BENDER GESTALT II 

Bender edit Master Gestalt Test Click to Visual-Motorsubtitle style Second Edition

9/17/12

Introduction 

9/17/12

 “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” ― Aristotle
9/17/12

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

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 = 4.000) Retain as many original Bender-Gestalt Test items as possible:   9/17/12 .

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

Administration  9/17/12 .

 Administration of the Bender-Gestalt II consists of two phases:  Test Description  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 .

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

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

 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 Ages Start Item numeric sequence and do notEnd Itemexaminee allow to 4yr – 7yr 11mo 1 turn or manipulate them. 13 Begin test with the appropriate card: 5 16 Administration Process     9/17/12 8yrs and older  .

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: Administered immediately following the copy phase 9/17/12  .

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 matches the design in the box 9/17/12  .

Scoring  9/17/12 .

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 No resemblance. accurate reproduction Nearly perfect  0 1 2 3 9/17/12 4 . scribbling. lack of design Slight – vague resemblance Some – moderate resemblance Strong – close resemblance. random drawing.

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 phases Supplemental tests scores 9/17/12  .

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

Interpretation  9/17/12 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Standardization and Norming  9/17/12 .

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

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

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.Age and Sex   21 age groups.

5) and Males (44.0) 80+  Females (66.0) and Males (39.0) 9/17/12 .0) and Males (34.5) 70 – 79  Females (61.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.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. Asian. or other Pacific Islander Black or African American White Hispanic Multiple ethnicities (classified as “Other”)     9/17/12 .

Geographic Region and Socioeconomic Level   Four regions: Northwest. Midwest. 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  .

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 DSMIV-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.

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:   9/17/12  Mathematics calculation. reading comprehension. mathematics reasoning. basic word reading. listening comprehension. spoken or written expression DSM-IV-TR emphasizes: .

ADHD   For inclusion in the category of ADHD.01 ADHD  Combined Type  314. examinees were required to provide a documented formal diagnosis of ADHD utilizing DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria for the following codes:  314.01 ADHD .00 ADHD  Predominately Inattentive Type  9/17/12 314.

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 Inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal circumstances  9/17/12  .Serious Emotional Disturbances   For inclusion in the Serious Emotional Disturbance category.

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.1x criteria .

country. M = 100. 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  .Giftedness   For inclusion in the Giftedness category. 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.

Beery VMI-5  The Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of VisualClick to edit Master subtitle style 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 sensory inputs and motor action 9/17/12 .

Overview   Primary purpose:  Help identify significant difficulties that some children have integrating or coordinating their visual-perceptual and motor abilities Interpretation of visual stimuli  Simple visual sensation and cognition  Visual Development   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 visualmotor 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 educational background and experience of specialists in     requires 9/17/12 .

Administration  9/17/12 .

 Can be validly administered as either a group screening test or for individual assessment purposes Preschool children should be tested individually  Administration   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 tests in order 9/17/12 .

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

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

Scoring  9/17/12 .

 Each item has a fairly strict scoring criteria  Scoring  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 >129 120-129 110-119 90-109 80-89 70-79 <70 Interpretation very high high above average average below average low 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 visualmotor 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 .

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

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

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

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

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 .

researchers have found the Beery VMI to be a valuable predictor.Validity   Predictive Validity  Generally. 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 . of:   Reading difficulties Reading. particularly when used in combination with other measures. Language Arts.

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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful