INFORMATION TO USERS

This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.

1.The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again - beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced.

5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received.

Xerox University Microfilms 300 North ZMb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 [i r j 73-26,830

■j HARMONY, Bonnie J. Motter, 1929- I THE EFFECT OF A CONCENTRATED PHYSICAL EDUCATION ! PROGRAM ON CHILDREN CLASSIFIED AS' TRAINABLE j MENTALLY RETARDED. j

The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1973 ' Education, special

■ii I I | i ! University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan j

THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED. THE EFFECT OF A CONCENTRATED

PHYSICAL EDUCATION PROGRAM ON CHILDREN CLASSIFIED

AS TRAINABLE MENTALLY RETARDED

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By

Bonnie Motter Harmony, B.S., M.E.

*****

The Ohio State University January, 1973

Approved by

Dr. James D. Beaber Department of Education Area of Exceptional Children "The blind had their Helen Keller; they had many other famous people in their ranks; the deaf had Beethoven and other outstanding personalities. Among the feeble minded, there is none who, through his achievements, could demonstrate to the public his value and the - value of those afflicted Like him. It is up to us, then, to uphold the value of these human beings. It is up to us to help extend respect for human dignity to those creatures also; it is up to us who live with them and who love them. For we know what they need and we know what they can give us. I There is not one among the feebleminded whose worth is revealed to mankind like a tall, burning flame, licking to high heaven, like those great personalities who overcome their handicaps. Despite all our efforts, the feebleminded will always remain little flames. These little flames we must shield with out hands .... For these little flames radiate warmth and soothing quiet joy; they shine on the road that leads to the wisdom of the heart, to human maturity, and to true wealth." (69:71-75) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The investigator wishes to express her appreciation to Dr. James

Beaber for his advice and direction as Chairman of the Doctoral

Committee and to Dr. David Leraa and Dr. Walter Ersing for their valuable advice and direction given throughout the writing of this dissertation.

The writer is grateful to Missy, Rob and Mark, students at

Capital University, Columbus, Ohio who aided in the administration of the tests, to the many other students who volunteered many hours assisting in the training programs, and to Dr, Jean Hensel and Dan

Given for their assistance in data programming. A special acknowl­ edgement to friends Bobby, Mary Jane, and Nel for their helpful suggestions and voluntary assistance.

The writer is especially thankful for the confidence, assistance and encouragement offered by her husband, Don. VITA

July 7, 1929 . . . Born - Bryan, Ohio

1 9 5 1 ...... B.S. In Education Degree, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio

1951-1964...... Physical Education Supervisor, Bryan Public Schools, Bryan, Ohio

1965 ...... M.E. Degree Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio

1964-1968...... Instructor at Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio

1968-1973...... Associate Professor at Capital University, Columbus, Ohio

PUBLICATIONS

Movie entitled, "Show Me"; Teaching Physical Education to the Mentally Retarded, University City Studio, University City, California.

MAJOR FIELDS

Major - Department of Education, Area of Exceptional Children

Minor - Physical Education

H i TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS i i

VITA ...... Ill

LIST OF TABLES ...... vt

Chapter

I. The Problem and Definitions of Terms Used ...... 1

Statement of the Problem Significance of Study Design of the Study Definition of Terms Scope and Limitations of the Study

II. Review of Literature 11

Various Learning Disabilities and Levels of Intelligence Motor Characteristics Related Studies Non Supportive Literature Summation

III. Methods and Procedures 37

Description of Subjects Description of Test Administrative procedures Statistical Treatment

IV. Analysis of Data 42

Statistical Procedures Means and Range of Performance

V. Summary and Conclusions 50

Summary Conclusions

iv APPENDIX

A ...... 54

Test Administration

B...... 65

Treatment Programs

C ...... 70

Descriptions of Subjects

D ...... 71

Raw Data - Group I (N) Raw Data - Group II (S) Raw Data - Group III (M)

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 131 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

I. Description of Subjects...... 38

II. Mean Item Scores...... 43

III. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Difference in Pre and Post Training Scores for Total Battery...... 44

IV. Mean Score for Group II (S) and Group III ( M ) ...... 43

V. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Differences in Pre and Post Training Scores - Level 1...... 46

VI. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Differences in Pre and Post Training Scores - Level I I ...... 46

VII. Ranges and Means of Individual Test Scores...... 47

vi CHAPTER I

The Problem and Definitions of Terms Used

During the past decade there has been increasing concern over the value of physical activity to a child's total development. Because of lack of current research in this area and deficiencies in our educational systems, the writer has chosen to Investigate the value of a concentrated physical activity program for trainable retarded children.

