You are on page 1of 69

BENDER

GESTALT II

Bender
Click to Visual-Motor
edit Master subtitle
Gestaltstyle
Test
Second Edition

9/17/12

Introduction

9/17/12

 is greater
“The whole
than the sum of its
parts.”

― Aristotle
9/17/12

Lauretta Bender  Gestalt function  Integrated  Biologically determined  Responds to stimuli as a whole  Measures visual-motor integration skills in children and adults from 4 to 85+ years of age 9/17/12  One of the most frequently used instruments in . History  Developed in 1938   “A Visual Motor Gestalt Test and Its Clinical Use” .

000)  Retain as many original Bender-Gestalt Test items as possible: 9/17/12 . Development & Revision   Revision Goals:  Extend measurement scale – significantly easier and significantly harder items were added  Obtain a large and representative sample to reflect visual-motor skills across a lifespan (N = 4.

9/17/12 and distortions of the . changes in the Gestalt form. and distortion  Psychopathology Scale  Items related to organization. organization. changes in the Gestalt form. Clinical Uses   Adience-Abience Scale  Measures development of defenses and coping operations of the personality  Items relating to space and size.

Administration  9/17/12 .

Test Description   Administration of the Bender-Gestalt II consists of two phases:  Copy Phase  Examinee is shown stimulus cards with designs and asked to copy each of the designs on a sheet of paper  Recall Phase  Examinee is asked to redraw designs from memory 9/17/12  Motor and Perception supplemental tests .

9/17/12 . 10 sheets of drawing paper. 16 stimulus cards. Administration Process   Kit consists of Examiner’s manual. motor test. observation form. and a perception test  Materials needed: Two pencils with erasers. and a stopwatch (not included in test kit).

indifference. unusual or unique behaviors 9/17/12  Copy Observations—Examinee’s approach. inattentiveness. Observation Form   Examinee Information—Name. hand preference  Physical Observations—Sensory impairments or movement restrictions  Test-Taking Observations—Carelessness. gender. .

Administration Process   Administer test on a table. seated across from the examinee if possible  Supply one pencil and one sheet of paper (vertically in front of examinee)  Show the stimulus cards to the examinee one at a time (aligned with the top of drawing paper)  Administer stimulus cards in the correct numeric Ages sequence Startand Itemdo notEnd allow Itemexaminee to 4yr turn or 11mo – 7yr manipulate 1 them. 13 9/17/12 8yrs and older 5 16  Begin test with the appropriate card: .

Administration Process   Copy Phase:  Inconspicuously measure how long the examinee takes to complete the items – record time in minutes and seconds  Document your observations – carefully note the examinee’s approach to drawing each design  Recall Phase: 9/17/12  Administered immediately following the copy phase .

Administration Process  9/17/12 .

Administration Process   Motor Test:  2 – 4 minutes  Draw a line between the dots in each figure without touching the borders  Perception Test:  2 – 4 minutes  Circle or point to a design in each row that best 9/17/12 matches the design in the box .

Scoring  9/17/12 .

random drawing. accurate reproduction 4 Nearly perfect . lack of design 1 Slight – vague resemblance 2 Some – moderate resemblance 3 9/17/12 Strong – close resemblance. Scoring   Global Scoring System used to evaluate each design the examinee draws during the Copy and Recall phases  5 point rating scale  Higher scores  better performance The Global Scoring System 0 No resemblance. scribbling.

Scoring   Using the different areas of the Observation Form:  Total the raw scores  Record any observations noted during administration  Calculate:  The examinee’s age  Test–taking times for the Copy and Recall 9/17/12 phases  Supplemental tests scores .

Line may touch the border but cannot go over it. 0 Line extends outside the box or does not touch both end points  Perception Test  Each correct response is scored one (1) point 9/17/12  Each incorrect response is scored zero (0) points . Scoring   Scoring the supplemental tests:  Motor Test Criteria for Scoring the Motor Test 1 Line touches both end points and does not leave the box.

Interpretation  9/17/12 .

160 Extremely high or extremely advanced 130 – 144 Very high or very advanced  Standard 120 – 129 High or advanced Score can 110 – 119 High average range from 40 to 160 90 – 109 Average 9/17/12 80 – 89 Low average . Test Scores   Raw scores for Copy and Recall phases are converted into scaled scores and percentiles  Mean = 100 Classification Labels for Standard Scores  SD = 15 145 .

IQ.” frequent erasures. tracing with finger before drawing. motor incoordination 9/17/12 . test performance. Test Behavior   Information gained through observation of test- taking behaviors is crucial  Global Scoring System – integrated (age. and behaviors)  Indicators of potential behavioral or learning difficulties: length of task. education. ethnicity. “anchoring.

87 when corrected for the first test  Overall good reliability 9/17/12 .55  Test-Retest Reliability  Varied from .80 to .91  Standard Error of Measurement of 4.Half Reliability  A group average coeffient of . Internal Consistency   Split.

