PURPOSE: Children may perform poorly on a test of visual-motor integration due to deficits in one or more of the following: visual analysis/visual spatial ability, motor coordination, visual conceptualization, or visual-motor integration. The VMI Supplemental Developmental Test of Visual Perception (VP) and VMI Supplemental Developmental Test of Motor Coordination (MC) were developed to help differentiate between such difficulties after administration of the Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration (VMI). However, the clinical value of the VMI supplemental tests has not been reported. METHOD: The VMI, VP, and MC were administered to 193 children (mean age = 8.77 years). RESULTS: Multiple linear regression revealed that the supplemental tests were significantly related to the VMI (VP: beta = 0.212 +/- 0.044, p < 0.001; MC: beta = 0.422 +/- 0.299, p < 0.001) but explained only 36.2% of the variance in the VMI. Poor performance was defined as a score >1 SD below the mean for study population norms and below the 16th percentile for published norms. Using study population norms, 35 children did poorly on the VMI, 20% of whom scored poorly on VP, 14.3% of whom scored poorly on MC, 17.1% of whom scored poorly on both supplemental tests, and 48.6% of whom scored within normal on both supplemental tests. Using the published norms, 40 children scored poorly on the VMI. Twenty-eight children scored poorly on VP, 39% of whom scored within normal on the VMI. Fifty-six children scored poorly on MC, 54% of whom scored within normal on the VMI. CONCLUSION: There was a significant amount of variance in performance on the VMI that was not explained by performance on the tests of VP or MC alone. Each area should be individually assessed during the visual perceptual examination of children, regardless of performance on the VMI. Even children who perform within normal limits on the VMI may show a deficit in VP or MC.
PURPOSE:Children may perform poorly on a test of visual-motor integration due to deficits in one or more of the following: visual analysis/visual spatial ability, motor coordination, visual conceptualization, or visual-motor integration. The VMI Supplemental Developmental Test of Visual Perception (VP) and VMI Supplemental Developmental Test of Motor Coordination (MC) were developed to help differentiate between such difficulties after administration of the Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration (VMI). However, the clinical value of the VMI supplemental tests has not been reported. METHOD: The VMI, VP, and MC were administered to 193 children (mean age = 8.77 years). RESULTS: Multiple linear regression revealed that the supplemental tests were significantly related to the VMI (VP: beta = 0.212 +/- 0.044, p < 0.001; MC: beta = 0.422 +/- 0.299, p < 0.001) but explained only 36.2% of the variance in the VMI. Poor performance was defined as a score >1 SD below the mean for study population norms and below the 16th percentile for published norms. Using study population norms, 35 children did poorly on the VMI, 20% of whom scored poorly on VP, 14.3% of whom scored poorly on MC, 17.1% of whom scored poorly on both supplemental tests, and 48.6% of whom scored within normal on both supplemental tests. Using the published norms, 40 children scored poorly on the VMI. Twenty-eight children scored poorly on VP, 39% of whom scored within normal on the VMI. Fifty-six children scored poorly on MC, 54% of whom scored within normal on the VMI. CONCLUSION: There was a significant amount of variance in performance on the VMI that was not explained by performance on the tests of VP or MC alone. Each area should be individually assessed during the visual perceptual examination of children, regardless of performance on the VMI. Even children who perform within normal limits on the VMI may show a deficit in VP or MC.
Authors: Lisa Keay; Srichand Jasti; Beatriz Munoz; Kathleen A Turano; Cynthia A Munro; Donald D Duncan; Kevin Baldwin; Karen J Bandeen-Roche; Emily W Gower; Sheila K West Journal: Accid Anal Prev Date: 2009-06-21
Authors: Carolyn T Wells; E Mark Mahone; Melissa A Matson; Wendy R Kates; Trisha Hay; Alena Horska Journal: Brain Cogn Date: 2008-05-29 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Erin M Harvey; Tina K Leonard-Green; Kathleen M Mohan; Marjean Taylor Kulp; Amy L Davis; Joseph M Miller; J Daniel Twelker; Irene Campus; Leslie K Dennis Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 1.973
Authors: Lisa Keay; Beatriz Munoz; Donald D Duncan; Daniel Hahn; Kevin Baldwin; Kathleen A Turano; Cynthia A Munro; Karen Bandeen-Roche; Sheila K West Journal: Accid Anal Prev Date: 2012-06-27
Authors: Christelle Ackermann; Savvas Andronikou; Muhammad G Saleh; Martin Kidd; Mark F Cotton; Ernesta M Meintjes; Barbara Laughton Journal: AIDS Res Ther Date: 2020-05-19 Impact factor: 2.250