IV. 15 .
IT~ST-~TEST RELI~~Ll~IES: GRADE BY ADMINISTRATION ·MODE
· ..
Grade M:xle 1 . Raw · AEQ /No· .~ II III IV V .~s· I U III IV V ." PQ PR .
Group "I . .
i30 . • 74 .ao<81 ~so· .38 .78 .70 ' .78 .73 .44 .2s .72 .69 :. I
I .
Ind. I ~ . 129,_-09 .59 .75 .1~ .15· .70 ·-~ 24 .49 .72 .12 .1~ .63 ·.65
: II GlJ?UP
Ind.
I \ . . . .. . ;' 31-.14 . 72 . 59 .14 .61.45-.01.74 .49 .17 I . . . . .· · .... ~ . : 33 .34 .29 • 72 .21 • 62 .62 .• 23 .24 .'71 .24 I
. • 49 .38 .39 .
.61 .59 .• 64 '
. I . . Accor,ding to 'Table IV .15, 'test- retest correlation
. . I . . · ·coefficients reported for G~ade I s howed inciividua·l adminis- · . ,. • . ! . . I
t r ation sco.ies cons~st~ntiy ~es~ rel.i~ble · than .group I I
administration scor'es for all variables. ·· Subscale I, for I ' '
instance, r e!ported a g·roup coefficient of:· • 74 .and . an . . . I .
i'ndi;~idual d~efficient of • 09. ·. for Gr~d·e 'i. . Th~re ~/e mar]:ce.d .. I . ' . I .' , ' . /
diffe rences !iri rel i abili ty relate~ t~ .a.dminis tr.ation· mode . f I
i for Gr ade I .
. , \.
i
·' ·
• I
'·
. · ..
.. ·· . . . '
I ,
! '
I .
.,
.· .
'·
' '
..
. • /
! ' ..
\.
I
. ,
.. I
:,. .. ... j 56
.·
. . ·. 1
'c " )
- Table IV .1.?. shows variable ·r~J.iabiii ty results for .. ., . .
Grade I,I on the breakdown of administration mode! Subsea!~ ~ ~ ~
··I, for .instance, yielded a low· negative correlation' of - ~14 . . . , . . '
for the group administration and a. co.effiE:ient of .. 34 for ~
. , .. the indl.viduai ac1niinistration . ~ . Howeve~, on subscale If, "-
. the · ·grbup administration coe~f icfent of . . 7 2. was IJlUch h~gher ·I . ·. . . •
. tha·n. th~ ·individual· · coef"ficien t_ of(.. 2 9 for_ Grade I~. · Except , ' ' I • · , .. o ' '
for s ·ubscale · II, the correlatio·n coeff~cie.nts for group . • c
administ·rations·were ·much less. reliable• than those for . . individual administrations·. ··
In interpreting the significance of the differenc~s -. · . .. .. -- ~ - ... . '
between . reliability ~oefficients,. the .' ciif.ferences in grou~ . '
.. · . size shoui.d be· taken into , account." Reliability coef.ficie:nts _.
based on s.ampies' of size .~'sixty will be more . stable . than . .
·those based on ·samples· of <si\ze thirty • . _ -. - .. ·' ' \
'· . I ...
'. ..
. '
n ...... '' · . . \ .
. • '
: I
. I . ' .,, I
.~
•
..
.. ~,..
,.
,.
.. . '
.. · ..
· : ;, . ' .
..
. '
-·
• I ' t
.· CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
\ I
J \ .q •
r
Certaln observations have. been inade on the findings
of this st.ud;: whi~h refie~t on their ·interpret.ation's · and · . l· . ' '
'"' \ ' . . conclusions· drawn.· ... Per.centil~ ·rank .distrib.utions of the .
~ ' . . # • • •, • • c . total s.amp~e (Table IV:l2) .ve;rified that the - mean scores .
. ·. 6b·t~ined Hi_.-this ~t~dy were · very high relative ·to . th~ norm~ -. • • • "'l~
es~ablished ~y _Frosti.g • . S;i.xty-fC?ur per c~nt of the total ·· ·. ·
~ample scored 'at or . ~bove the 6.5 t:h . ~ercenti~e, .as can be ' • I '
observed in ~aoie IV.l2. The_·d.i.stribution is··negatively .. skewed and. ca~ be . ~nsidered trun?ated·, and .'the~efore may
J:IOt be continuou,s .- .. ~~IABILIT~
The theoretica~ ·~pper limi.,t of the ·test scoJ'eS can ~ . . .~ ...
be eonsider~d to be truncated~ Thi~ would tend to make the
total score distributions more .homog.~rieous t~an ~ould be
expect.ed. '!'he high ·stibscale sco~~s· would ·tend tci be more . . .
.homogeneous than ~pected as well. ' .
Reliability rn~y ·be . ' ;;: ·, .. _; ...
defined a~ ·a relationship between obtained sc;re ·variance ·. • ' • • • • l ~ \
and err.or var~ance of measurement -:(·Thorndike: .1964); -' that .· ..: . . . ' ·. 2 . ' ' . ' .: . '
· · .is, reliabili'ty ·= 1 .- ·.· 5
2 e _ • . · From this, .it follows · that i.f
• s 0 I v J,
\ ·' . . v /" ' ··~\ '. ' I '
~· . 57 ·" .... ·--· · ,
·-
. . '
·.·
+
I
.. '
, .
' . I·:J ~ .
. , -
1
·, " 0.
' '.
., , 0
• I
. ... .
. , ., .
. ....
" ... ... ....
· . . •:
. ~-
,· .. "'\
/ ' .. ' . ' . ... .
00.
! .
. . ' .. i , '·
,, \ '
r~ • ..
( . :
58 .. error variance of measurement is constant, ~he!l ho~ogem~ou~ • 0 I,C ~
. "
scores w'ill' be: le·ss reliable t}J.an_ more heterogeneous~ score . • J ' . . .. • .. • • " •
> ,
r.P ., , , .
. . The efofect. qan b~ ~bserved ·-hy no:t:~ng ~~at pefc?.eptuai
: ·qu~tients ·and · pe~cent.lle ~ r~~"kso ;ar~ :·less .. . reli~b·{~· -~~~n ·· th~. ·.
, ' .
~
. . ... .. . . ~ ' ' 0 . . . "' .
sum of., ,scaleQ. .scores·, the ' score ;from which t'hey: are . der:.lV"ed. ·. . t " · . ; . . • . ; \ 1 • · - • • - • •
" .. _, .. • c . 0 .- .- ~ ' !. '
I ' • • I ' ~ 0' • 41
., · Pe;I~ceptuaJ. quotien~s and percent~· le nanks· ~r.e ,e~.ta~lisned · · ~ .
based. on·- ~ ~he, ·di:st~·ibut~O~ ·.of" SUnl , S. al~d :_ 5~~~~-~,:~~~ · p~o~t·i.g 1 S: .- /~ I •. ' "("" 0 ~ • • ~· ' · ,.. • • I • • ,. • J • • )#r-, . · .. :• ... · ~ ., • ..> • • ' ' ' -
nOr}Il,incj' sample. -This· establ.ishe~· "an upp~r limit o)'i :the ' ,.
• ••• • • . • • . . • • : ., • • . : • 1 ' ; • • • •
. distri?':lti?n o~ sum: ~C!led scores since "all scores above · "
~th~ ~5th ~i3rc;nt.il~(_ r.~_ga~df,es.s of. tliei~/-:size, ~re ~6~red' as· ..
. 95th p';;tc'~n.tile . . A si.;il~r p;,~ ~occur~. in ev.i:lUli~:Gng ·
.subscale scores. · .'The .result is that0{he total ~~o~e va.t;'iari.ce .: . . \ \ , • . . I , . .... • •. # • , '
_will be more .. homogeneo>g.s for s~ples .which· perform better than ' • • I ' P " o l ' '
~ .
F~C?.l?~ig' ~ norrni:ng ~arnpie .. ~~orne· . ~upport_ for._ f!.hl.s proposi tiop f- • .. ~. •
c'an be ".found .. in a stud:y· by · zimmer~an · et aL,- _( 19-68) ~ · They 0 ... ~ • • ' • Q • '· • - · .. • -.. • • •
prove that . theor'etic~lly, "'·the· .classica:l ·formulation · for ' • o 0.# I o • • o • I • o '~. 0 ~· ' • ' ' o
reliability "given above holds .. for the reli.ilbil,i't:ies of 'two . ' I 4 ' ' "' ~
different groups only wh~n 'the ·mea'ns of ·the groups. are the . ' " . . .· . ...:. , . . . ~ . ,. . . ·:same. · ·Becp.use . of ~e". ri'eed to use Fiostig norms, this as sump - =
, "c - , o
· · ti_on"was fpcusea·~pon .' the' . .inv~-~tigation evert' ~though ' it has · ' .. ~ . . . . .. -:.. ·. • _ ... c , ~ .
·b~en dernoristra ted' no~ t~ be' the ' case·. • ,·· • -::. ... " - • ' ,..J
t • ' .,. . ' ;::.::
T~ere a~e; no di'ffereaces in the te'st-retest Hypothesis 0 1: .
:reil.abiliti~s 'obtained .from a g~oup .Qa,-ilininis·-ti . l Q ..
tration ·and an individual· administration of
the , FDTVP . • • 0
I
' . . ,
0 .0 .
.. '
' . ·.
.· • • 1
.·,
" ,
e '
I Q
I . 1
-; · I ·' :
' 0 I
-.. ··
' .
.. ,.
....
. ' . ,
. . ·.~"
,·
.. I ',, ' . . · . .
,I'
\ .
·.
'. . :
.. . •'
·'·
.. -. ·.!
. ·\ "
·.
.. • \ ... . · ..
·. ' .
. . . ' . . ' • .• • r I
Table IV.-1 reported the , f1ncli.ngs- fon this hypothesis-. · .t.. . . ' . "'" . . .. . . : ]. . . . •7· Gr·o~-p adJtiinisbrq.ti~n . scores. were mor~. teliabl~. · tha;n indi V-
/ . ~ - . . . . . . . . . ~ . lduai- ·adlninistration score's for ali . su'b~cales with . the· . .
• • • • • • • 0 • 0 • • • .:
·:. ~· . . ' .
-.
.. . . . ..
~ .
, ..
. exc-eption of subscale- Ill~ ... ,This· f.inc;ling is; consisten't with · . . / · .... . ,' • o o o • • • ' o I
; . :·. - ' . . . . . ·. . ·: . . ~ ·. ·. : evidepce ·in the ·. literature that group administr~tiorrs . 1'!\~Y. : • \ • .. -; • • • 0 t • • • ~ .. .. • • • '
·-· ·· .
pr-ovide more ·reliable indications of ._learning· a;ssessmenti:i ·· .- · . . . . . , , . . . : . . . : .. ·. . . . ~-\ ~ . · ... . . . ·. - ~
at ·~arly. ages . _(H(;ward; 1970.; .Henning .and K~rnreich~ 1971.) . ·.-- .. ·.·~ · ' . . .
·, . '\... . ' . . . . . . . . ' . : . i· (] ~ . .
with those reported 'by Frost.ig·. (1.9.6:3.). ·. · . . \ . . . . " . . :_. ·. . -·· . . · . , :. \.· .. : ··; ..... · _., . · .. .... ~-
.· . .., .were not consistent
Perceptual . 9·~6tient reliabilities reporteq _by. rros.tig ·for .. , . .-· . . . ' • . . ·: ! . . . ~ . . .. · .
an· indi;id~al· ·admi-nistration was· . 98 f!nd· for a gJ;o.ui/a·dffiirii.S-:- . . · : • y. • • ... • , 'r • • • • ' •• .. • ~- • • • _.. • • , • • ~ •
t~at.iOI1 was • ~o~· Reliabili.rie~~ ~~r ~~r~·~pt~~l .~-~~;~~-~~~~:_: -~~ .. -.. ·; .: __ :.· .·.- .. -':. j ·;: this st~dX. were mu.ch,."lower tha.n ~~o-~.tig: '.s .~~ t~ :·.: ·- ~~e~f~~~~~-~-:~: . _:·_.-. _· ~ ~ - .::~ of . 62 -'. fo~ -indl.v.idual adminis_trations :and· :. 54 --~or :gr<;>up: · .. ·: :-' ' . ··: · :
.• '. ..... ·= .. •· ) . : .:. • • . • • • I • •. I ........ ':. • •
·'administrations ·: _.· ._, . . o . · •• -.. ·: •• , ' I' ' • • • • ' I : •, ' ' • • o • '• : . o • ~ .. ' '
· An inponsistency ~as not~.d in. _:tlie - r~·liabi~i i::i..~.s :·:: ·_ :: _; · ··:-. · · . --: · . .. . . 0
.. • 0 • • .., • .: · . ' • • 0
' ~ •'\. • • r : · , : ..
0
, • : #
1
•
0
• ~ 0 0
·: ," , t,., , • ." t
_'b~port'ed . fo~ th-is hypothesi_s "based· on. pei:ceptl,iai _·q:uo_tieri-ts·._·:_ .. _ ... :.: ~- . . . .
' • I ' ' • ' t, • :~ .'~ ' "• ', ' • ~- ' • ..., ' I ~- • ' • ' • ' I • ~ • , ', ~. ' . : ' • \ - ' • . • • • • ~ : ' •
,Whixe .the subscale raw score_ reli-a'bi _i±~·ie.s_: 1;.9r~ ~r~.~p.- ·-a·~~;n~~~-· - .: ·· ... · .' ·--~ : · < ·.: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • · - .. : • • f
tr~tion~ were h~.gher ~1\an tho_~~ : for ~n~!:yid:~-~~ -:·a~:~-~~-s·~~·a·7~-~~-:~ :\.-· .:._·._ . .. ;.:·
the perceptual quotient reliab:illi t1es w~'re 'rever_s~d~ . . : -~hi's ~· .. - ~ ~ _. :r: . ·'· - . . . , . ' 0· ,:_. : <"' · : · ·~· ,• .· .. , .. . _.; ":. .. :. =.~ ·. : .. - •' . ..! .• ~.: :~ . · · ,
inconsistency. may be explained . by the ·e·f.fe.ct -~of: :the . 'ttu'ncat;icin. .. ,'::- . .- . -.· .. • • ... \ t ... , ) . ... . . ~.;- -,: • . ' ~"""· -. • • •• \ :::. • •
.of the distribution earl~er ·desc~·ibed··~ <. · . ·. · •--' · ... ::_ .. _. · .. . · ' . • ·~ .. ' <~ ', ,• ' :' :· >;.: .... :> ... :~:.··: : ' ,. '.·
Supple~entary Reliabili,ty - Da~a·.. _ · ... · ... '_.; ··-· ·: .'·_ :-. _· : : .·::>>,~· ·; : ~: .. ://_. :· .. ·.· ·: _.. ·, · . . ~ Table IV .13 reported -tes.t-.re'te$t .. r¢li.abiJ~ ~~-/~~·~· fq.~_ ·. :. -: .,
, • • • ~ • : • • •• • • : • .... • •• ~:. : : · • • •• J .... • • • ·. : '. • • ' • • ... ... • • ~ : • • • 0. _. • .. : •
. <!J~ades ,·. With ·the exception of subscal'e V ,. __ -·GraQ.e: .. I ~ r.~lJ.._a~ · : · · · · · • , . . . "o ; ~ ~ . . •. • . : • . ." . , • : •: . • .. . ; : :. ~ : ;. - . : • .