The urgent demands by parents for help have unwittingly fostered the premature development of various experimental of possibly ill advised physical treatment and motor programs. According to Leon J.

Whitsell in writing the forward for one of Bryant J. Crafty's books

(24: vi-viii), a number of "motor treatment" programs have been widely publicized. A large number of children have been placed in such treatment programs with claims being made that chances for curing these children are indeed possible. While physical training programs will generally Improve physical fitness and motor skills, there is no proof that such training will help other types of learning problems.

Whltsell further points out that early motor difficulties, especially those in the gross coordination categories, often lead to progressive exclusion by peer groups from play activities, adding

1 2 social maladjustment to the child's personal burden. Lack of remedial help and insufficient opportunity for practice of motor skills tend to aggravate developmental deficiencies in a downward spiral.

At the present time only limited consideration Is usually given by either physicians or educators to the need for earlier and more carefully planned physical education programs. Not many organized programs for the developmental disabled (more commonly referred to as adaptive physical education) are available, in spite of clear evidence showing that serious deficits in physical development and fitness exist in an enormous number of young people and adults in the United States.

Statement of the Problem

The primary purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of a motor treatment program on perceptual performance with trainable retarded children over a ten week period.

A sub-problem was to determine the effectiveness of the motor treatment program in improv ing the motor coordination of the retarded children.

Another sub-problem was to determine the effect of motor training as related to sex and etiological factors.

Significance of the Study

In observing retarded children and reviewing research dealing with psycomotor skills, the writer found that there is evidence of 3 need for more emphasis on the value of games and sports.

Games and sports not only are pleasant forms of play but also have

great value as socializing agents. From them the child learns how to get along with other children, to cooperate In different activities, to

play the role of a leader as well as a follower, and to evaluate himself and his abilities by comparing himself with his playmates.

(58:462)

A high-status position in games gives the child prestige and

Influence among his peers. Such a position may be achieved through

popularity, though it is far more likely to come from the child's

competence in the game. A very popular child, for example, may be

selected captain of the gang's baseball team, but it is far more likely

that the child who is the best player will be selected, though he may

not be as well liked as some other children. The child who has

demonstrated his playing skill gains the reputation of being a "good

player.1' This not only guaranteed him a position on the team but also

supports his selection for a high-status role in activities where

sport competence is not involved. (98:172-174)

The child who lacks social acceptance in his peer group often must

play games with family members if he wants to participate in this form

of play. While it is true that adults can teach him how to play a game,

they usually are unable to teach him how to be a "good sport." Adults

are inclined to allow a child advantages in playing, while his

contemporaries.will yield no point in discussing the importance of peer

play. Dubois (33) had said: 4

This challenges the child to develop skill, and in due course he is stimulated by victory and makes even greater effort . . W h e n young people do not participate in sports, the scales are heavily weighted against their successful social and emotional adjustment; they frequently are headed for trouble because they have not had the opportunity to learn to win humbly, to lose gracefully and to endure physical discomfort to attain a goal. In short, they have not had the privilege of learning the discipline of good sportsmanship, so necessary for a happy adult life. (33:462)

The failure of mentally retarded children to keep Intellectural pace with normal children often contributes to personality maladjustment and the development of undesirable behavior patterns. Much of the normal child's social maturity and satisfactory adjustment is acquired in play situations throughout his formative years. Not so the mentally retarded child, who finds himself rejected by his normal peers or who, because of his low mentality, has no interest in group play.

Perhaps the greatest need of trainable mentally retarded children is an opportunity for successful participation in group play. Although mentally retarded youngsters cannot generally acquire the high degree of skill acquired by normal players, they can acquire sufficient skills to participate in enough different types of muscular activities to increase their physical fitness and improve their body mechanics. In addition to the physical benefits, there exists in play many opportunities for social and emotional growth. Adherence to the rule of the game and to the sportsman's code of fair play provides incentive for self-discipline and self-control. Respect for one's own abilities and limitations and those of others is stimulated in the cooperation and sharing necessitated by the game situation. (40) 5

According to Arthur L. Benton (98:37), motor skills can play a decisively important role as a determining factor in the behavioral and social efficiency of the Intellecturally subnormal person. A genius can afford to be a "motor imbecile", but a person with an I.Q. of 75 or less cannot. He further states the same referred to individual's psychomotor ability may well determine whether he will attain a reasonable degree of social competence. For this reason he points out assessment of motor capacity is an aspect of the psychological evaluation which has significant Implications for prediction, guidance, and training.

A standardized test used to measure motor skills is that of

Oseretsky. Two American versions of this test are the Vineland

Adaptation (16) and the Llncoln-Oseretsky Motor Development Scale (93).

A review of recent studies of various versions of the Oseretsky scale is found in a paper by Rabin (85) and earlier work is covered in the annotated bibliography of Lassner (75).

Motor proficiency, as measured by the Oseretsky, shows a high positive correlation with chronological age in both mentally retarded and normal children. Motor proficiency Is significantly, but not closely, related to intelligence level in mental retardates, who tend to show poorer performances than children of comparable chronological age

(11:37). Malpass (77) states there is no evidence, however, that institutionalization is a determining factor in performance even though there is a questionable association of small magnitude between motor proficiency and Intelligence level in normal children. Cassel (16) 6 found that "brain damaged" retardates do not perform as well as

"familial" retardates, and Pertego (24:194) clinically observed a motor awkwardness in mongoloids reflected in a more marked retardation in performance than is found in non-mongoloids.

Other tests of motor proficiency, involving both fine movements and gross movements, have been applied to the mentally retarded.

Manipulative dexterity has been the subject of a number of studies

(e.g.) Tizard, O'Connor and Crawford (106); Cantor and Stacey (15), with the findings that the performances of retardates are significantly below normative standards. The Rail-Walking Test of Heath (53), a measure of locomotor co-ordination, has also been found to discriminate between retardates and normal subjects as well as between "endogenous" and "exogenous" retardates (11:37).

Design of the Study

This study was concerned with measuring body perception, gross- agility, locomotor behavior and agility, balance, throwing and tracking.

Ho attempt was made to investigate other skill elements. The six areas measured were considered most important on the basis of an analysis of the skills and the emphasis on requirements of these selected skills as pointed up in a review of the literature (24:195).

The intelligence of the subjects selected for study was limited to two identified classifications: a) trainable mentally retarded and b) normal children. The official definition of mental retardation adopted in 1959 by the American Association on Mental Deficiency is 7 as follows:

Mental retardation refers to subaverage general Intellectual functioning which originates during the development period and is associated with impairment in adaptive behavior (98:1).

The study was further designed to show statistical analysis of the previously mentioned six items after a motor treatment program of ten weeks duration with twenty retarded children. A second group twenty trainable retarded children were treated for ten weeks by the use of rhythms and songs.

The study was finally designed to give evidence of the data to be collected from the test results of children at the Columbus State

School and Berwick Elementary School, Columbus, Ohio, 1972 and from the treatment programs at the same state school.

The subjects were classified into three groups:

Group I consisted of twenty normal children and referred to in this paper by symbol I (N).

Group II consisted of twenty mentally retarded children who were given a music treatment program and referred to in this paper by symbol

II (S).

Group III consisted of twenty mentally retarded children who were given a motor treatment program and referred to in this paper by symbol

III (M).

Definition of Terms

Terms related to this proposed study which could cause confusion and ambiguity are identified and clarified. Definition of these terms 8

should provide the basis for a more complete understanding of this

study and related literature,

"Agility; The ability of a child to move quickly and rapidly"

(24:177).

Balance: The ability to maintain body position which will enable

the child to function effectively.

Coordination; The ability of a child to perform a series of

movements which follow one another in rapid succession.

"Cultural familial; Individuals with a positive family history of

mental retardation and no neurological sign." (98:45)

Down's Syndrome; A term that is currently replacing the word mongolism.

"Fine motor activities; Involve accuracy and control and

remarkable only when reaching high degrees of precision." (62:22)

"Gross motor activities: Involves the total musculature of the

body or large portions of it." (62:20)

Locomotion: The movement of an organism from place to place by

means of its organic mechanism.

"Mental retardation: The subaverage general intellectual | functioning which originates during the development period and is i associated with impairment in adaptive behavior." (98:1) j i "Mongoloid: Used synominously with Down's Syndrome."

Normal: Refers to a person who has attained an intelligence

quotient of 70 or better on either individual or group intelligence

tests. 9

Perception; Is the receiving of any impression through any of the

senses and combined or integrated with previous experience which gives

it added meaning.