90)  Recall Phase: . Inter-rater Consistency   Correlation of scoring between examiners was high  Copy Phase: .97 (average of .83 to.94 to .96)  This test is easy and straight forward to score 9/17/12 .94 (average of .

65 for the Copy Phase  . Validity   Correlation with other visual motor tests:  When matched with the Beery VMI:  .44 for the Recall Phase  Do you consider this valid? 9/17/12 .

20 to .47 for the Recall phase 9/17/12 .53 for the Copy Phase  Ranges from .17 to . Validity   Correlation with other tests  Tests of achievement: WJ-III _ACH and WIAT  Ranges from .

48 for the recall phase 9/17/12  These scores suggest that there is more than one construct being measured .21 to .47 to . Validity   Correlations with other tests  Tests of intelligence: Stanford Binet 5 and WAIS III  Ranged from .54 for the copy phase  Ranged from .

Standardization and Norming  9/17/12 .

learning disabilities.g.S. Alzheimer’s disease. ADHD. 2000 census  4. Standardization Sample   Based on a carefully designed. individuals with mental retardation. and examinees identified as gifted)  Data 9/17/12 was collected over a 12-month period in 2001 through 2002 . stratified. random plan that closely matched the U.. autism.000 individuals from 4 to 85+ years of age  Additional samples were collected for validity studies (e.

Race/Ethnicity (including Hispanic origin) 9/17/12 4. population for four demographic variables: 1. Sex 3.S. Normative Specifications   Utilizing U. 2000 census data. Age 2.S. the Bender- Gestalt II normative sample was designed to be nationally representative and matched to percentages of the U. Geographic Region: .

Age and Sex   21 age groups. were defined  More refined age categories used at the earliest and latest age groups because of higher rate of change in scores due to age-related development or decline 9/17/12 . differing in size and age.

5) 70 – 79  Females (61.0) and Males (34.0) 80+  Females (66.0) 9/17/12 .5) and Males (44.0) and Males (39. Sex   The Bender-Gestalt II standardization included approximately equal percentages of males and females for each age group except for ages 60 and above where differences in sex also occur in the census 60 – 69  Females (55.

Native Hawaiian. Asian. Race/Ethnicity   Examinees’ racial and ethnic origins were identified on the consent forms by the examinees or their parents or legal guardians  American Indian or Alaskan Native. or other Pacific Islander  Black or African American  White  Hispanic  Multiple ethnicities (classified as “Other”) 9/17/12 .

South and West  Examinee’s home or residence was used to define his or her geographic regions  Educational attainment was used as an indicator of socioeconomic level  Adults: levels measured by years of education completed  Minors: levels measured by the years of 9/17/12 education completed by their parents or guardians . Midwest. Geographic Region and Socioeconomic Level   Four regions: Northwest.

Clinical Populations  9/17/12 .

or state education agency that the individual is qualified for special services for mental retardation  Qualified classifications referenced in the DSM- IV-TR 9/17/12 . county. Clinical and Special Populations   Mental Retardation:  Significant sub-average intellectual functioning as measured by an IQ score of more than two standard deviations below the mean  Concurrent deficit in adaptive behavior  Designation by a local.

reading comprehension. Clinical and Special Populations   Specific Learning Disabilities  Academic achievement—substantial discrepancy from intellectual capacity with both achievement and IQ  Specific learning disabilities: discrepancies in any of seven areas as originally defined in Public Law:  Mathematics calculation. basic word reading. mathematics reasoning. listening comprehension. spoken or written expression 9/17/12  DSM-IV-TR emphasizes: .

ADHD   For inclusion in the category of ADHD. examinees were required to provide a documented formal diagnosis of ADHD utilizing DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria for the following codes:  314.00 ADHD  Predominately Inattentive Type 9/17/12  314.01 ADHD  Combined Type  314.01 ADHD .

examinees were required to have a documented condition exhibiting one or more of the following characteristics:  Inability to learn that cannot be explained by intellectual sensory. or health factors  Inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships with peers or teachers 9/17/12  Inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal circumstances . Serious Emotional Disturbances   For inclusion in the Serious Emotional Disturbance category.

1x criteria . Diagnosis was primarily based on 9/17/12 DSM-IV-TR 294. Autism and Alzheimer’s Disease   Autism:  Examinees included in this category were required to exhibit a documented developmental disability that significantly and adversely affected verbal and nonverbal communication and social interaction as they relate to educational or occupational performance  Alzheimer’s Disease:  Examinees were independently diagnosed prior to testing.

Giftedness   For inclusion in the Giftedness category. and SD = 15  Official designation by a local. or state education agency that the individual is qualified 9/17/12 for gifted/talented school services . M = 100. examinees were required to provide documentation for both of the following criteria:  Performance on an individually administered IQ test with a score of more than two SDs above the mean  > 130. country.