·.
bili't.ies ··were c;:onsiderably higher. . tna:n:··6r"ade · rt.: r-e-~:i·ab~li _ti~s ·. · .
. :·, :· ,i~::: .. <~·-_. ;:T~: ·: ~·"-2 ·. ·.·. ·· .. < -. -· · ' . . . ~ . . . , .
" • , •• - I • • • • • "•' ,d • .
.··.
.., ·~ ..
...
-<, • . . ... '
,. I
: . .. ,.
. \ I •
-·:, .
\ ()
. ·. I o ~ •
'.
- . .. . .•
, .
. : ..
.... 60
Tllis f.i~di-~g. ca.n · b~'~ vl:_e\'?.~d ·Jn ·· term~- _;o.f~'tth~ - ~~v~~opme.ntal -~ . •• • • • .. • ! • • • · 'j~ .· . . . . .
. nat_~~-e o-f t;h~ test.· -The _age . ra~ge i-I? 'G~.ade.- i -was six. yea·r .s · • . . . . ,"' . . . . J • . ... . - t" • , v • - . • . • •. - •• • • • . • . • . . ~
J'.t~ "si~ y~ars · ·~le~~~ ~on~~s_ ,\::~nd·_i~·. Grade ~I· -w~s .se:ren ._ y~ar:s : -.
~- t ·o ·s.ev~~ · ~·ears· .. ·: ei~~·e~:_.in~~ths ~ .'· - ih~re ±~.~;£~~·no~ · i~· · the . • ,' o t • • ' o ' • • • • o I o • • , ,'
; l·i-~era ~ur~ .-.~ ~PI?~·ft'i~ng. ::~:: hi.~~ .. ~?~·i ti ~~ ·c?~re~·a t~o~· ... b~~~~e·n 0.: • • • • • • • : • • • • • • •• • •·.. • •• • • •• • • • :· • • II. • • • .• •
· .. . 'visual per,cep'f:ual. grc;>w.th and . chronOlQ.gical• ·g·ro'wth .. (Potter, : ... · • . . o' . • • ... o.. ... • '• . . •. · o,,;-·. • . . . . . . . . /~· ·
',. .. .. . .. ··, . -;~ - . , .· .. .• o ', 0 • ;o 0
I ' o 0
• • • • . • •• • ~ -: • ,. • • • • ·£- • • • • • ' • '· ' ... •
· ·< .. · 'Accord1.ng: to. Synder and Synd~r (1974.)·, . the .cr'itical . .. .. ·. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . • • • • •• •. • • • ' 1ft . . • • . • .. : ~ · • • • 0 • •
.'age ·for. dev.elqpmE':!n£.' 'qf · visual· per cei>-tioQ· -'is . f.r6m five· .and ~ • • ... ~ • .. : • .. • : • • : • • ••• •• • • •• • • ' • • 0 ! . :. . ·. . . . .
: cme .· ~a·l.f,. ·y~a:J;:"S'· :t'o.' .s~v~n··ye.ars·. ·. ''l'h.i,s . s·u·g~ests· -.-~h~~ th·e · true·· . • 0 • • • •• • ~ : • : • ~ • •• " • • •• • • • "' 0 • • • ; ' • • • • • 0 • .' • • •• • ' .I
:_.' sco·re· v~ri:an,Ce ·.of t>'lae'r students :wa.ul'd b..e .. inoie' homogen'eo~s. • ' • • ' ~. •• • • • .. : • 0 • : .. • ~ • • ·: .0 ·- . · ,. • ... • • ~ • • • _· • .. .. • : • • • • ' _.. I. • • · : .- :' ., .. : : • • • • • • •
··ThE! observed .. s·core _ v~u;i-a'nce· :of Grade II students ,was actually · • • • • • • • .· ... 0 · .. . . . .. • • . - l . .. _; • , •' - . • • • •• • • .. :..· . • - • .. • II. ••
: ia.l;'.ger ·tn?rr:· f~l: : Grcrd.e · I<~tud~~ t~ .· ·. ~ .There•fo-re--, . : tlie ·lower . . . . .
-· .·
.· .:· . ,::· . ~ G~ad~ ·.I·I · · r~ii~~-i.li ti:es ~o~icl ·. '£na:L~~ ~~~ :~h~-t the. ·por.tion. of .. . . ·. . . . '-, .-: ·. ~: . . . . . . : . ~· : : : ·(· . ·:.. : :. . ·: . . ... . :-. . . . ·. . ·. . . . . . .
.. .. : , . . ' · '
·. #1
. .. . '
observed..: score· va·r:G::u1~· a·t'tr.ib.uta.bie td :Efrror would. be '. · ... ::· ... . '! .-.. ~ .. -. ' . · ~·! ·:.< ·:. :· .. · .. ' .... _· .. . : ··<< .... .' ... ·:: / . . : .• . . : .. · . .•
larg~r in Gr~de. ··II · ·than: -~n. Gr.ade .. I •. · ·: . . -:~. · : . · . : . · .. . . ·· .. · :. : .. ':· ... · -. : .· 04·:· ·:···.:-.: ... · ·._· .0·.· :.·: .-. '' · ·::·. _. . . ·:. ~ ~-···. . . · ... .
. · .. . Tabl~·:·IV~:l5 · repp~t;ecfi; : ~l:):e . .f:ind+.ngs ·p~ r :E7liabili ties . . ', I I I ' ' • : • ' •r! ': _:· 0 : '.· o o • o •' o: ~ o : o': '. I o ' ' ' 0. o : o O, ' o • • o I o 0. o '
.• . ' . fo'r the 'br~akdow:ri of . grade . by. adrn~nl..st;.rataon mode •. . Group . . · I
• • • • : • o• • • • • ' • .. • ~ • ... .. '· : . _. . .... • • • • • ~ . . .... . : • .... • • 0 • • • • •• • • , • • : .. ; .. • • .. • • • .- • • • '
. . .. adminis.tra t i on··. r 'eU.aoili tlE;!s ... exceeded'·'indivich.ial adrninis~ • tit o o • ' .. 0 • ', , ·, • ' ,· o : ~ · , • , ' ,: '.,, \ ! f o o 0 ", • • • o 'o o • •: ' : o · : ' o I 00 ··, o :'t • o ·· ,, o • o : ' 'f o • I o · ' , ,: . • •
. . · ·. tratiorf .I\e-liab_i·ti'tj..e·~ _.· fc;>.~: - ~.11. subscal~s : ~n -.Gr-ad·e · I · • . The • • • o : o , • I ,' • o ., .. ... ',, · :o ~.·.;~~.• ,' : . •.' • • • ," o • • /: • :\ , ~~ - ~·- · . ' ' •, ·. ~ ' , ; ' ' , " · , ' • o , • t' ', o '
·· ·. ·r eve·rse ·results .wer e · .obtained: for ·Graqe ·II ·she>wing . individual •, c ~. ; • • --: , · • 9 • • : • , 1 o , · ,_ . ~ • · ,' ,· . . . .. · ~· . ~o • • : · ; • · , ' :• '• • • , , , t- • o
1; : ~ , • • •
1, r • •
'11- · . adirri'nis:t;~·;e_iq~:: ·~~-li:a~:L-ii t·.i ~s.:g~eaFe~. ·tha~ gl;'Q.up a~ini·~trif- · •. · r • o • • , ' o ': . · , • , • • •,o • • • • ~ : · : . ·r ·. · ' ~- : . • ·· .: : . . . ~· · : •· · .. ·. •, .. t~ • •o t· • . \ •
· , ·.. '. :. t.-iori.' rel:\,a'bi;ll. ti=e·s· .'for·. al-l ·supsca1e s: .w-ith . the ·'excepti on. of () • ,• • f • • • • •• ~- • • • • - : \ • .. • ~ • • •• • • .' • .. • • • • •• • • • • \ • • .. " • ~
. • • i . ·• • .. s.Ubsc~i'~· t.r :.: · ~~~sei .f±~~·i~~·s: .ieria ;~s~pport ; ~6 .. a.'._bypo-t~esi~ "':· .. : ; . . ·.. . .•... .. · .: :· : , .' ~ .. .. .. ··. --: ' . . : . '•... . . ...
· .. ·., . : p'ut' .fa;rW~r:d .. · i·n · :t:h~~ i.i.t'e?;~.tur.~ .tha~· ·youpg~r; .' chi ldr en ' are' mo~e ., , I •
0 1° 0 •
0 0 0 ,
0,
0 • ' • •, 0 7 t , ., ~·• • ~ ... 0
• • 0 • • • • • • ; • • ' I .. • • : •• ... • • • • • • ,. • • ~ . . . ..
: . ~- · . · ... · ; · _ :: ·.··. r~l~.alil¢. ~jl· a, · ~-rqup, ~~{~ti.O~~hi:p t~a~· ·olde.~· childr~n .. (·Howard, ' • : ' I ' • ' ', ' • • ', ·., ' • • • :, • I ' • • ·· , : ,' :, ; ·:. : .-.; ~~· .':·,· o ,•:::--::: ', ' • • : . ..... , ' ' ,' I. • •'
' I : .. • .. o • o ~. ~ • , "' 'o • • o ' "=' • f '
.. 0 .. · ~ ·- •• ~ • ••• • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • . . . • •
.. .• .• ; :· . .. f; . . . . ~. 0\~ · ••• ~ . ~ . ... -~ - .. • . ~ .0 : . . • : . ... ·.
·. : 1.:., ! . .' .. .. -.. . - .. '. ..--: . · . . •, ...
• I o., : 4 • • ' ., •• Ill . .. . .· r ·: •. :
\
' · 0
"'
. .
I '
...
I '
I
"~-
.(;.. . : .
. . '· ....
..
I ,
. .
.•'
I
. :1970; Hennirig and Kornreich, 1971). ·.· . . .. '·
\ .
Th,is is a ·reasopab~e· inte:i::pr~t-~tion of t~e · ~indings
of this ' study if one hypothesizes a significant s~cializa
. . ti~I:l effect in Grades I and II, leading . s'·bidents .·to be mor~. • • . q
comfortable with ' a variety of .ad~l~ . ~~tho~ity -figures.~
-VALIDITY'
\
Hypothesi's 2 :· There are ·no· s·i.gnificant differences in mean
0 • •
. . scores obtained from gr.oup administrations
and individual administrations of the FDTVP •
Table IV.2 reported· the finding~'for .this hypothesis.
The hypothesis · w~s ·accept~d based on the results • . ,.. . . ~ . .
' ' . All mean. scores were very high whicn indicated that .
t'he ' theo~eticcal truncation of the scales poss~bly .supp~essed
d:i,fferences which may have -been presen't, making int~rpreta- ..
· , ~:l_o~ of 'the -e~f~~ts oi this vari~b.~e ~mpossible • ' I
J ...
'•
Hypqthesis 3: The're are no sig;~ificant diffe..renc.es' in -mean. ·- .
s ·cores obtained from male subjects and female
subjects on the FDTVP. . .
Table ,IV. 3 showed the' .findings fat: this hypotl:le·sis, ·. "
" The hypothesip W~S ·.accepted' ~or ~11 suJ:>s~al~s With ·.th~ exce~-'· tion of subscale:, · I., Subscale· I is a measure . o£ eye-mo.tor- "' ·
coord'ination • . Fem~.l'es .. mature faster than. m~le~ w.ith respe1
c~
to this characteristic (Stevenson, 19 61-) , ·· so · it·· ap.pears that . .. .. .. this .finding is consistent ·with- research findings ·in the·
' • t • .
I
literature. ·' • I
,.
. ' .. .. .. - ..
. ; . ' I ~
I.
.• ' .
·, . -·
' (
'·
"
' "
: '!) • ,. '
62 ·.
: o. ' · . Hypo_thesi~. 4': There J;e no significant differences ·< in me. an .....
'- ' '
scores obtained from male examiners and \. .: . .. \
female examiners on the FDTVP. . . '
The findings fc r · thls hypothesis may .·be found --in · ' 0 • ~
'
T~b~e · ry~~· The null hypothesis wa_s accepted. The failure . . ~
of . this study to:/find raw score ·differences related to the .
sex ·_o'f ·the e:Kamine'r db~s seem at var:(ance with· the findings ·
. i·~ ~he liter~ture' (Ma·~ i~g·, ~96~; . Ci-~utat,: .196~; and S~ai).ler; : :1·967). Once again, a I ossible_ ~-plari~~i"em f<Sr this · finding.
· .might be fou~ · in the insensiti.vity ·ox t;n~ FDTVP to differ- · ' . ~ ' . .
erices due to . :the t ·runca ion of the._ distribution anq th~ ·
hoinogenei.ty of the ·samp e·s. ·. 'J.
Hypothesis 5: There · are ho significant .differences in mean . = .· · : ~core's ob~a-ined fr.om. Grad~ .I . ~u~j ects .and,·.
.Grade I~ · s~bj.ects .. on the ·FDTVP.
This null hyp~thes:~ · w~s rejected.; ·f~ndings may be . I . , ;. . . . found in 'Table IV. 5. Gra 1 I_ I . s~udents ~btained l:lighe~ :mea~ -·. ,. scores than Grade I ·students~ .The a~vei6Pf'ental nature of .
~he fDTvP -~s · the ~ost proba~l~ - explanatio~ fbr ~h.is finding • . . ' .