"Psychomotor: Pertains to activities requiring coordination or

direction from the brain." (29:465)

"Tracking: Observing an object which is swung from left to right

in a vertical plane parallel to the one in which person is standing."

(24:235)

Assumptions related to the purpose of the study:

1. I.Q. scores which were available indicated the intellectual

achievement of the children as used by the school system and

institution for instructional purposes.

2. The step interval between attempts of a given skill must be

assumed to be the same at each level of performance even though this may not be true.

3.' It is further assumed that the expected higher performance of

the children in Groups II and III would indicate that the Hawthorne

effect was probably in operation.

Scope and Limitations of the Study

This study was limited to two twenty-member groups of mentally

retarded children at Columbus State Institute and twenty normal

children at Berwick Elementary School, Columbus, Ohio.

1. Use of methods fcr the development of a criterion measure

required the use of multiple classification analysis of variance. The degree to which the data met the requirements for the use of these methods was a limitation of this study.

2. A limitation was the exclusion of any trainable mentally

retarded child who did not fall within the selected various classifi­

cations of retardation and who did not evidence mobility problems.

3. An additional limitation was the lack of a treatment program

for the normal children.

4. A final limitation was the lack of a third group of mentally

retarded children (a control group) who would have been given no

treatment at all. This type of control group was considered but was

found not to be feasible due to the lack of comparable retardates

available in the community. CHAPTER II

Review of Literature

Many studies in the area of mental retardation contain information which is pertinent to the present study. To provide a clear picture of the information the material has been divided into the following headings:

1. Various learning disabilities and levels of intelligence

2. Motor characteristics

3. Related studies

4. Non-supportive literature

All of the above headings are deemed important for review by this writer to give a broader view of the research that has been done with the mentally retarded.

1* Various Learning Disabilities and Levels of Intelligence

This investigator reviewed literature which is inclusive of several various learning disabilities affecting children at different levels of intelligence. The need for motor programs for all of these children is of prime importance. In order to assess the needs for each group of children, it was believed necessary to include a broad review

11 12 of literature to produce an overall view of the whole scope of the

* problems we face as educators today.

The Clumsy Child

Within the past few years, increasing emphasis has been placed upon identification and education of children at the opposite end of the continuium from the expert athlete (24:189). Cratty further points out that certain children have been identified by the medical profession as evidencing a "clumsy" child syndrome. Some of these children are classified as mentally retarded or educationally handicapped; while others seem to function intelligently and may evidence some motor problems.

These children may be characterized in many ways. They usually have a poor perception of their bodies, with particular difficulty I ' noted when asked to make various left-right discriminations (24:189).

They also have problems in trying to move their bodies accurately and quickly; their reaction time is slow, their gait patterns may be inappropriate, and often these children have difficulty with hand-eye coordination and manipulating small objects. As these kind of perceptual motor problems are seen more frequently in children who also evidence mild to severe mental retardation, improvement in movement attributes is being looked upon by many clinicians as a means through which intellectual functioning may be improved (30:57).

Learning Disabled

Kirk has-used the terms "learning difficulties" to describe a group of children who have disorders in language, speech, reading, 13 mathematics and associated communication and motor skills (68).

Frequently, these learning disorders seem to fit Into three broad categories mentioned by Kirk— reading problems, visual-motor distur­ bance and verbal communication disorder (68).

Educators and psychologists and even physicians have expressed opinions that some degree and proportion of a learning disability exist in an infinite number of children. Certain traits may be evidenced in all children, but each child is usually different in some way, from the others.

Hyperactivity is a common behavioral characteristic of many children who have been diagnosed as having brain disfunction. (A term used to classify a learning disability) (24:183). Cratty discusses six interrelated problems which accompany this behavioral syndrome.

Distractlbllity

Children with this disorder evidenced the marked inability to react to a single stimuli within their environment for even a' brief period of time. They are stimulated by everything confronting them. Their attention is constatly redirected, with the result that learning is difficult. The least distraction refocuses their attention from the task at hand. This distractibility makes them extremely difficult to test.

When first observed, this behavior seems to be willed disobedience, and frequently the parents are admonished by teachers and others for failing to discipline their offspring. The problem, however, seems to depend upon the dysfunction of cortical control mechanisms which both inhibit external stimuli and permit attention to be focused upon important central problems within the child*s visual field.