Beery VMI-5  The Beery-Buktenica Click to edit Master subtitle Developmental style Test of Visual- Motor Integration Fifth Edition 9/17/12 .

Introduction  9/17/12 .

 “From amoebas to humans and from infants to adults.”  Beery VMI 9/17/12 . successful development is characterized by increasing articulation and integration of parts with wholes.

Piaget’s theory of Sensory-Motor bases for achievement . History   Developed in 1967 – Largely due to the inadequacies of the Bender:  Too difficult for young children  Questionable reliability and validity  Theoretical Framework: .Higher levels of thinking and behavior require integration among 9/17/12 sensory inputs and motor action .

Overview   Primary purpose:  Help identify significant difficulties that some children have integrating or coordinating their visual-perceptual and motor abilities  Visual Development  Interpretation of visual stimuli Simple visual sensation and cognition  Motor Development  Manipulative ability 9/17/12  Visual – Motor Development .

Overview   Beery VMI  Developmental sequence of geometric forms to be imitated or copied with paper and pencil  Virtually culture-free  uses geometric forms rather than letter or numeric forms  Assesses ability to integrate visual and motor abilities  Visual Perception (supplemental)  Identify parts of their own bodies then point at 9/17/12 matching pictures .

Clinical Uses   Help identify significant difficulties in visual- motor integration  Obtain needed services for individuals for exhibit difficulties  Assess the effectiveness of educational and other intervention programs  Serve as a research tool  Interpretation of test results requires 9/17/12 educational background and experience of specialists in .

Administration  9/17/12 .

Administration   Can be validly administered as either a group screening test or for individual assessment purposes  Preschool children should be tested individually  Kindergartners are best in groups of about six  Children in first grade and above can be tested as an entire class  Administer test and supplemental 9/17/12 tests in order .

Motor Coordination Form  Materials needed: Test booklet. or a ball point 9/17/12 pen . pencil without an eraser. Administration   Two forms  Short form (ages 2 – 7)  Full form (ages 2 – 18)  Kit includes: Administration manual. Visual Perception Form. Full Form. Short Form.

Administration   Should take 10 – 15 minutes to administer 9/17/12 .

Scoring  9/17/12 .

Scoring   Each item has a fairly strict scoring criteria  Will need a ruler and a protractor for some items to score correctly.  Pages 28 – 75 of the Beery VMI manual list scoring criteria and supplemental information for all the items in the Full and Short booklets 9/17/12 .

Scoring  9/17/12 .

Scoring   One point for each imitated or copied item  Discontinue after three consecutive failures  Raw scores are converted to scaled score and percentiles  Mean = 100 SD = 15  Age norms 9/17/12 .

Score Interpretation  Score Range Interpretation >129 very high 120-129 high 110-119 above average 90-109 average 80-89 below average 70-79 low <70 very low 9/17/12 .

5 9/17/12 . Scoring Notes   The statistically true score is +/.

Sampling

 The questions on the VMI correlate to the 600
stepping stones of gross, fine visual and visual-
motor development.
 The 5th ed. Norms correlated .99 with the 2003
sample
 The demographic characteristics of the 2003
sample matched very closely to the 2000 US
census sample

9/17/12

Internal Consistency

 Odd/even split-half correlation: .88
 Coefficient alpha: .82

 There is high level of consistency among test
items and the test measures what it says it
does.
9/17/12

Psychometrics

9/17/12

Reliability   Content Sampling 9/17/12 Rasch-Wright Item Separations .

53 to .78 9/17/12 .85  Other studies have yielded single-grade split-half correlations ranging from . with a median of .91.92. odd- even correlations ranged from .76 to . with a median of . Reliability   Internal Consistency  In the third edition Beery VMI norming studies.

With a re-test average time of 10 days 9/17/12 Raw Score Coefficients . Reliability   Time Sampling  Assessed with a group of 115 children between the ages of 5 and 11.

Reliability   Interscorer Reliability  Evaluated with two professionals independently scoring 100 randomly selected testings from the norming group Interscorer Reliabilities 9/17/12 .

and Motor Coordination Reliabilities . Overall Reliability  Summary 9/17/12 of Beery VMI. Visual Perception.

Validity   Concurrent Validity 9/17/12 .

Validity   Construct Validity  Seven hypotheses were generated  Chronological Age  Part-Whole Inter-correlations  Part-Whole Hierarchy  Intelligence  Academic Achievement  Item and Person Separation 9/17/12  Disabling Conditions .

particularly when used in combination with other measures. of:  Reading difficulties  Reading. Mathematics scores between entering kindergarten and the end of first grade  School achievement  School failures or retentions 9/17/12  Visual-motor predictive correlations appear to . researchers have found the Beery VMI to be a valuable predictor. Validity   Predictive Validity  Generally. Language Arts.

The End  Click to edit Master subtitle style 9/17/12 .