. - It~ sho.uid be ?b.serve.d, howeve}:', . th~t while significance was ' ,. .. . . . . . .
expected, :the raw score 'differences are quite small sug- . ' ' - . . . . . . . .
,.. gesti~g -~ha~· : the ~evelqp~~n~t~·l _ch~rac~e-ristic !ll~~s~- b?·. · .the .FDTVP . did not change_ remarkably between grades in this
sampl~ • .. Two .possible hypoth.eseos ·arise ~s a result of this \
observation. First, it is possible that .visual perceptual·
'· .
•. ., . .. ·'· '
. ..
. ·
.. ·.
'o.
- I '
\ .
.·
. .
•• •
·--
Q
'I
. · . .
·.
• .. : t 1' : I \
·l
_\ . . f .. }-- ·.
.. . .
. .
' 63
_:motor d~yeloprnent slows dowp at this time. second·,
perhaps -hhe ·FDTVP does .no~ validly reflect vj:sual.' per.ceptual ·.
motor development at these 1·ages.
· Hypothesis ' 6: , There are no signific'ant dif'ferenpes in mean ..
scores obtainetl' from first occasion of . t ·est-
ing and the retest occasion on the · FDTVP • • Th~ null ·hypothesii was rejected for : all · sub~c4l~s
. . I
· · wi tn· the 'exception of subscale IV. T'he, most probable . . . ' . '
· explanation fo~ fhis finding may oe found in practice ef1ects • ~- • • <If • • ~ ~ •
.. _. from· the first tc:> the sec<!>~d testing occasion . ..
Hyp?the~is 7~ .There is ~o significant interaction of .sex
.· of subject and sex of examiner on the FDTVP • • •
I
As reported · in -findings in Table· IV~7, tHe null .
: · hyp~-thesis . ~as accept-ed for alJ. -~bs~'ales w~ th1 th~ ex~ep~ion .... of subscale IV. Table V. lC shows a _graphic nipreseritci t _ion
• ~ , a
6~ the interaction ·effects 'of sex of examiner and sex of ,. • • • • • • • 0 " ·
.. . . ,.
subject for subscale. IV. AcC?ordi~g to this :table_, .fE!maie -~ ,-
~ ~ . . Es e ·J:icited · the higher responses from male s -ubjects;' ,_whereas . ..
the_ l<;>we r re.sponses wer e 'elicited from male subjects with . . maie examin~rs. Subscale · IV involves the discr imination ··' . of r eversals and figure~ presented in series; basi~ally, a
non~motoric resp~nse i s te~ted in .this subscale. The ques-' . .
tion arises why not with subscales I , - I I, ~ III, ?tnd V? ·
Further rese arch may e needed on this subsca~e t p warr ant
a~y detailed concl
' .
' ' '·
, . . · ~
t
---. . •) . .
•
·.::-.
,;
· .
' ' .a ••
~.
64 ·I .
. .,
HY:pdthesis. 8 : · There is no significant interact'ion of, sex·
of subjec.t and admin.istratio·~ mode on the
:'FDTVP. ! • . .
1 As report~d i~·: the · f~n?i~gs· , · ~h~~ null t\ya_oihesis . . . i . "'"I-- ' . ~: , .
' . \,_..;"'· was accel?te~ • ~- . ..
~1\:, ~yp~thes~s 9: There i's no sig:n,ificant interac.tion of sex
• 0
. \
. , . · of subject, sex of· examiner, · and adminis- .
· ' · tra tion mode ·on ·'the . FDTVP. ' . ... .. (
The .null hypo-t:hesis was accepted for all subscales •' .
. w·ith the exception of' sub.scale. IV and 'for the s.urn ·scaled· . . . , . . . .
1 score. . Thi~ .san1e. fi~ding has· he.en reported · o~ Hypothesis . ' , I
7. It is appropriate to note. that subscale · lv involves a . ' . ' ... . · 'non-motoric r~sponse . .. Tavle··v. '!A ~nd ·lB presents a · : . .
r", ..
gr~p~ic ·picture of .. those int~:raction. ~ffects ·. . '
It can be .I •
observed in Table v .. · lA that male examiners e1ici ted. con-• I
sistent responses1 fro'rn· both male· and ·female sub)~ct~ ··i.n tne . .. • . " • ! • . • ' •
' · '
group ad~~ni.strations. Female . examiner's e'lici ted ·.the highest · . L . . . . . .. . .
responses from mal~. subjects in the ' group administration .• .. . - . , . . . ' I
·· .Those findings are consistent 'with evidence reported in the \ .. . \
"
.,
literatu~e (Masling, 1960; Harris, ~970).
Ta_ble V. lB shows the interacti'on effect's of sex of
examiner a.;d sex ·~~,S~~ect for .the indiv;dual ~~i.;'iStra~ . . " ' . .
t .ion. .Jiemale ex'aminers e1i,c;:ited h~gher respo?ses'. from male
subjects than :t:rom female subject.s ·. 'However,_" the, largest • . . . dj,screpancy occurred between male examiners ~or sex o_f
,. ' . ' . .· .
I
.. ·- - • • t
I · .
. .•
. l
.11
' . '· ., '
. '
. . .
{ • ..
"''~· ..
. ·"'
...
·-
. r;;
.. ,t
I .
•\
(,. '· • I
65 .
' . subj'ec.t •. : Male examiners elicited the poo~est .responses
.. ·from male subjects· and .the ·highest responses f(t'orn fema:ie
. ' ... subjects in the ·individual admi:r:>-istration ..
· · . . In comparing . the ovetall interaction effects of sex . ' . . ' . . '
·of subject and sex C?f examiner by administration· rn?d~, • . . . I
fe~ale examiner~ ~licited. the highest responses . from the'
rna~e ·subjects in the ,gr~up admi~istration~ Male examiners . '
e ·lic.ited ~he second highest respon~es from . female ·subjects . . I .
in the individual administration. All findings are con-
.sis.tel)t wi~h research reported in · the literature (Masling;
i:9GO; Ha~ris, l97o; ·and · Golden, 1974.) • . . . . . ... ' . \,
Hypotl)e~i.s 1 o : There is no significant interaction .of sex
'of ex~miner . and administ'r~tiB'n or ·the, FDTVP .• . . . ' . The nul_l hyp~;thesis was accepted for this int;.eraction.
effect{ •
' '
' ' c.
.. • a • I
. '
I ' .. .. ,
l
..
, I
·.7. 6 .
..
' 7. 5
7.4
7. 3 .·
7.2 • ..
' - ~ ._7,.1 0 u rJ)
~ : 7~0
;::. : .6. 9 .H
~
~ 6;8 u U'J Ill :::> · rJ) 6.7
' 6.6
.·
• .
. r
·.· /
. , . .. . . . .: . . )
. ,
TABLE v. ·. 1 . I
. ·. ,.. ' . . . . ( '
IN~ERACTION EFF~CTS: SEX OF E~INER BY SEX OF SUBJECT BY ADMINISTRATION MODE
A
GROUP '
Female E
B
I _NDIVIDUAL
I ~ • J
.Male . ·.~
.-. c
' ALL A.DMibt'. I , '
MODE~
•'
Ma.le' E
!'1al e
' :
' \ ·-
- ..
. \ ' .
·Female E
) ·.
Femal 13 · Ma l e Fe ma l e
SEX: OF SUBJECT
•.
----- -1- - -·--·- -- ·-:--~- .
, . . .
' .
..
. \\. .
I ' • ,
.r-i
. '
. . .
,.
.. ,.
· ....
' 1
.. . · ..
• t
'·
.· , .
'· :
.. •. . II CHAPTER VI·
. .
·SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS OF. THE STUD¥
WITH RECOMMENDATION$ . . .
t.i ' .. . ,. . o SUMMARY
' 67
(. . • I
; ·
The purpose' of this study was. ·to compare · -the relia.-. . . , . , . ·~ . . ·". .. bili-t:-Y, and. ,validity .of the F~TVP under ind.ividua·~ and. grouf> ·.· .. . . ...._
· · modes of administra-tion. . ,
In 'addition,· the influemc'e of '-the . . : ( . .
'sex of the examiner· and the sex of subject was -studied • • , • • f ' • , •
,. ' · A. s~ple :of. 12·3 . pr.i~a~y· ~~e · s'tudents . :Was ~el,ectea, . ·
'• r \ ' • I • •
• ' ' \ : /' ' ' I • ' ; • ' ' <I
stratif'l.ed :by -·grade, geographic location of the school,. and· • • , ' t •
'. '
. (
- ~ex. ·. T~e sub]ects wfthin each · lev,el were randomly .assigned ~ · •
·to -el~he;· ~h:~ i'ndi~iduar' 0~ ~roup mede ·of adridnistrat·ion • . , • . . . . . . . I . - . . .
T~e FDTVP was administered-to each subjQct on t~o occasions, .. ... ,
~sep_arated :by ~ minimUm of seven and a maximum of ten day·~.- . ' • '
• ' l • • • •
The :e'xamiri·ers were assig'ned randorri.iy on ea~h dccasi~n, . . . ,. -l ' • , • • • • • • • D
however, e~suring that the sex of the examiner was stratified·. . - . . . ' . .
- ·. : ·Each -~ubj ect h~d - a male and female. examiner, and t?ere wer~· . ~ . ' . . . . . .. ' -. ., I • .. l
. equal -numbers of -.subjects. examined by ·each sex 0~ examiner ·. . '
at ~ach level 'of .~tratificatio~ bQ each occ~~io~-~ ' J J •
· . A pilot s :tudy was conducted em the inter.-rater
reliabilit1e~ .of the sco'ring ~f 'the tests. · Du·~ to the . . I
v~r:iabiiity of·, ~cores·, the · inves-tigator deciae1d to use
.. ' l •
' .. several s.corers for t!le total samp1e.
. ~ . .-I •
I .
. . .. I
"
'
·. I j
. ~
l
' . · ..
·.
.,. ·: ...
~ " '•
'·
,. ..
.· . ' f . I •
. ,
r·.· .•.
' ' . . . '·
. ~- ·:68 ::
. · . ValidHY. was stUdied us~ng analysis c:>f variance ·.
·.· t.ec-~n ue~ o .. · :Reliab~.li~y .. findings., we're reported. _in· ~orrelci--:-tion coeff-icients 0
: ...
FINDIN~S. ,.
· · Mean scores obt-ained for all subscal~s op all vari
ables . were quite . high ;relative to the rnax'imum possible . • t , . .. . • • . • .
scores for subsca'les o Reliabi·li ty· coe_f :fic.ients . obtained
seemed low. Reiiahiliti~s ~or ·group· _a~rninistr&t:Lons ·~ere . .
higher than reliabilit.i'~s for . individitai ad~ini~tratio.ns: : ~ . .· . . \ ...
for ail ~ub::>cales· .with .the ex.c¢ption o~ subscal~ III which
was only sl_ightly lower. 'Co'rr~,lation. ~oeff_i.ci~nt~ obtained f • - • •
by grades diff~red with Grad·e I reliabilities reported as
higher .than those f.or .Gra'de II; 'with the exc-eptio.~- o~ sub~ . '
scale .Vo .·A. breakdown of· grade . by a~inistration modes .. . . . · showed Grade I group · scor.es ·as considerably 'higher than
. ' . . . . ... . . .
-.
. ' . : .. ' ' · .. .'Grade· I individual scores; G~ade I .I group· scores; hqwever ,· ..
. ' were low~r than Grade II individual .scores, wi:th. the excep-' ·
. tion of sub scale · II;
n ' . ..
The . analysis of variance showed . very few .. dif~e·ren~es o . . I
In all .•. CaSeS r the raW S<=::OreS for .each SUb SCale 1 ·and the 'SUffi . . . '
of scaled, scores were anal'yze.d o · There were no si:"gnificant . . ' . .. . . , . . .. o ' I f I
differen.ces' due ·to t 'he ~od~ ot' ~dmin,i. stration and sex of ... ex~min.ero ~he sex .. of suJ;>ject waf; · signif'icant only for_ sub.:.
~cale -r. ·' significance wa~ obiained for all . subsciale sboies
. -· - . . ~ .
·. ~or ·the 'di'ffere~ce betwe'en .Grades I and II. Occasion of l. . . . , ~
..
. '
, . . ·~
. ' , ~
.....
·I
·,
• i
, I
·'
. ,,
. ' ,. . .
! •
...
f: ·.
.. .
' . .
•.· . . ... ~. .·
·. :\: . - ., ,;.· . • l
' • ~· f (.
~·
69
testing yield~Hi significance for· all .subscales with the .. / : • 1 . . .
. . excepti.on -of subscale .IV. . Analysis of· variance · sh.owed . ·. . . . .
. significance only . for subscale· IV on .interaction eff.ects . o .•
.. between sex. of subject and . sex of . examine'r; between sex . of . .
· subject and a'dministra tio.n ·mode; between sex of examiner~ ; .. . I . . . • . . '
. ' ·IMPLr'CATio'NS .OF THE STUDY
' .· General implicatjons . o£ this study. might be: • t I \ . \
.. · • 1 .• ·The uS-e,~£ the , FDTVP. as. a screeni~g· ·device f~r
n~:r:m~·l . children ~ouid' lead to_ .. large nuljtbe'r~ of erro~s. in . ... · s~reeni~g 4ecisions . because·. the low reliabili.ties w6.uld . . ·.
' I f \ ;
· l~wer . the ability of the. test to discriminate among chii'dr.en
with . var'ying le~els of · vistia.l perceptual motor development . '
2~ · Rel~abiiities in G~ade II are so lbw that ·the
test is virtually !-lSeles~ in di:scriminating among children
· w~ th varying level_s· of . vis~al · percep'tu~l motor 'develop~ent .. . . . . I
· 3 .. S~~s6al~-s~or~s at a~~ l~ve~s - tend to be so . l6w ' .
t~a t · the:¥ w.ould lead to extremely ·high leve.ls of plac;:ement .. .
err~r if ~he: , _are -~~ed;. d~·agnos_tica~y -to · p_~a~~ ·persc.riptive remedial programs. · ' • • ' • ' • ·, I
children in
. . '
.:
.. .
., '
. 4 ~ -All' existing ey~dence on. the va-lidity ot' the FDTVP - . '.<
. . .·.musb be _ ques-tioned be.cause, of . the natur-e · of the score dis-..