Dissociation

Due to this ever-changing and fragmented picture the child obtains of his environment there is an inability to synthesize experience into meaningful wholes. He tends to respond to things In part and in segments. There is a close relationship between this factor and distractibility. 14

Figure-ground Distortions

In various tests administered to the hyperactive child he frequently evidences the Inability to pick a figure out of the background, at times he may reverse background and figure and at other times he may be unable to differentiate between figure and background. Hyperactive children evidence this problem when asked to catch balls thrown at them; their inability to catch well probably stems from initial confusion experiences as they attempt to see the ball against a background.

Motor Dlsinhibltion

The hyperactive child obeys every impulse to move. He is unable to inhibit his motor activity and responds to every stimuli which encourages movement. He is constantly handling objects, moving his body hither and yon in a classroom and seems to be in perceptual motion from morning to night. While thus engaged, the child may evidence basic neuromotor disturbances seen in the inability to balance well, and in general clumsiness. However, whether the child seems to possess basic movement attributes or is handicapped by movement problems of a mild or severe nature seems no deterrent to actions in which he constantly engages.

Faulty Perception of the Body

The hyperactive child frequently evidences perceptual distortions reflected in various tests of body image. He finds it difficult to name his body parts accurately and to make accurate right-left discriminations, but also may be unable to accurately locate his body relative to objects in response to directions such as "place your left side toward the box." In addition, he is unable to locate objects relative to his body (i.e. "When is the object in front of you, to your left side, to your back, etc.?) (24:183-185)

Several basic principles have been advocated when working with such a child within the educational environment. Cratty has discussed the following principles as aids in improving the child's performance in classroom tasks (24:187-188):

Reduce Distractions

It is generally advocated that removal of distractions in the form of extraneous objects, other people, and simply in the amount of apace available to the child will lead to learning improvement. As the child is stimulated by everything within his environment, the attempt is made to reduce the number of things to which he can react. In a program of movement education such children should be worked with in small groups with only one thing present (i.e. a mat, or a balance beam).

Carefully Structure the Learning Experience

These children have no tolerance for materials which they perceive as too difficult or too easy. At the same time, they are attracted by novelty, but quickly "use up" novel experiences and wish to pass on to other things. This kind of behavior places a responsibility upon the teachers to present materials which are at the optimum level of difficulty and to construct a sequence of materials carefully so that simple and discrete steps are taken from the simple concept to the complex judgment.

Heighten the Attraction of the Task

In addition to the removal of extraneous stimuli, it is frequently suggested the task at hand be made a stimulating experience. Stimulation might be heightened, for example, through the use of vivid colors.

Teach Relaxation

Using relaxation techniques suggested by Jacobson in his 1938 text titled "Progressive Relaxation," and similar methods, brain-damaged children can be taught to relax. Tactile, verbal and kinesthetic cues can be given such children as they are placed in a back-lying position which will aid them to better perceive excess tension and to better control general and specific indices of unwanted muscular effort.

Provide CarrelIs

A most interesting technique is for the teacher to provide booths into which the child, may choose to go if he feels himself becoming over-stimulated. I have observed this technique in action within recent months in classes for the educationally handicapped in the Los Angeles City Schools. The fact that these children find their hyperactivity unpleasant and seek to correct it themselves by placing themselves in such isolation booths would seem to be a helpful step in their educational development. 16

The largest group of mentally retarded (probably 85% of all retarded) is represented by the mildly retarded. Stevens reports they are usually slow in development in walking, talking, feeding themselves and toilet training. Motor development is relatively normal. Eye-hand coordination is somewhat retarded below normal expectancy. He further states that identification of a child as a mild retardate is usually not made until after at least one, possible two, years of regular school experience.

Johnson (60:463) reports studies during the first third of the

Twentieth Century indicate the higher level mentally retardate, who is potentially capable of maintaining himself Independently, follows the same sequence of growth at approximately the same rate as a normal individual. Johnson does Indicate that the same evidence is available to support the theory that the mentally retarded may be, on an average, slightly smaller and somewhat prone to illness than the general population. He supports this by citing the following reports:

Klausmeier (71), Klausmeier, Lehman, and Beeman (70), and Klausmeier and Check (69), studied the relationship between chronological age, height, weight, grip, number of permanent teeth, carpal age, intelligence, reading, arithmetic, and language for three groups of children eight years-five months of age. The group classified as "low” in Intelligence quotients was not significantly different from the "average" or "high" groups in any one of the physical measurement areas. They were, however, fairly consistently lower on most of the measure.