I •
· otri butions .
s. For·· Grade r ·· children, the -group s.etting is the · . .
'• . . ,
I f admin'istrered· in 9r~de· I I ··· C,
. '
'r . .
. . ,.
1: .
_) .....
, .
·· '
' , · .. f
-·
"' ... .
...
'··-' - ...... ' ., . ....,. .
. ·
, . 70 .
the indicat~d rnQd~ ·is individual.
RECOMMENDATIONS . FOR RURTHER STUDY .,
J .
While the re~iab~lity and validity of the FDTVP for
' Grades I and II was ·exp'Iored in this s.tudy ·: . it is· recommenQ.ed
t~a·t kinderg-arten and Gr.ade· III sa~ples be' studied., The·
' slightly high~~ . . ra~·scores obtained by Grade· II over _Grade • o I '
I .introduc~s· the question of ~evelopmental e~fects whi~h
could be answered in . u-ie.· extremities of t.he age/grade .. ra.nge \ ..
were . included . . T};le need for a .c'!ose examination al. ·~ .
. (1963) no.rms is suggested }?y the. high mean ·sc.ores obtal~ed ·
• fo~ all subscales~
. ' ..
It is further. recommended .thqt a . study be"co~ducted
' · to.' determ.ine the predictive ·vali«;}:i,.'ty of the FDTVP ,·' especially ~ ' .
· ·an · its relationship to reading and I'Q~ .Frostig (1963) .main- . . . ' .. ,. . tains : that the FDTVP is .highly correrlated ·with r~ading in .. . .
. . t~e, e::"rly: ages, . but the low reli~b_ility . _and rel.a~·iye homo- . _ · ' .. \ ·
.. . , geneity of the scores suggests that the ·predictive vali<;!,ity
. of the -FDTVP would .be very low for populati ons simi1~r 1 to . .-:-"
the sampl~ in . this study. t .·· .
\ , •' The f~ndings of- this study on subscale IV for inter~
. ,. \ •
action· ef~ects of s·e x. ?f · examiners, sex .. of s·ubject, and ·. ' .
· admini stration mode war·I;"ant tpe need for further .resea~ch 1 • ••
on this supscale.
. '
.. \ .
·,
.. ,.
· ' .& .....
. . . . '
~~ .
. ·
-'·
...
\ .
: ~ ..
.. ' .. '/
· . . -. ·,
.. /)
,. ' .·
-· . -
·"
·• ' ' •
... ; ·.
. "
',
' .
.,
. '
I - " n . ..
. ...____ '
-~·· .. -.. ·· . . \
# ' .•
• .
.·.
· .
..
...
('
I. '1.
.·· ,
, .
.. ~
•,
I ~
\<
~ I ,
·. , . . .
' .
. -t~' 0
I .
. .
. .
•.
, . ...
' ...
..
0
'
ARTICl->ES
. '
. . ..
.. . •. ~ ..
- ' . ~
, . ~ .
\.
Alden~. p., and Benton, A. L. II Relati.onship of Sex' of .- . ' ·. . Examin~r to Incidence o.f Rors.chach .Responses with sexual. ~ontent. II Journal 00f ·Projective Techniques;" 1,951; ,.1·5.'-, · .. .. pp • . 2·30-234. . . .' •' . • . _· . . ·. y--: ~. :
. ' . . . 't • . .
\l · .. l??.
0
A:llen, R.F. "Factor Analysis of the·Deve·lopmental .. Test .of · 'Visual Perception Performance of Edudible Mental· · ··. ;_,~:.: Retardates." · Perceptual and Motor.JSkill·s,,·- 1968,.· · - ~ ., .. . '~
PP ~ 257-2_58. .: ,. : r •. . . . . ,. . .
; : t ' . ' .: -
I
' I • . ' •
. ~.
. . An,derscn, :B~t~y; "Class·room. oiag~o~i~ ·of· R~~di'ng Readiness · ._. • Fac·~ors. '·'J J.ournal of Learning · Dis·altili ties~: May, ·. ~97·9, :
3 (S),•pp. 160-163. . · ·.· · · .~ .. . .. ~ .-···
' ' • " ' ~ e . . ' . . , . . . - • - . ;r - •' · ' . .. •• -: • . : • ._:. . • -·.
Ba:rnard, P: . "·Interact~"~-~ .... ~~fects Amo~g .. cer\~~{.in . Exper~menh~~-;-: :· .. ~ '.·: <·: ...... _· and SubJect _Character~st~cs on a Pro)ect~ve Tes:t. '!· ... . · .. · · '. = · :•: .·.
. Journal of 'consul t.ing and Clinica·l Psychology~ .. - ~96'8·,. · . ·.=: \ •. ·. :_ .:.·<-, ._: -~· 32, pp. ~14-52L . . < : . ·· , :; >.-:' ·. ··:-.· .~.< "~·
: ~ . ; . . . ··: ~ · .. . = .. : . . ~.
Barratt, ·E. s. "The Space:-Vis~alizatiqn )~actori_. ,Re_l~~ed. ·-t~ : : . .-":· ... :· · _.: _.:-> :· .. "~- ·. Temperament ~raits ." · Journal of Psychology, ;. 19551 . :: - ~ .; .' . . ·:/ : .. ~ . . : '.' · ·· ...
. XXXIX, 'pp. 279-287~ · · _. ,_ ·:·. ·. · ·.· ·.· · · ... ,; : .- ·_.:,·">; .;: · • • ot • t - ~ •• • ... • • .. • • .:. .. • ..... ·: : .. . ' • •• • ~ ••
BaughJUan,- E. E. ":Rorschach Scores as a Func;tion of . E'xam:i;ner · ., __ :.-_._ ~-. . :.- :·. ·. Diffe'rences." Journal .of Pr6jecti~e ·Techniques', . ;l951, > .. .... ·<·--:· .. ~~ .-< ·.·.
. 15, . pp . . 243-24 9. •. . , · ·. · . : ... : · ··: · . . - · -. ·.·· - ~ :• .·:· . .'·: ·,_ ·-:: ·; :· '.r
. . - . . . ' . ' . . . ' . . . . ·. . . , ·.- ... .... · .. ~_..-.:· ·.· .. .. ,_. ._· ·~: . ·.:·~~ :._:_.' ; Bauer, David .• ·."The effect of ~struction.:; · Anxi~ty'; _,':\nd _ . __ ,.·::-.:· .. -~~ ; ·.:·· .. Locus of .contr_ol o~ Intellig_ r:ice ·~t s .cores." . ··· Measure•· _:-'.: · . . ··.. . _
ment .and Evaluation in Guida ce,.· April; . 1975· ~ - · 8 (1) •· · ·:.· · ··· ·.: ·· · · . · · ·. ' . . ' . ·. . . . . ·. . .-": . ",:: ' ". . ...
~ecker, P., . and Sabatino, · D. ·"Frostig Revfsite~~" .:··Journal' .·.-_- . ·-:_· · . . of· Learning Disabilities, 197), 6 (3), pp. _- 180::184_. : . . ·. · . ., ' .. ·
. Beck.er., · ~~C. · 'iThe . Matchin·g of· Sehav~o'r ·· ~a·t~n~ an.d . ti~es~~~:>n; . :· ..'naire Perssmali ty··Facto.rs." ·. Psychol;;ogi9a1· Bulletin~ . . :- . · .. ·. :·
·"" :. · 1960, · 57, pp. 201- 212·. . ·. . · . .. ·. ;· : - : ·- ·; . . . ' • I .,
, . .. . Beloff, . H·. "Two F.otms o~ Social. Coriformi ty: ·. :··Acqu·i~·~?~nce · . :
and ·coiwentionalitSt." Journal of Abnormal and Soc~al ·· ·. Psychology, 1~58, ·56, pp. 99-104. · ·· .. .,_
.. . 72 . . , . .
"'· c· •.
G ... ' \
0 •
' .
.. ·"
. · ..
;;
... ·,
.
. ;
. . .. I
0 ••• •
. . .. : . . ~. . . ' . . ':" _ . ...
0 ~. •: . ~· ~ .. ~~ 0 ." .• ~ · .. _: !0 · ·: ·~· • • · .... :·.··,M~ . . . ,.. . . 73 ... .. _-. ~ · .... : ... . . . . .. •.. . .
' . ' ' . I o · • :
.- ; . -·. · ·:·_ .. ' "l .. • •.•. . . . . " . ... ""' . . . • . : .. ' ... : .. ~ .. ' . -:- a:: l . • . • ... .
Benney, . M.; Riesrnah I D. ,_ and Star I. s. . "A'qe' and Sex ·._.in : th~- ;_- --. _·: ' .. Interview.~-! ~American ·Journal o'f Sociology, ·.19:56 , · · 6'~, · ·. · :: · -- : ; · . pp. 143~152. ·~ O O' ! , O 0 .. • ... O :M: ~ .~· ·
0 >' : ... O O , o .
,,0 • • "· . -~ • • ~ • • ·:. : ". . :. , • .• • .. • .... .. ·• ... ' ' ' • ' I • ' • • • r
• Bieri,,. J .. , -Bradburn, W., and 'Galinsky, . M. o:· .-,_.,;-Sex:· Di.ffer·en·~es _ .. · .. _ ..... :: .·· .. . in ~erceptuai B~ha.vior." Journa~ of · p~·r:sonilli:ty ~.' 19 56~ : : --::· : .. -· · · .· < · ·· .. :
XXVI·-, pp.- _.' l-12. . · - ... --· --· . · . . ·:. r - -~'_ ; ·· .,. _' •• \ • l ' • .. ., .....
• I 1 ' ' t • I • o • • .( 4 • • • • ,; • ', • \ • • ~
. Binder I A., •McCo~nell I D.,_ and Sjoholm·; J;ll • . •. ":Verbaf Con-- d • _..- "
di t..ioning · as 'a "Functi~n _of Exp~rirnen,te-r ··cl).a.ract~ristics_ . __ .. - · · : . . -Journal~ of Abnormal· and Sooial · Esych9'~ogy, 19 57, 55-1 . · i - - .. _.. .. . . : ·"';
' . -;-~- .. :'_. ... :· ... . · pp. 309-314. .- . :. . . : ..... ~j .: .. --: ..
' .. ~, • 0
.. '
o·
.. '{
' .
.. ' . . . ~ ~
'
•. . ..
... .. ·
·.
, .
I '
' \
. . . -.. · .. , .. ........ .. ~ . •. _, . . Block, J. ·, ·-and ~lock, J. ~·An In_terpersonal E!:Kpe;d.rnent on·
Reactions tp Autho:r:i ty .·'.' · In D •. c. McClelland .. (,ed~.) • · ., · S.-tudi.es .. in · Moti yation, New .Xo:rk: AppTeton-C~n·tury.-CrOfts, 1955, pp. 537-544. . . . - ..
· · ·Bo:ttz:er, __ M.. I.~~. Bi:r;ch~_.: H· . . ·"·Perceptuat : and P~r-cepb,J.al,;.mo~o~. _ D~sqoci.at~on ~~ · sra~n:-damagt;d Patients.!'. Jour-nal of_ . Nervous ·.and Mental Disease, I960 , . . 1.,30',- pp. 49".-53. · \
.Boyd, L., and Randle, K'~ "Fac~or ~alysi~ ~f -th~ ~-~ost!i~ DTVP." Journal o'f Learning .Disabilities·, 1970, 3·, . .
. pp . . 2 53''- 2 55·: . . ... I .
Braithwaite, · R.J. · ."The -Frostig ·Test and Training Program.:.. : · How· Valuabfei.'~' Slow I,.earriing Child,· ·.July, 1972, . 19 (7), ..
pp. 86-89., .. .. .
Bro'adhurst, A. , and Phillips, c. "~eli'abil.i ty ~no. Validity ·. ·. of 'the . Behder-Gestal t Test on a Sampl_~ · of Br~ tish s ·chool ·
. . : · · 'Children-." British Journal. of {)ocial · Clirtical; Psychology., · 0 "1969, ·8, - pp. 253-262 •
I ' O I ' ' . ' ' t
S.ryan, Q . ~ :-·~Relative ·Importance - of I!1te1ligen.ce ·and . .Visual :· · P~rcep~~Ot:l in Pred;i.cting Rea"ding Achievement.!' . California
Jburnal of Educational-Research, 1964, 15·, · PP .· 4_4-.48. . . . Bush,..·. D. I ·an"d c_oward, · R. ·. ·i·sex Differe_nces in the ~_elution.
- '
. ' .. ·'
. . .
· ,;
· ! ... ~· .. .. . ..
:~ ··i
' . ' .. · . . -.of -Achromati:G .al\d Chromatic Embedded Figures." · ·Perceptual
-· . . :·-_·and Motor ~ills,' ~974 ;' 3_9~ pp·.· ;I-121-,1123.' · . .. ;_, · ,· ' . . - " ~
. • • . ,. 0 • - -:.:.
. ~~ .......
'I
'.·
.. • <
• < ...
, .
' I . ·.-·:
, o • .
Buss, ' A. , and _' tiurk.ee, A. ·"<ibnd,:i. tioning of· Host~ile · ' - ... ~erbalizat~ons . in a _Si tuati-~on Reseinbling ,Q Cl~nical . . · ·In-terview.'.'· Journal· .. "G?f consulti.rfg Psychology., 1958, .. . 22 ·,
· P~ ._ . sl4 - s1 e . . . • ~~ • ~ ~ C.. ' o I 't I .. J 0 • ~ '
' . . . . .... ~~, . •. !•
. . i ~
i· . • •. ·• . .... . : . -~~ .: t l . .
Ca~-ispn", E.; a{ld ca:r!s·on, R. · :·~~ale al'fQ. ·Female :' , Personality Research/" . 'Journal'- of [\.bnorrnal
Pslchology_t -f'96b, 61, pp. 482:2'if8j •. _ - . · .. -
Subjects in and Soc-ial · ' ·_. 1
.. t ··. . .... ·.
\. . : . . :a , w •
...
, . . '• . . . ·-:.J.. -~- -- ,, . . r~
' ' •, o. ' ·~ .: '\ ..
. ' ·. ·' ~ ·~~ ~- . .. / ..
. . ,
. ..
. . .
. .j;· : .·
.. ' • •
: f •
.• . () ... . . .
.·. . . . (.
• • t
'
·'.
. '· ·' .·· . . ,
.,
. t . • ' ,· ' '
·•· .. "'-. . ' •, : •·. ·.,·' . . .. .. . . .. ' . . .:: . : ~ . . . . ... · ~ . . . . .. ..
'1. •• ••• • ' ' • I • ' • • •, , o ' Op :-: · - · ... · ........... ". . . .. '• ; • ' • , , . ·.: ••• :· . ' : •• J .....
·,
•'
• . . . . . . ,
,.
! 0 I: : .... o "' . . . . ,, . . . . · . . . .. •. .. . . . . . ~ .... · '
' . _.,. ~ . . :. : :- . . . . .. :. . ' ..• · . . ·.. . ,. ~ ' • . ' ••• J, . ·. ' .. '
. ··. \ . . . . .. ... . ~ . ~ ". · ..... ; . . ·. . .. . .. . .·.. .. . "' .. '\
: . :• .. · .. · ..
. ' • .Ot. ~ • .. • • • • • • •
' • ) ' t '"' " ': • • .. '• " I o • o '
Che!=k, F. ·~A · ·ser:~n<;}.ip.H:o.us:- innd.ing-: sex ,Rol-es -aod schfzo · phrenia. ". Jqurrta.l .. o( 'Jilinormal _ai\.d. sp.cial Psychology~
· ~964, .69-: pp . . 39_6:..4oo.:· ·. ·· ·· .. . . . . ,.. ' .. .. . . . . ·. ;·. .;J . . , ·.. .D. . .
:·chissom, B.S.. "Canon~ca':l :-va'lidity .Qf Percept1,1a1-Motor ~ · · · Skills ~or· ·Predicting· an Acaciemi.c -Criterion. 11 Educational
and Psyc~1og.ical Mea.S'ur.e"ment,_l9.72'', 33, pp. 1095-1098. • . . .. .. .
Cieu·t~t 1 v. J .• !'E~ami'ne~- ·:-nif.fe~e·n_ce· wi t;h the Stant'ord-Binet· IQ." P~rceptual'. and Moto-r.Ski11s, 1965, ' 2.0/ pp •. j'l7-3,18.
• • ... • • .1> • • "" •• 1o
.. . 'Cieut~t, · v. J., · -~~d Fl~~~·,. ~::i.~ · ···ix~mi~er D~f~~r~nce~ ;·Among . • · . Item? on the s ·tanford-Binet." . Psycholog-l.cal· Reports, .
. . -~ •, . ·19 6 6 o ' ' • . ' ' j I 0
...
., I
. ' . :·· · .·
Clark, R.A· .. . -'.'The Projectiv~ Measurement .of .. Exper~entally-~~ .· . : ' 11\'d\lced Levels of Se~ual' Motivation~ II • Jot::~rnal~,'bf _· .
· ExperimentaJ. Psychology,· 19:52 ~ - 44_, · P.P·." 391-·399 • . · -~· . . ) ..... · . . .
. Cohen 1 . Al.-an .· "Sdme L~arn~ng .Disabil~ ti.es of Socially :oi.s ·- . · ·:, advant~a ed Pu.~.r·tc:> Ri.can and Negro Chi,ldren. 11 .Academic
Tl}erap tfarter·ly., 196.6, -2 (1) •. . , . . ' · .. , . . . , I "'. 4 • • •
·.
. .. · .. ·co~ah., N. ~ and Powell, B .J . . "A .Factor AI\alytic S.tudy of · . t~e ~·:r::q~ti~_TVP ~ 11
• Pe'rc.ept~al r.1oti_vation Skills, 19 63, , _l.(l.)· ~ · ~P- ~·9-::6. 3 •. : .· . · :. ·,. . . ·· .... ,.
,.. . .. ·. . ' t . . • · · .-<;:orda.+o, L., .and 'rson,· J .-R. . "Psychology of the Scientist
· · 'X' . . · ·observer-·· Bias in· clir~s.it:al Condi t'ioriing of the Pianarian.-" .. Psy·chological Reports, '1963, 1,3, pp. 787-789.
,· ... ... .. . . .
· . · _:·.: ;·.> ·c;.r~~i_e,y .;. J.-F~ ., .',B~r.r~w! ~~·H.~ .~nd- Goodstein! ~.A .. "An Ap~ aisal .. v 9f· Ile .. ac;l St<;lr.t · P,p.rt~c~pant~ and Non-part~c~pants. 11 Re earch
· · · · ; .. . .· 'Repo1;t ~ .o.~ii:c~ ·. 9f .. Economic · ~pportuni,ty, Starrs, Conne cut: ... -:Uniy.e:r;'!:i~ty. of Con"nect~c·ut, · 1968. . ·
. · .. "', ·: . '" . . . . ~ :. . -:- .. : ~ . . "' . . : : . · · .. . ·: .. . cronb'ac~, - .-.L .j:~ ·, Raj·aratna_m; .'.H.·; and .Glesel?, G.C. "Thet:lry · <?~ . · · · · · · · G~ner.alizabi1;i ty: A Liberalization of Reliability Theory."
··.. ··~ . . British jo'urnal ·of. Statistical · Psychqlogy, 196 3, .16 ( 2) , · . . :.. . .. . . .. :I . . : pp:., 13 7 .:' :/6 3 • . . . ·... . , .
· · c~uis/~; · 1).· · 11 Effects of Distraction- upon the' Perforinahce . ·of .Br_ain .. I~jured an;J ~-a~ilial Retar,dates._" American
. ·
., I
~- · · ,Journal o.f Mental Oef~ciency, 1961, 66, pp. 86-92. :
. . c.r~1tchfi.eld, ~ R • . ·."conformity a~d ·charact~r." , 'i.J!f~ : .. Psycholog~st, 1955, 10, pp. 191-198. . .
. ... ,.
.. . . ..... _, , ,
. .
. ··· .
. ...
I .
' '
...
, >
•' .. I .
American
. .. ·:
:
r .
. ... .
\
t
·•
.. .
I ' ~ •
~I , ... ' .
' ~ ,,
.. ~ .
..
.·.
,. : .. : . ~ .. ''·.
. . \
. ....._ ...
"
-.. ' . ~ · ' f .. , ~.
I • I •
.... /
,.
Curt,.i.s, H., and Wolf, E. · 11 The Influence of the . Examiner on ·the PFoduction· of Sex Responses . on the Rorschach.-" American ~sycholog.ist, 1951, ·5, pp • . 345-346 • ... . .,
75
' ~ \ , • I • , '.' ' ' ,. I
Dickst-·ein, L., . · an~ Kephart, . J. "Effect -of Implicit: . . Ex!lm~ner · EXJ?e~tancey upon WAIS Performance. 11
• • Psy·chological "":Reports, 1972, 30, pp. 207--:212 ·. · '· 0 . ; ~ . . . , . .
: ~1nbff, ·Michael. 11 Subject Awareness of Exam1ner Influence in· a ,.Te~.ting Si tuatiop. 11 Journal of Consul tincj Psychology,·
.. . 19 6 0 , .2 .4 ( 5 ) , p. 4. 6 5 • '·
·: .' . Dornrath, Richard· . .. "Constructional Praxis and ·visual' · Per~eptioil in School Children. 11 Journal of Consulting
· . and Clinical· Psychology, 196 8, 32, PP.· 186-192. ·
Donofrio, . T. . "The Effect of Exa'rniner Variabies on Amount ·of Self~di~closure in TAT Sto~ies." Doctoral Dissertation, 1968.
Dymond, R. 11 Perscinality and Empathy." Journal of consulting Psychology, 19.50, 14, pp. 34 3-350 • .
Et?el, Robert·. ".The Relation of Scale F_ineness to Grade _Accuracy: 11 Journal of Educational Measurement',. 1969, 6,
. pp. 217-221.
Egeland, B., · R~ce, al'_ld P~~ny·. 11 In·t~rscorer Reliability·.· on the Benc;ler-Ges tal t Test and the Visual Retention
- >
. '
' · Test. 11 Ame.rican Journal of Mental· Deficiency, 1967-68, · o
72, pp. 96-101. ~
~i .
....... .. ~
Eister, . R. uThell!atic E~pression 9f Sexual Conflict under Varying Stimulus. Conditions." Journal of Con.sul ting . and Clinical Psychology, 1968, .32', PI?: 21.6-220. · .
. Exline, . R.V. ";Effects of Need·.for. Aff.iWtiqn, . . Sex and . · · · Sight of ·others upon Initial Communi-ion in Problem .
Sol vin'g." Journal of P.ersonali ty, -1962 ,· 30, pp·. 54.'!--556 . . ( ,
Fidel, -and·. Ray. "The Validity . of . the Revised Objec~ive Peroeptual Test iri Differentiating Among Nonorgailic;.
· Minimally Organi9 and Gro~sly · Organic Children." Journal . of. Special Educ~tion·, 19?2, 6 (3)., pp • . ~79-:-284 -. · · ·
"' ~ . . F:orre'Ster, . S .J., and . Kl'aus, R.A." - "The Effec~· of Race of the
Exami·ner on Intel-ligence T~st Scores cif. Negro Kirider-. ~ g·arten Children." · Peabody Pai;>ers· iq ·Human Deve·lopment,
.1964, 2 (7), pp. 1-7 . . ' . · '
.. ,I
.. I •
' I
.. :.
. . .
I\
' I
. .. ·,
.. I
,
' ' < . '
' I
Forslund,· Mor-ris, and· Hull.; Ronald. "Teacher Sex and Achievement Among Elementary _School Pupils • ' Edupation ~ u
· .. Jou·rnal of Special Education, .-1974-75, 9,5, pp.· ·-87-89. . . .
. rro.~tig I Mariq.nn~ ~· . "Tes.ting. as a Basis fpr Educa-t;.ional · The~~py.·~· · Journal of Specia-l · Educa.tion, 196'7,; .2· (1),
. ' pp·.: 15-34'. . ' . . t> • • ·f ' . . .
Frostig, .M., Lefever., and Whittlesey. "A Developmental ' Tes·t · of .Visual ·Perception for Eva.liuating Normal and· Neqro-.
. ·logically Handicapped Childr n . " ~ Perceptual a11d Motor Sk.ills, 1961, ·12, ' pp. 383-39_ · ·
esey. ·~The Mari:anne Visual Perception. 11
. _
Frost'ig, M·. , Lefever, .and Whitt Frostig PDevelopmental Test o
·.Perceptual and ' Mot·or. Skills ). anua1), 1964, .;-19, · pp. 463-499. . (, • '"'I:
~pt;.o-o__:i,.agnostic Te~t. " · ' · . __________ ----:........_ __ -.:::..::r, 196.9 ~ (Monogram Supplement).
Gardner'·. R~ w ~I Jc;tckson I \ D: N. I an Messi.ck I ' s. r ".Persona.li ty Org-an~zat~on ~n Cogn~t~ve Gont o1s ·and ·Intellectual·
· Abilities." ·pgychological Iss es, II, 1960 ... · '
Garfield·, s·., Blek, · ~-~ and Method of Administration Aspec~s · of . TAT Stories .. " Psycho~ogy~ 1951, 43, pp.
# ... ·. " .:
, F. 11 The Influenc~ . o.£ and Se ·Difl-ferences o'n Selected
Journ 1 of Abnormal · Social. ·
' .~Ga~rnezy, N. , a~d . Rodnick, · E. · .... "Prern rbi.tl ~djustrnent and
· .· Performance 'in. Schizophrenia: I lications for Inter- · " preting J;leterogenei ty in Schizoph enia ... .. Journal of ·
·- Nervous and Mental Disease, 1959, 129, pp. ·450-466. \ .
. . '
.Gewittz, ·J.L. "Three Determinants of Attention ~eeking · in . Young Children. II . Monogram of s cial Res'e?!:rch in Child
. 'Development, 1954, ·19 · " .. . .. """ . . ,
Gewirtz ~ J.L . , ~nd B..,.aer·, ·D.M. "The Ef ec·t ' of B·rief Social ·· · · Deprivation.· on Behaviors for a Socia ~einforcer; ... . .
· Jpu~nal of Abnormal social Psycholo , 19581 56, · pp . . 49"':?6' • • ' · • • ~1 .
Gibby, R. 11 Examiner Infltien-~e on the Ro schach Inquiry. II •
' Journal~of Consulting Psycho~ogy, 195 ~ 16, pp. 4f~~455. :. ' I
Golden, Charles·, ''Sex Difference s in P~rf rm~~c~ c!>n the · .· , .Stroop Color and Word Test.... Perceptu· 1 and Motor Skills,
1974 , .. 39', pp'. 106- 107. ... ; ' ·
f ' ,,. ' .
. .. . \ ..
' .
.. '
: ".
'r .
. .
. ,'
' /
/ ,
•.
' ·:.
.··
·.
..
. '• '·
.... ·:
.I
. . . · .)
·Gooqeno.u_gh, D.R. :,. and-.Karp·, S.A.. "Fiel·d ·Dependence and Intellectual Funct,i.oning." Journal of Abnormal and SociaL Psychology, ~961, 63, pp.· 241~246.
77
. ·' ' I Gordon, L.V., and Dur.ea, ··M .. "The Ef~ect of DisC:ouragemen_y , , . on the 'Revised S-B Scale·.-" Journa~ of G~netic ·Psychol()qy,
1948', 73, pp. 201-207. ·. • • I' • • , • . . . .
• · G~ulet, L~R. ·· "Age, School'Ex~~rien~e, ~nd .the _ Develop~ent . of Vis~al Perceptual Memory." Re'port, March,·l97.4. 1
. .. . . .
Gray,· S. ·"Perc.eiv~d Simila.rity. fo P-are-nts and Ad)ustment." · Child Development, 19,59~ 30, pp. ·81-107.
. . . . , ·" , . . . \. · \
Gross, L.· "Effects ·o'f .Verbal and Nonverbal Rei-nforcement on 'the Rorschach .. " .Journal of Censu·l ting. Psychology_, 1959,· .23', pp. 66-68~
· Guarriaccia, Vincent. "Compa.rison of Automated and Sba.ndard .Administration of the Pu_rdue Pe.gboalfd ~ith the Mentally
·. Retax;ded Adults. 11• Pe·rceptual and Motor Skills·, 19 75,
4o, pp . . 371-374.