Moderately Mentally Retarded

The moderately mentally retarded presents less complicated neuropathological conditions as contrasted with the profoundly and severely retarded (99:5). Stevens describes this child as:

Fewer types of other handicapping conditions, such as blindness, deafness, epilepsy, and physical anomalies, are present. In most cases, motor development approaches normal. Language and speech can be developed. Those with organic brain damage and epilepsy may present objectionable 17

social behavior patterns as well as difficult to manage behavior. Self-help skills in toileting, feeding, and usually, bathing, can be attained. As a group they may be viewed as being semidependent (99.5).

2. Motor Characteristics

Stein (96) states that mentally retarded boys and girls do not play spontaneously or innovate as do normal children. He further

implies that these children have to be taught to play, whether the play be individual, parallel, or group. Many believe the motor skills

and abilities that normal children learn from association and play with the gang must be taught to the retarded. Reasoning for this belief stems from beliefs that the retarded have not had the experience

that accrues from opportunities to participate in organized physical

education and recreation programs.

Comments by investigators in some of these studies hint that the difference In results of motor performance between retarded and

nonretarded boys and girls was brought about by lack of Intellectual

ability, rather than Inherent differences in motor ability. Research

by Fait and Kupferer (43), Asmussen and Heebolt-Neilsen (4), Kulclnski

(73) backs this stand. Several studies have shown that the complexity

of muscular movement and the associated intellectual cction necessary

to carry out these movements were greater factors in limiting the motor

performance of the retarded than lack of motor ability perse.

Predictions were made as early as twenty years ago (54) that as the

intellectual counterpart of a motor act was learned, the resultant 18 performance would become increasingly quick and smooth. Current research is verifying this hypothesis (Stein (97)).

Johnson (60) indicates that the area of motor and psychomotor abilities is a much newer field than that of physical development and thus, less information is available. Europe was more interested in the development of physical and motor information - with three tests originating from European countries.

There is an increasing amount of evidence from a number of experimental laboratories which points to the inseperabillty of perception and motion. For example, the theories of Werner and

Wilkin (107, 108) are based upon data which reflect interactions between visual perception and movement. These studies may not always describe exact methods for use with retardates but they have attracted many educators working with handicapped youngsters. In his book,

Perceptual Motor Behavior and Educational Processes (24;192). Cratty has suggested several reasons for placing perceptual motor tasks into the general program:

1. Social acceptance and self-acceptance are enhanced if a child's ability to participate in games, given status by his peers, is improved. A general need for achievement is heightened after successful participation in games.

2. Many initial concepts formed by children and infants are gained through movement experiences, A child whose thought processes are inexact may lack certain developmental underpinnings which involve perceptual motor behavior. An adequate perception of the body, its various dimensions and parts, may be related to the ability to organize space, to read, to spell, and to write. 19

3. Certain components of classroom learning may be improved through pupil participation in carefully planned physical activities. Remembering the order of a series of actions of a planned obstacle course, for example, offers the child practice in organizing components of a series of letters when dealing with words. Gross motor activities, if properly apportioned, may aid the hyperactive child to focus attention on various tasks for increasingly longer periods of time.

4. Requesting children to think about and to demonstrate ways in which they might modify the performance of a task and presenting them with opportunities to invent games, represents experiences which should enhance creative thinking and problem*solving ability.

Piaget, Kephart and others have attested to the importance of early motor learnings to the development of the intellect, basing their assertions primarily upon observation that the first kind of behavior that children evidence is motoric (62, 84). Recent experimental findings testify to the importance of visual imprinting upon later intellectual and emotional functioning (30).

It is believed by some that the term perceptual-motor not only indicates a growing awareness on the part of educators and physical educators that the perceptual process, the formation of judgments, is important to the ultimate motor expression which comes out of a child.

Gratty (24:19) relates the various characteristics of an individual by stating:

A human is a single integrated organism. For convenience, we frequently fragment his behaviors in order to study them more closely or to attempt to change them in various ways. 20

At the same time, we should remain aware, however, of the manner in which verbal, perceptual, motor, and cognitive behaviors may be interrelated.

He further enumerates some of the problem areas, suggesting purposeful areas, suggesting purposeful courses of action (24:133).