~Guilford, J.P., and ·L~cey, ·J.L. (eds.). "P.rinted .. Clas.sifica-. tion Tests" (AAF Av:iption Psychology Program, Re·search .Report's, . Rep., · No. SJ' .'· Washington:· Government Printing Offi~~ I 194 7. 'I . ' • ' • . • • . .
Haan, N. , and Li us on, W. , "Sex Differences in the Eyes of Expert Perso.nali ty Assessors: 'Blind. Spots. " .Journal ·of Personality Asse~smeht, 1973, 37 (5), pp . . 486-49~ . ..
I • • '
Hammill, D.o. ·, . Colarusso, R.P., and ·Wiederholt, J.L • . "Diagnostic . Val~e of the Frostig. Tests·:·· A Factoi' Analytic Approach." Journal of -Special Education, 1970, 4 ( 7) , pp_ • . 279"':'283. .
Hammond; K.R. "Repr2~entative Versus Systematic - O~sign in Cl,ini6ai Psychology. '1, Psychological Bulletin, 19 54,·
. 51, pp.· 150-159. I
~ Harris, sandra. "Influence · ·o·f Subject and Exper~menter . · Sex in Psychological Re.search. ". Jcmrnai of cons.ul tincj
'and Clinical Psychology, 19 71, 37 {2) I PP· .. 2 91-294 .". . ~ . •' . , \
···Harris, s·. , .and Mas ling 1 • ;J; :' "Examiner Sex Subject, and' . f . Rorschach Productivity."" Jout'nal .of Consulting and·.
Clinical Psych~logy, 1970~· 34., pp. 60-603 • . _ . ...
I I •.
' \,
. ttl . ' ' ,· .. ~ I . /
. (_ ·. ··.
l
,f)
.. . ,...\
... . •.
. "
• I
r
, I
l
t.
,. . ,
\ .
f
-~ .. .
. . l ',• • I
... ~ . . .. 78
Henning, J~, and . Kornr~ich, L.B~ ·· "A Qevelopmental s~~dy,of tl:ie E;ffects of Pretraining on a P.erceptual Recogni·tion ·. Task." · Child Developm~nt, 1971, · 42 ~ · pp. 2117-2119.
.. I
Henry, E., and· Rotter,.·J. "Situational .Influence~ on ~o·rschach Response's." · Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1956,. 20, · pp. 457~4S2 .
. Hil.~s I J. R. "Within-group Correlations and their. Coi;r~ction for Attenuation." Psyci:_oloQica.l Bulletin, 1957, 54_, pp •' ljl-13~.. ·I'
•.
H'ochberg; .' J., and McAlister, E. "Quantitative Approach •to Figur~l Goodness." Journal f>f Experimental, Psychology;·. 1953, 45~ pp. 361...:.364. . ~ . ' . .
:Hol tzrnan, Way~e. ."The Examiner· as a .Variable in the Draw-a-Man Test. 11 Journal · of Abnormal Social Ps·ychoiogy, . 1948' ·p. 4_3.. .. L ~
H0rner, ·M.S; 11 Femininity ·and Succ·essful Achievement: A . Basic Inconsistency. II Journal of' Personality and Social
·Pdych6logy,,l975, 1~, pp. 114-118. . . ' .
Howard, · J. ~'The Group ·aender-Gestal t Test as a Screening PrQcedure for the Identification of Cnildren with Lag's in Vis,ual Perceptual Developmez:1t' . 11 Journal of School ~sychology~ .1970, 8 7 p~. 64-65 • .
. I
Hutt·, ·· G.J... "Consecutive' and' Adaptive Testin'g ·with the ' Revised Stanford-Binet.'' . Journal of. consulting Psychology> .
. 1947, , 11, PR• ~3~104 • .
. .. fac~~on ,. · o. N •· 11 Stability in Resi~:tance .to .Ffeld For"ces • 11
Unbub~ished Doct6~al Dissertation, Purdue tinivers~ty, ·1955 • .. Jackson·, oouglas, . Messi.ck; s., and Myers, ·c.T. "Ev:aluation
of Group· and individual Forms of Embedded Figures Measures ·of Field InR-ependence. !' Educat-ional ·and Psy~hological . Measurement, 1964, _24 (2.) ; pp. l77-l92. .1 ·•
• 1 ~ • ~ - • •
Kagan, J. "The· Child's Perception of the Parent. 11". Journal
, · ·_of Abnormal Social Psychology; 1956_, 52, pp~ 257-258 •. · ' I ' ' • ... • , ' •
Man fer, F. H. · 11 VE)rbal ~ondi!:ioni:t:lg, Reinforc.em.ent Sche~~les .. .. . and Experimenter Influence l 11
• Psychological . Reports, . 1958, 4; pp • . 443-452. . . ' . . (
.. \
I . ,. ' ., .. " ..
.. ' J. ·'
·~ ., . ·, .
•' I .
, ;.,; ..
' .· '
..
I
l I
. .>.I \ .
I
...
' ..
' '
Keough; B.K., and Sntith,· C.E. '~Group Te.chniques and . Prop6s~d S~oring Sy~te~ _ for the Bendei-Gestalt Test .with· Ch-ildren." Journal· of Clinical Psychology·,. 19.61, 17, pp. 172..;17$. l ' - . . ('ti.S\ . .
K~ough, B.K.', apd Snil;th, G.l,!:. "Visual-motor Ab.ility 'fo~ ·: · School ··Pr.edictioz:l: . · A Seven-year ~tudy .... ·-Perceptual
and Motor Skills, 1'9 67, 25 ,._ pp. 101-110. . . ' . .
79
I •
• I
Kintz, B.L., Delprato, o.y-., Mettee, ,D.R., Persons,· C.E., and · Scharpe, ··R. H . .. . ·"The Experimenter. Effect." Psycho-
-logical Bulletin, 1~65, 63, pp. 223~232:: · · · # • I ..,
Klatskin,, E.H .. "An ·Analy~is ' o:fi{ the Effect .of ' .th.e Test Situation· 'Upon t e Rorschach ' R~cord." 11 Journal of . Projective Tech iques, 1952, 16, pp. 193-199 . .
' . . . ' . .. ~ . ,
. '
Klein; E., Cicchet ~ D., Spohn, H. "A Test of the Censure.:.. Deficit Model c:¥ it-s Relation- t6 . Premorbidi ty · in the ..... Performance of Sch.izoP.hren:i,.cs ·." Journal of Abnormal Psychology; 19 7, 72,· pp. 174-181~
' I ...
Kras~e~~ L. ~S~ti4'es of the Conditionin~ of Verbal B~havior. " Psychological B lletin, .195.8, 55, pp. 148-170.
Lantz,~~. '.'SOIJle ~yn ~ic·.Aspects of su.cces·s an(~ Failure ... "_. . Psycholbgical Mon grams r ' 19 s·a ,· 59,· pp. 6-21.
·Lasch, , L·., Holl·and, j , · ~nd Lasch, R. '"A New Group . . Administration Prac.~dure :for the . Minneso<ta Percepto- .. · Diagnosj::ic Test' . . u .Psycho;J.ogy in the School, 1974", l.l,"
PP• • 403-~07 o ', • ' ' I , '
n '
' Le Boviti, .Leon. '~esting Expe~ience and S~anford-Binet :.Scores.~' . Journ 1 of Educatlon;l Measur'ement, . l963, 3 (3} , ·. PP.· ·229-23 ~. I
Leiburt, R.E. ; · an Shark, J.K . . '."Three · FDTvP and Specific Reading 'Tas · for Kindergarten, First and .Second .Grad~ -Child~~n. "' Reading .. Teacher, . ~970, .. ~4, pp •· 130._137 ~
Levy,.· L • . ·."~ .Note on .. Rese~ch Me;tho~ol~gy. used in _Tes'ting,' ·: · for . Examiner Influence in Clinical Test· Performance."
• • • lo t ,
Jourl)al, of Consultin<J... Psychology,. 19~6,_ · 20·, · p. ~86. · I • , . . ~
~ • • t
Lord, .Edith. "Experimentally Induced variations ih · Rorschach Performances." Psychological Monograms·, 1.9 50;
' .' 64 _(70) .' . . \
. ~ I> ·
• I
• • ' II ,\ • . .
' .. .
. :· ~
. . -.
f .
1 . i ' ;
' . · !
•
- I
' '4,
',•
• I
~.
1 ...
.• •
t . 80
Madden, ' TheodC?re. "A No.te on the Administrati~~ and .. Scq-ring of the WISC Mazes Subtest." Psyphology in the Sch~ols, 19 ~.4 J pp . . 141~143.
* . . . . Maslirig~ J • . ~The Effects of Warm and C~ld Interattion
· · bn the A~inistration and ·Scor~ng of an Intelligence Test. 11
· Journal o-f _COJ:?.Sulting Psychology, 1959, 23, · pp . . 336-341 t
.-. · Masling, · J ·. "The iriflu~nce .of Situational .and Interpersonal Vari"cibl'es in ~~rojefctive Test_ing." Psychological B~lletin, 1960, 57, pp. ·· 65-85 • . _ . . .
co'
.Mas ling, J. 11 The .Effe ts. o ·f Warm and co·ld Interaction on the Interpreta,tion f a _.Projective _Protocol. 11 -Journal
· of. P·rojective Techn · u~s~ .1957 1 21, pp. 3-77-~a3.
Mas ling, J .', • and .Har-ris S. · ."Sexual Aspects of . TAT · · · Administration.·" Journal of Consulting l?sychology, 1~69,
33' pp'. i66-169. . .
~as~ow, P. , : FroS'tig, M;, Lefever 1 D. w. , · and Whittlesey, J. R. a· . . ··"The Marianne Frostig E>evelopmental Test of Visual Perception: 19 63 . Standardization.... Perceptual · and· Motor · Sk:ills';.Monograph Supplement 2, v. 19, 1964.
,McClelland, D., and Watt, N.. "Sex-role Alienation· in SchizQphreni·a." Journal -of Abnormal P~ychology, · 1968, 73, ·pp, 226.:..239, 1:> .. ' I , 4. ' ,
-·~ · . ,-
dMcConnel, D., · Bender,. A., and S)oholrn, N. 11 Verbal , Condition-: · ing' as. a Function of Experi~enter Characteristics. It j •
Jou~nal of Abnorrnal'and Social Psychology, ],.957, 55,,·· · pp. 309-314. . ' .. . . . . '
I ·' ' . i,. ·.
. '
McGuigan, ·F .J. · "The Experimenter:~ A Ne9lect,ed Stimu.Jr?s · . . :·1 . . Obje,c~ .1.• Psychological Bulletin, .1963 '· 60 , . pp:. 4~1-·4.28. . •. ·~ . I
. , .
. .
McNemar, Q· • . "Lost, Our _Intelligence •. Why?." <.American Psychology, 1~6_4· ~ 19 1 . pp. 871-~82. . ...
Me·1ker,' 'F~, and Garfield, S. · 11 The .·rnfluence · of·,Method of Administration · ahd Sex Differences on· Selected .Aspects· ., IJ of TAT Stories·.!' Journal 'of Abnormal Social PS:>[cholOCJY 1 .•
. 19'51, 43,,. pp. 338-345.
Miller, .c. 1 and· Chansky 1 N. · "Psyoholog.ists ,scor_i.ng of . · · . WISC .• ·~ · .. Psychology _in the Schools, 1972, ·9, . pp. 144..:.152.· .·
' f
' "
! ,
. ,., ,
,, '~ (
~ -·
.. '' ,. ·~
·~ •'
·. · ' ' . '' . ' . . . ,,
·,
I , I J ,'•
.. ·. ~ .. ' -.. \
·,
'·
.· ..
.. 1 -. I'
81 -~ ·
- ~ . Miller, .L .. nRe_liabili:ty_ of Koppitz Scoring System. for the
0 Bender-Ges'tal t : ." Journal of C:linical Psyc;hology ~ · 1963 1
· 19 1 Po ~11. ·
tfiller, L.C., .Loe~enfeld·, R. ,. Linder, R. ,· and Turner, J. · .. ~Re~iability of K9ppit~ Spotihg system. ~or the BenderGestalt." Journal o1 Cl~hical ~Psyphology, -1963, . 19,. p. 2lf. : '.'1
Mlodnosky, L.B.· "Bender-Ge~talt and the Fro'!?tig as 1 Preaic...: . · tors o .f First Grade Reading Achi'evernent Among Economically Deprived Ch.ildr'en.·". Psychology in ' the SchG>ols, 1972, . 9 , pp. . 2 s.-3 o ~ ~
~ ·~ . ' . 0 {f•. • . •
~orsbach, G., PrJ_ori, · C.D., a,rd .Furnell, J. "Two . Aspect~ . .· · of Scorer ·Rel"iabili t.y· in the·. B.ender..:.Gestal t Test:."· . '·Aln§:!rioan•Journal of · M~rttal Deficiency,-- 19_71 1 pp ... 90-93.
• 0 •
1 · - · ~New9ome'r·; ·· R,, a~-~-~~ii1., D • . "Effects of. MotorHandicap ·
• • • --:, 11 · , . • up<;>n Bender-Gestalt Tes~ P.erfo~ance." · Exceptional. ' Ch~laren, 1973, 40. (1) , : pp. 13.-20~ ..
. ·-~ . ..
. ·' I
. ' " . '
. ...
. . , Oh~u~acht, .F.-·, ·a'nd Rosen, c.i. ''Perception,· Readiness and
. R~iding _ Achi~veme~t~" ~ : Paper p~e~~nt~d.9t meeting~~ .. the Internat~onal Readl.ng . _Assoc~atl.on, ,seattle, Aprl.l,
. 19'67. . . I . • I .
Ohnmacht, F.W·. ; · and Olson, A. v. ''Canonical Ana·lysis of . Readin-g Readiness Measures and the FDTVP . ·" Educational
and Psychological' Me.asuremept, 1968 1 · 2 8, pp. 429-4 84. 1 C· • , . •
. . ' ~ . Olson,· A. V. "F;rostig Dev~lopmenB:al Test( of Vis.ual Per- ·
ception .as a Predictor of Specific Reading Abilities · with $econd-grade £hildren." Eiern~ritary English, · 1966,
' ; " 4 3 , pp . 8 6 9-8 7 2 : ... . .. . _. I
Olson, A;V., Simpson/ H.D. ·, Rosen,·~ C.·, Olson·, . N ~ H., and .. ReJ?t~, .Ji?.·.f\· "A ~ltivariate Analysis of First Grade ·
Re.ad.:i:ng ·Achi-evement, Reading Readine~s . and :I:n;tellig~nce. " ·. · .. Techrlical. ~eport_s, University of Georgi'a, Res~arch ~nd ;· , Development Centre, . 196 8. . J • .
r .·, ~ , . : . ,.''
A ' ' .' c • I .. ' ' t ' l
~lson, A.V~, and Jahn~on~ I: "Structure .and Pred1.ct1ve . ' /YalJq~ t~ o"t. the . FJ?~VP in ·Gr.ades One arid Thr_e~. II • .. Journal' .. . ·
. of, Speo~al .~ducat1on 1 , -1970, 4, pp •. 49-52 ;· , . · "' ' · ~ . . . .. ......
pverlade, D.C ... ·~·Huma·~ Perception ~s· Ab_s-.t~action Abi_l~tY·" · · Doctor,al Dis$ertation, PUrdue Univer-sity; 1956. · ·:-:·
• . • ' • ' • I> ' ' l , . o ~ J • • ' J • • 1
,( \ .: -~ . .
_,;) . (' ... .. I 1
(
• ~--•• • 0 • • • • • • • ••• . ' r
.:: .,. • t . • . ,
• • 0
o \ o
I · ,. ·· .. ;.
. • 0 . In . .
• • 1
, . . f . . · ..
,. . . -1 .
' r
-~ •.
0 0 ..
J
" ' ,<I .. \
0 \ -
1 ' . ~ · J. )
·-..../
- ~ .. :
\ .1 .( ,·
·":'~ ·~ .,/ \' ~...,_,. .
' .. . , .,
o • I I .. '
c. . .
• I
J' .
...
.·
0 •
·I
82 . . .
Pa.ge, E.. "Teacher Comments and Student Performance: . A Seven i;:.y-four Classroom 'Experiment ·in school Motivation ... . Journal of Educationai Psychology, ' i958, ·~g, pp. · 173~181.
Pederson, D., Shine.dling, M •. ; and Johnson~ ·D~ffects of ! .Sex of Exarni:rie'r and Subject .of Childre.n's Quantitative · Test Pe-rformance." Jo\lrnal of . Personality and .Social ·. ,
Psychology, 1968, 10, pp. 251-254. J 0 '•
0
0 ' I o , ol I .... .~~ I 0
,
~heterson, G.I •. "Femal~ Prejudice Against.Men." Unpublished . Manu~cript, Connecticut Coll.ege, 1969:. .
P.iacente, B., Penner, L., ~nd ,. Cohen, Stephen. · .. ·Evaluatio~ of the. Perfoz::mance of E;xam''fi:le-r~ C1S a ~un,ctio~ of . their Sex and Competence •. " Journal of ApplJ,e® Soc~al . ·· ·· Psychology, i974, . 4 (4), . PP·~ 321-329. ,..r .
,Postman, L ~ « and Jarre:tt, a.· . II An Experimental Analys~s· 0~ · I Learni'ng · Wi.thout Awareness." American Journal· of · · ." · Ps_Ychology, 19,..52, '65, 'pp. 244-:?55. . ·· · .
Rabin, A.;.Nelson, w., and Clark, M. "Ror·schach Content as a Function of Perceptual Experj.:ence and ~ex o·f · the Examiner." Journal of ·clinical Psychology, 1954, 10.,.
I pp o l~T.-190 o • • ' ' ,'
Ritter, b~, and Sabatino, · o·. · ·"The ~fte.cts of Method of · Meas'urement upon· a Child's Performance on Visual. . P~rception Tasks." Journal of School Psychology, 1974~ 12·. (4), ~P· 296-299 ; · . ' .
·Rosenthal,. R. · "Experime.nter Attributes as Determinants of Subjects·' .Responses. u · Journal · of Projective ·Techniq'ues,
. 1_9 6 3 , 2 7 , pp-. 3 2 4-3 31 . \ ..... Rosenthal, ·R. · "Covert' Cornmunicatiorl in · the·· Psychological·
Ex.periment." Psychologica-l Buiie'tin, :1~67, 67, .· , PP • I 3 5.6-3 6 7 . i •1
··~ ~
\ ,_ .
... . ,, ~osen;thal, R. ~ .and Fode, R; L. ~·"Psychology of the1 Scienti~t:
. . . .
'P . • ~.
I "" ., .
. ,; · o . . • • t
. ·' . ~
· Three Experiments in · Experi menter Bias·. :• .. Psycholo'gical Reports, 19'63, 12, pp. 491~5111 ~ . .
. ~ . . :. . . .., - . . . '
Rosen_thal,, · R.'~ F~d~-.' K., ·Fr~e,dman:~ _ G: •. ~~ , · .a~d . yi.kan-Kli~n, · · · L.L .• · "SUbJ-ect$. ~· Percept~on pf The~r Exper~menter Und r
Conditions 0~~ EXJ?e~im~nter Bias. II . 'Perceptual and M or · \Sk;i.lls, 1960;· ~1, · ·pp . . 325'- 331. · ~
\ . I '
. .. . . : ~.~ : .. . . . o I '.{ I , .
'.- : ~ . ., II ~ ~
'' - :
.'I~ ..• . ... .. . . ,..I
I ' . '
! l 1' .. L .. . ·~ ..
' I ~· • ., , .... . -. • . . ..,
{ '
·· .
' . ~ .
. '
,.,.
I
1 1' ,' ~ ,:
' ·' . !l~
i
·.
. . .
.. . . '
..
"'
I ·
:, .
"· • /
. . 83
Rosenthal, R. ·, Persinger, G. H., and Fade, K.L. . : "Experi.I!lenter~as, 1;\nx~et:y and Social Desirability."
.. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 19 6 2, 15,, pp. 73-7.~ •
.,Bosenthal, ~ .. , Persinger, G., and Fade, K. ".The Effect ot: .E-arly' Data Returns on Data Subsequehtl~ ~ined .by·
.Outcome-biased Experiments." sociometry, 1963, 26, . pp . 4 8 7 -4 9 8 • .
Ro_,t..._hrnan, Ca_role~ "Differential Vulnera\i)ility qf. Wise.. . Subt~sts to ~ester Effects.". Psycl16!ogy ir;t )the Schobls, ... , 19 7 4 , 11' I PP • ' 3 0 0-3 0 2 • . ..
' . '
.Ro~ter., J. B. "Generalized· Expe~ta~cy fo.r'. Internai versus External Control of Reinforcement. 11 Psychological. Monographs, t966, ·p. ~0. · .•. ·
Rubin, s. '1'A "Re-evaiuation of Fig.ure-Ground Pathology in Brain Damaged Children . . ~· ,· Ainerican Journal of Mental · ·· , · fl
De'ficiency., l969, 7.4; pp. ·111-1.1~. · · ' ' ....
Sabatino, D. ."What does the FDTVP Measure?."· Exceptional . Children,- March, 1974, 40, pp: · 453-454~
Sand~r;; ·R., an~ Cleveland, · S ·.E • . ·"The ~~laiionshi~ Between Certail) Examiner Personal'i ty variables and Subjects' . Rorschach Scores." Journal of Projective ·T.echniques, · 1953, 17, pp·. 34-50_. . .,
Sa1;ason, I. , and ,-Minard, 'J. · "Interrelationship~ among Subjects, Experimenter anct .situational ·variables..... Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology; 1963, pp. 87-91.
. • l
satt1.er, . J. M. ··"comments~ on c~eutat' s Examiner oiffe~enc~s· · · w·i th the .Stanford.:..Binet IQ •. " Perceptual and Motor Ski~ls,
'19' 66, 22,_pp. 612-614.. ·. .• . ' 0
Sattler, J. ~ and Winget, B. "Intelligence Testing •Procedures. as Affected by Expec,tancy and IQ." ·Journal of Clinical J?sy,chology', 1970 ,. 26,. pp. 4·46-44 8.
. , '
silverman, I~, Shulman, A.o:·; and ··wiesenthal, o .• L. "Th.e · · ·Experimenter as a ·sour;ce ·of Varian¢e 'in Psyqhological
·. Res.earch: Modeling and ·sex · Effec~s. ~· Jo~rhal of Pe:.:son'ality and·Soci.al Psycl1ology, 1972, .·21, PP.• 2~.9-22.7.
; • ' I ' / L: •
,.l
' < ' ~ ..
·' ·\ . · , ,/ .
. . :
· f)
' ... . '
' " • • ·~· ...,-:oo" ' .
, I .
<;f
·.,.
' '
,• .
..
· ~
·.
··'
.. . i.
. ·. ··.·. ( > \J
... . '
·r\' ,. \ i .
~ .
84
't
Silverstein, ..... A.B. · "Variance Components in Developmental' \ .Test of Visual Pe.-c;:eption. "· P..,eraeption and" Mot.or Skills, 1965, 20, pp. 9'73-976.
. . : Silverstein,· A . . "Reliability and .. Abnormality of Differences
betwsen FDTVP Subtest · Scor,es. 11 Psychology in the Schools, . 1975 ' . 10 ' (2)' ~- '. 204-206: ' : . . ' .
. Si~~, Lawr~nce. ·.. "Exarni~er Re-inforcement and si tu~tio~al· Variables in a· Projective Testi,ng Situation··." Journ'a.f of Consulting sychology, I~Go; 24 (6), pp. 541-547.
· Simon,' wiiliarn. "E~pe~tanciy'· ·Effects in. the . scori'ng of ,vocabul.ary Items·: · A Study of scol;:'e B!as." ·Journal of Educational Measu£:-ement, 196~, .. 6 (3), pp. 159-;1.64.
. . · · smith, H., and May, T. "Testing. Experience ai\d Stanford- , 'f.:r: · Bin€t Scores .• " Journal ·of Educational Measur~mel)t, ·19 66, -~~ .3 (3) , pp. 229-2 5. ' ;
• • t • .... • •
Smith' p. A·. ' . arid Marx., -W. II Some .. cautions . on the Use 'of 'the Frostig Test: A Factor. Ahalyt.ic Study." Journal of Learning· Oisabili ties, 1972 , . 5, ·pp. 357-3 62 . .
Spence, ·I<.W. "Ailxxe.ty (drive) Level a.nd Perform~nce in . Eyelid Condit.,ioniJ1g." Psychological_ Bulletin, _1964,· . 61, pp. 129-140.· ..
.I ..
Sprague·, R. · "Learnii).g Difficul tie~ of· First Grade Children· . Diagnosed by the Frostig Visua)· Perceptual .Tests i. A . Factor Analytic Study·." Unpublished Ph. p. diss~rtation, Wayne UI)iversity, 1963. · · · · · · · · ·
Stabler~ ' John. · Authority. 11
"'Measurement of · .c .hildren' s Resppnses to Psychological Repor):s, 1967, . 20, PP.· 587.:! 590;.
. . ·Stanton, H. 11 The Rel'ationship between · Teacher's -Anxiety
Level · and the Test Anxi_ety Level of ·their Students •. " ·: ' • Psychology in the Sqhools·, -1974; 11, pp. 360-363.
si'eingr~-eber, H.J. "Handedness as a Function o·f . Tes't Com-_plexity."· Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1915,. _40, . • pp. 2 63..,26-6 •. .
. \ I •
Stevenson, H. w·. "Social Reinforcement with Children as a Function CA, S~x of Experimenter, --and · :Sex. of. S.ubje'ct." Journal normal Social i?s cholo y, .1961, 63, pp. . . . ·.
·'· ) .
\ . ,.
'"' .... r
. . '
i .
. ' .f
. .
. . '
•, 1)
I o • '
,., ,'
I · '
' · ", 1 I
' .
'I
•
••
. . '
, ..
'' ; '
.. . .
\ ' . Stevenson, H· .. w. , and Allen, · s. "Adult- Performance as · a
Function of Sex of Experimenter and Sex o'f Subj'ect:" Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,· 1964, 68 , · P.P. 214-216.
o •
85
· Stev'en€on ,_ H.·, Keen, R. , and :Krlig:q ts; I? • . ." P ~ren.t's . and . Strangers · as Reinforcing Agents. for Children• s • ' · ... Performance." Journal of 1\.}:)nGrrn.al . and Social Psychology~-1963, P~7, pp. !83-186. . ., . .. . ............. ~.: ~.: · .. _. s:··: ~ ··· · ·· ·.
a . ' , ., .::~_; ,,,: .• : ' • t • J .0 l l, , 1
•
S~rauss, M. '1Exaniiner Expecta1wy ~ ...... Ef-f~ct·s· ·.<?n - Rorschach . . . Experience' Balance. 11 J_o.urcnal'· ·of Consultiri'g and Clinical .
·.Psychology, 196~, 32/: t~-125-129. _· _ . · ".' . ·
. s~·~oop, J. R~ . . "Stu~ies of ·1,n~e;feremce· ~n Serial Verpa~ . - -' ' · Reacti:onst" '. Journal: ·o_e Exper-imental Psy-chology, .1955,' . 18 ~ pp. ~43-6 62·. • . ... - .. :·. ·.. . ./.:: _1 ';
_Synder; .R., and Synd~r, p·, _."Matu~;ational :_changes ' in Vi:sual: ·Motor Perception: An "Item Analysis of ' Bender-Ges_talt- · · -: . Err9rs ,,from , _;ges 6 / to 11. n· .Perceptuai ' and Moto·r Skills,·
· 1·9 7 4 1 !3 _8 1 PP o • 51.-5 7 o --:' . p . -, \ " • t ' , ••
-elr!,Tauber., R .• · "Idt:n1tification of Potential !,.earning . Dis-. abiliti~s·." . Academic Therapy Quarterly,:_ 196~, 2,·.
'•II ' pp; 116.-123. ' ' . S$
Thurston', L.L. · "A Fa'ctorl.~i Study_· of · P~rception· ... . ~ Psychometric Monograph, _ ~944, No.4· • . . . '
I .
Tomlinson, J ~ . 11 Si'tu~tional and · Per~on~l-.i:ty Correi~tes of
. '
Preqicti-ve _Accuracy. 11 • Journ·al of Consulting Psychology,
. . 19_67, ' 31, pp. _19-22. . ' , . ·. . .
.. $-·
I r' .
,.
,,
' ~
..