Finding the motor attributes of children are highly specific and tend to become more so with age and experience. For example, there are at least three kinds of balances, four kinds of strengths, several kinds of attributes involving agility and power. For instance, balancing in a static position is unrelated to moving balance (i.e. walking a balance beam). Balance with the eyes open is unrelated to the same task attempted with the eyes closed, while the ability to balance objects is unrelated to the individual's ability to balance his body. Furthermore, static strength Is unrelated to a ballistic strength necessary to jump or to throw a ball. Abdominal strength and grip strength are usually not related. Manual dexterity may be factored into at least five components (44),

Implication for Action to properly evaluate and to improve the perceptual-motor ability of children one should provide a number of tasks involving balance, agility, hand-eye coordination, manual dexterity strength, and flexibility, depending upon the deficiencies assessed.

Finding Perceptual judgments and motor functioning are at times impossible to separate. For example, catching a ball involves the visual tracking of a moving object in three- dimensional space, perceptually anticipating its pathway while moving the body to Intercept it, and then placing the hands in proper catching position.

Implication for Action Perception probably is being trained while engaging in many movement experiences. Handwriting, ball throwing, and tracking visually the words across a written page from left to right are not purely perceptual or motor acts but should be termed perceptual-motor tasks.

Finding Many times complex tasks can be learned by children with severe perceptual-motor problems if the skills are reduced to simple components and the child is reinforced, i.e., given reassurance from the instructor, etc., when even alight improvement is evidenced.

Implication for Action When working with children with mild to severe problems, reduce the tasks to basic components; 21

when these are mastered proceed to build up more complex response patterns upon these beginnings.

Few investigations have dealt with some of the more obvious manifestations of the mongoloid child— their gross motor attributes.

Three groups of factors influence the scores of physical ability tests achieved by children with Down's syndrome. According to Cretty

(24:205) these are: (1) Impaired ability to handle verbal directions,

(2) Mental retardation reduces their ability to select effective work methods when dealing with motor skills, and (3) their visual and vestibular mechanisms inhibit their abilities to balance statistically and dynamically, qualities underlying most kinds of gross bodily movements.

Johnson (60:465) in Cruickshank's book. Psychology of Children and

Youth, cites a number of studies done by Sloan, Malpass and Rubin which were conducted with institutionalized children, some of which may have been classified as mongoloids. However, this is not clarified. These studies are consistent in the information they provide in that the psychomotor development of these children was found to be significantly below that found in the normal population. All the evidence strongly

Indicated a high, positive relationship between level of intelligence and level of psychomotor development.

Johnson and Blake (1960) using public school retardates (MA between 50-75 I.Q.) matched on MA and normal school children actually found that the retarded did significantly better than normals on a simple card sorting task. The subjects distributed thirty-two shuffled cards containing four different geometric designs into four separate 22 boxes. On all five trials given, the retarded sorted faster but the slopes of the learning curves for the two groups were parallel. In such a simple situation it appears that the older, more muscularly mature retarded school children have an advantage over the younger normals. That the learning curves of both groups leveled off by the third trial but at significantly different levels suggests both the simplicity of the task and a differential age factor of motor coordination (speed). When these groups learned puzzle-assembly tasks the retarded also did as well as or better than the normals (31:129).

3. Related Studies

Over the years, research projects have been carried on to try to point out the importance of physical training in regard to child development. Thirty years ago Dr. A. N. Murenva (87) experimented with three sets of identical twins of pre-school age. One twin of each pair was given motor skill training. The intelligence quotients of each trained twin increased ten per cent over those not trained.

In other experiments, retarded teenagers were given competitive sports as well as remedial exercise. They also showed an increase in

Intelligence quotients over a control group denied this activity (87).

Oliver (80) matched two groups of educationally subnormal boys, and gave a ten week course of physical conditioning to one group in addition to regular schooling while the control group received only schooling. Both groups were tested before and after the experiment on a aeries of intelligence tests. According to Oliver, the experimental 23 group gained 4.26 Intelligence quotient points on the Revised Stanford-

Binet Scale, while the control group gained 0.9 intelligence quotient points. (80).

W. Owens Corder (18) gave an intensive twenty day program of physical education to eight retarded boys based upon Oliver's earlier study. Eight retarded boys were designated as "officials" and met each day with the training group while eight other retarded boys served as controls. Pretests and posttests were givet. on the Wexler Intelligence

Scale for Children, the Perceptual Forms Test and the Cowell Personal

Distance Scale. The training group made significant intelligence quotient gains on the Full Scale and Verbal Scale over the control group. The training group made significant gain scores on the

Perceptual Forms Test over the officials and the control group, but there was no difference in social status.