. ; .. :•
' !-
•."':
·' ·~. ~
... !,' ,. . '•
~ . / . " -:
' '
. .f . ' .. -- ~ Tudd'enharn, .R. "The Influence of a ots~ort:ed --Group Norm·- : .
upon :Individual 'judgment." Journfil . of. Psychology·, 1958, . . ,,
;I
I •
--
46' pp·. 221.:.241 . . ' 5
•
0 . .
:. Vernor, ·Allen, and Feldmi;in, Ro-bert ·. "-Tutor Attril:iutiops . . and Atti'tudes as a Function of; Tutee. J?erformance. " ' ·
· · . Journal of Applie.:d· Social Psychology, 1974 , . 4 (4) d ~ . ' pp. 311-320. ' . . . : ' · .. ' ' -. . . . .
Waz:d·, . 'J. -· .. -Factor Structur~ o·f- -the --.fD_TV~ .• ·11-. ari tish :J'ournal\ _.
of Educat'iona l Psychology, 1970, 40, pp. 6$-6'7. : •
,,
)t ,-
Werner, ·G. ._ .. 'fhe· Bender.-G~-::?ta.i t . Te~t.' ·as " a ·Predictor C?~' Mi~~ma~: . '· .. Neurrologic 'oe fie it · i n Children from Ei ght t-o Ten Years ·of.- ·. Age···" Jo~rl)al o.f Nervous -Disorde r s·, 1966, i ,4 ~· , , pp. 275-2 ap·. :
I . . . . " ' . . ~-
' . ·.
> '
. ' . , i •
' . •,
'" .i
. '
,.
· .
(}
- - ~ .
I ' ~
· .. ~ -~.,:~ · ·•
q
.. . ...
~ <
~
i'"'· ~ I ,....... ,
"
._8_6 , ..
·werne,r, p~' and .Block .. , ~. ;"se'x Differ~nces in the Eyes' o•
of -Expert Personafi ty· ·Assessors: · Unwarranted Conclusions. 11
. Jourpal of Personality Assessmeni, 19 73, ~9 (2}, .. pp : 110-113. ' .
,: r
r •
. ~
• ~ -
. • ~/"'·· ., . - ... .
. . #- . · .#'' ' Werner, HQ\, and Strauss, A;. "Pathology, of Figu,;re · Background
. Relat'iori' in the Child. II Journal of Abnormal u ~md . Soci'al Psycho-logy, 1941! pp. 23f5-24e.- .
-~ .
J
. .
' '
. .i' ;,-
.. . ~
-!. · ~ (< .
b
;,
I>
'
~
I,
l '-
' \
j>
...
Wicke~, T .A. '"Examiher Influence· in a. Testing Situa"tion. n • .
Journal of ._consul,ting ~sy"chology~ el '956, _ 20, pp. 2'3-26 ~ .' ' ' . . .
wie~ker:t, Robert. ' 11 Exi>er·imenter Influence · in Psychologl.cal .Testing. ·_ Re'ligiods .versus Layma.n. 11 Master's Thesis ·in'
· · · Educat'ion, ; university of Californic:f, 1967.
. .
: ,;~ed~rholt- , Q J . . L>. 11-The ·Predic.tivd Validity o.f ~.ro~t~~' ~ . o
.. ·,. Constructs ~s · .r:teasured by ·,the_ FDTVP." - Dissertations •'r' . . Abstracts International, 1~·p, 33~ ._P•·o· l _SS~A. .. . . ·
·,Winke'l,' G.a.; and S~1;ason· , r .-G, · "Subject, Experimenter, .. ~ and ·.si tu9tiol)al 1Variabl~~ , "i:r; R~,search o~ _Anx:j.ety: '"'< · ·· ~ Journa~ bf Abnormal and Soc~·al Psychology, 1964, 68,
..
.. ..
. r-·lpp_~ . 601-608.. '\•. . . ' . . . ., ' ..
· . 'W~tkin'/ H.A .' · .''.Indiviqual· pif'{erences in. E~se o£· Per.9~Pt~~n· of_ Eimbeclded ·Figures . " ·\ ;Journal of ~ersonality ~ J:9~0:,~"~:!:. · .:: ·'
~ 19 pp 1 - 15 . .~ . -... ·;. :::~ :-~:;:;~ --~'T ·. I • • l' . ... ... ..,.,f!to..-'(;""'~'f·· ~ · - ... . .,..
' • , • 1 •, , tl # ~ ' ;;, ,f,! < ;....: A..,;";•; ';•,. [_.: ~~;t
\, ../. .. :~_ ..
> ' ~ I Witmer, .;f. ·. "The Effec.·ts :'of; -Verbal· -.Approval a~d ·oiS:appr~1{al . . -~ - upon t~e Performance of : T):lird a~d Fourth Grade ehilc;l:ren " '
>'' .. on the WISC .. " ·Joufnal o\f: Scho'Ol Psychology, 1~.71, .. 9, a
I pp~ ~47-356. I' ' . ·.' . •' :··
. . .. '
.. :~
~ • • • "' .. ~ • /1 . ' I ~.
< '
. . ~ ~ ( .·. " ··witmer, J. 1 Born~tein; · A. ,1 . ~nd' . Du~ham, ·· R; < .' ".The ·~- ects .. o~ _ . . . Ve·rbal Approval ana Disapp~oval upon· the Perf rnance
~ of . 'Th.ird· -and Fourth Grade c _t'lildren on F~ur suH ests of . -the WISC." Journal of School Psychology,· 19 7 , · 9 , ·· · ' ' ·. · ·· 1 pp.· 347-356. ' •. . ;• . . ~· ·· .. / . .,. .· . . ·l
• , r • •0 ~....., ..., 1
· · .. D- ,
-~aporozk.ets, A. VJ · "Th~ Deyel<?-I?.me·nt: of P~rc~pti,on- :in the I)·
. . Pre~choo.l Ch.i1d. 11 ·-Monograph . for · ·'tfle' Soc~ety for LRes~arch ... :' _,·· in.Child ... Development, _ l~65, ~0, pp, 8~-101.- ·.
• 4 • ' : ' • ' • • ., • ' • :c • - • ·• "- ', . • • ~. • G.
• j
. Zimmerinanl,. D. w. I Willi~ms, :R~ H. ; and ' Btirkheimer' G. J. . . . . .. -- -~:- .:. -· ..... c- -
. '~Depende;nce of--Test_ ·.Reiiabi1ity· _upon. He~erogeneH:.y o:t; . · · . . . ...
..
_.. · Indivi d't?-al ana Group. Spore Di~tr:ibutions. II ·Educational ' . .. '!.· . . and Psychological ·Measurement, .1968, -? ·8·,_ '[>P· 41-~~- ~ : : ... ·: . 1r •· ~-- ·. ~ • • . ... •• ·• • .... • ~ : -:- ' • • • • • • • t ·: ' • • • • . • :
' ~ •. ' ~ - ., ' -.
. -~
p .. - · .J • • ,
.. . . I
I' ;,>- . ' "' "'' \ .'! "' . : .. .... , .. ·, :
. ! I
•, ~ . , ... . • ,? ' . ' . ' ,)
I
" 'I
• •• '0 .. • • 0
- ' 0 " •
• Q • ••
. ~ ... . . ..· .. .$ • '• r)
c ' .
' . . .. .
' · '
. -..
. . . . ·. . i
(
·o
• 0 • . .. ~ ' ..
·. \. . ' . '. ·' ,.
0 •
•,. - :...;._
' .
,.
. ·:· .
0
BOOKS j-
.. ·Anastc1si, Ann~ <.ed . . ) . ·. :i:ndi vi.duai o·i£terences •. ··o Wiley, 1965. ··
New York:
Anast;isi, Anne. Psychological 'Testing, 3d·. ed. New . York: . McMillcin., 1·9 '6 8 .
' , Brun'sw,tcki ·E. P-erception · ~~d .the - R~presentqti've . D~?ign of . " ·· - ~ · Psychological ExperJ.men.ts ~ . Berkeley and Los. Angeles: , Unive·rsity of california· Press', 1_956. · . . ·. · · . .•
.• • . ·. . • -..., · . ' .• ..:)I •. •
Cronbacl'l, .. _·L.J . · Essentia_ls of Psycho).ogic~l Testing, . 3d. Eid: · ' New' York: J:Iarper a-nd RC?w Publisners, 19'62 ~-
• 0
Gla:Sser, ;A.'. , and Zirnme;rrnan, ·I·.. eii.nical Interpret'a tio~ ·ofthe WISC. New York: Grun~ and Stratton., 19S7. . . '
Goids_t~in· , . ~ ~ Lang-uage · c:in<;l. 'J;.angua~e ~isturban·ce's . . :. ~e~ _ ~ork ;. : · Grune .and Stra~ton, 1948. . · . . . . _-_ .. .
· Guil<Iord, J.P.,· . a~·d Zimmerman,· W.S'.' The (;uilford-Ziinmerrnan ·· _ Aptitude sury~y, · (·2d·. ed.)_. Beverly Hills, califo1:nia:
She~~~an· Sup~ly - Company,· ·1956 _. · · ' · - ' . . ~
-~ ' . :
Hut.t; G.L. __ · _The: Glinical Use of · the Revised· Bender-Gestatt . · : Test. New .York-~ ·G~un·e and St_ratton, 1960.. · , _ _.
•\ . ·. .: H~~ 1i~- ,- ·cobb, W. , Feldman, J. , Hart, .c. , and Ste~er, C.
Univex:sity
,.
,#\.. I I •
. '"' ' ... . . . In_terview.lng in social Res·earch. · Chicago:
cH Chicago Press., 1.954 • . . ., . ..
. . . ... · . ·
0 . • o· . ;
. ·.
·.
o.'- . .
' . '
' ..
l ' ·
•' -
.Ke:tl'ing~r, F· •. <Foundati~ns_ : of · ·Behav·i~ral · Res~~~ch·. London: .. . . Rineh~~t ·and W1nston, Inc.,· ~96~ • . ~ , . ' .
Koppiti, ·E'. The B'end'er-Gestalt 'Te:;it for Y<;)\mg ·c.hiidr.en. New -York: - 'Grune and ~.tratton, Inc., _l964 • .
: · . .. Lew i.n' 'i<. A Dynamic Th'eory of . Personql'i_t'y. New York:
.,. MCGraw-Hi_ll, l9 35. _
Linquist,· -E. · ·. Design~-and Analysis of Expe'rirnents in · ~ · . . . .- ' - Psychology and Education. Bopton: · Houghton ·Mirflin , ·.1?53.·. ·
Mc~uigan, ~.J. · Experimental Psychology . . Englewood Cliffs~ ·· New Jersey: . , PrentJ.ce-Hall, Inc., 1960. · ~
co... • ' .. -4 •
M.essick, s.~·; and Koga n, . N. Categorizing· S t y les ~nd Cogni~.ive Str uct u :ie • . Prince towp, New J ers ey: .Educat~onal Te stJ.ng Serv~G!e ,· Re s earch B,ullet i n, 19 64. ·.
.. ~ ... ~
; .. . .
I • ' ·~
..
..
· ..
- -~
'·
.\
•, ·~"•
.. .
\ · · .. y
. ".d
' ..
. '
. . ..
~I ..
I , . .
BB .
Montessori, M,· ·.. 19 64. .
The Montessori Method. Schocken, New York: . t . , ..
Pascal, G.;.'arid Suttel, .· B. . Test~. New ·York: . ·Grun·e and Stratton:F-, .......... ~=-:.....;.;~,_....;....;_.....:...:.....;:_.:__...:....:;~ ~
' · Potter··, M.c. 110n Perceptual.Recognit' .In J.S. , Bruner·· ( ed :). s.tudies· in· Cogni ti.ve · Growth. . :New York:. Wiley, · · 19'66 ~ . . . .,. ..
. . Rosenthal, ·R. ·Experimenter· Efrects in Behavioral ' Research . .
l. • New Yprk: ApJ?leton-Centur..y-Cro ts, 9
· · saras·on, · s. Psychologicc!J Proi;>lems in . New York:· · Harper and Ro~ ~ 5 ; ..
· . · . . Saras.on, · S . . . A~xi.ety inft El~mEmtary s·chool ··children· .. · · York: . Wiley, )9.60.
New
. .•. ~ Seigel·; s. Nonparametric s.t.ati'stics. New York: McGraw..: ·
I,
. Hill,. 1956 . . ···"""- ' .. . . •,:
Stanl~y, J.C .. , and Hopkins,;·.!\. · Educat.iqna'l arid Psychologipal Me~surement· and Evaluation (5th ed·.} • Engl~wood. Cliffs-: ~rentice-Hal~, Inc., 1972·. . .. / ..
I .
. . . "' .!I'horndike,. R.L .. Rel.iability·. · Princetown, New Jer!:)ey,: · . . _.Educational .' Test1ng Serv1c·e '· l964 •. ·· · · · :._
·Thorndike·,. ·R. ~- Measurement .'and1 Eval-urtion i.ri· Psych~l~gy · · · . · and Education· _(3d, .. .. e.d.) ·.- . Neif;YO.l;'k: .. Wiley,, ·l96_8.-
Wa.iker, ... ~ .• M.,,'· s.hat~stical . Infe;e~~e. · N~w Y·o.r~: lic)lt, 19~53. ·
1 ·. *i~~~; - ~-!,;: . ~tatis'tical P~in~i~·les. in. Experlm.ent'a.i · Design. :.
New. Y.ork :· . .t;1cGra~.:.H1ll ; . 19 6·2. . . .· , ~ • ' • • '¥ . •
· ~·iitkin, H.·Q, ·.pyk, .R.B.. :Fat;erso·~, ·i-I .•. F., Go.odeno~gh, o,·R_. ·, . ,~. . . ..?lf!.d. Ka.~p, S.A .. Psych'o-togical ·· oiffere'ntiatio·n.
1 New York~
. · .. John_ W1le an'd Son.s; life,, -1962 • . ·. · ' \ . . . -- . ·. · . . ' .. . .
-,. • ,... "T ,
, . . .· .,
.,
... ~
.. ., . r/ · .
. '
. ..
..
...
. ' \ .
·/
. ' •' .
l _.. ~
.,
,, ' . '
,, .. ·. r ·.· J .
\ . ·~ . . . .. :
# ••
... -··-
.. · , · . . ~· , ·:'
.. , · . • • . • • : .I .. . ~ .. "' " ...
.. . . : ~ I oi, • . ·. ·· ' .
. ' ,/ ' ' • . .. • .
.. • . ..