Raymond Taylor, Jr., and S. Van L. Nolde (102) found a general pattern of relationships indicating that reading and neurological organization are statistically Independent buy dynamically related when testing fifty children for measures of laterality, mobility, and blnocularity.

Bayley (7) recorded a .39 correlation between age of first walking and mental test scores at three years of age.

A study was done in England using ninety-four children, forty-eight boys and forty-six girls (59). They represented a balance of high, middle and low. achievement levels and were representative of a wide socioeconomic stratum. Variables were (1) age, (2) height, (3) weight, 24

(4) eighteen motor aptitude items plus, (5) nine intellectual variables, and (6) two personality variables. The motor and personality variables were designed by A. H. Ismail (59) and included general motor items,

kinesthetic items, coordination items, balance items, and two

personality items from the Junior Maudsley Personality Inventory. The

intellectual variables were taken from the Otis Intelligence Test,

Standard Academic Achievement subtest scores and the General Scholastic

Ability Test and the NFER Test C2.

The findings of this study allow reasonable conclusions to be

drawn (according to Ismatl) (59), concerning the relationship between measures of intellectual ability and chosen measures of nonintellectual

aptitude. In particular, the evidence points to a positive relationship

between some motor aptitude items, especially coordination and balance

and well established measures of intelligence and scholastic ability.

The studies of physical activities of the mentally retarded have

been confined largely to a comparison of normals and subnormals on tests

of physical proficiency. 25

In Kirk’s Review of Literature, he reports: (66)

Sloan compared twenty normal and twenty mental defectives on the Lincoln Adaptation of the Oseretsky Tests of Motor Proficiency. The mean C.A. of his two groups was ten years. The mean Intelligence quotient of the normal male was 105.8 and for the male retarded was 54.2. For the females the mean Intelligence quotient of the normal females, 99.2, and retarded was 56.2. Sloan concluded that mental defectives are significantly inferior in motor proficiency to children of average intelligence. Sloan made no attempt to train the defectives in motor proficiency to determine whether such deficits can be developed through training.

Rabin also used the Lincoln Adaptation of the Oseretsky Test on institutionalized mental defectives. He found motor proficiency to have a significant relationship to C.A. He found no significant relation­ ship to intelligence quotient, contrary to Sloan's results.

Malpass compared institutionalized mental retardates with normal children and with mentally retarded children in special classes in the public schools. He found a significant difference on the Oseretsky test between the normals and the retarded but no difference between the institutionalized and noninstitutionalized children.

Francis and Rarick (46) conducted a study to obtain information regarding the gross motor abilities of children in the public schools at Madison and Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Subjects were 284 mentally retarded children whose C.A. was between 7.5 and 14.5 years and whose intelligence quotients ranged between 50 and 90. The instrument or tests chosen for this study were those concerned with (1) static strength, including dynamometric strength of right and left grip, pulling dynamometric strength and thrusting dynamometric strength, (2) measures of running speed, including 30 and 35 yard dashes with time deducted for starting, (3) measures of dynamic strength or power

Including the vertoca; and standing broad jump, and ball throw, (4) 26 balance (walking a ten foot beam), (5) agility, including the Burpee - squat thrust and an agility run. Ho attempt was made to draw a random sample in this study. All physically normal children in special classes for slow learners in the two cities mentioned previously were included.

According to this study trends in strength for each sex followed about the same patterns as those in normal children, as did tests of running speed, balance and agility. The mean on most measures for both boys and girls was two to four years behind the published age norms for normal children. Furthermore, the discrepancy between the normal and the mentally retarded child tended to increase at each successive age level. With complex skills the discrepancy increased even more with advancing age.

Howe (55), in a carefully controlled study which attempted to eliminate the variables found in Francis and Rarick's study compared mentally retarded children with public school children who were matched according to C.A., socioeconomic background and sex. The C.A. range here was six-twelve years and the intelligence quotient range of normal children was 97.5-99.9, while with the mentally retarded group it was 64.5-67.5,

The test chosen was purported to be free of dependence on intelligence for understanding and included eleven tasks--sargent jump, balance, tracing speed, dotting speed, grip strength, zig-zag run, fifty yard dash, squat thrust, ball throw and paper and pencil maze tracing. 27

Mentally retarded subjects were unable to balance on one foot.

Only two subjects out of forty-three reached the maximum of one minute, while the majority could balance for little more than twenty

seconds. It was found that twenty-eight out of forty-three normal

children could balance for one minute or more.

After ten days of instructions, the normal subjects remained

superior in their scores, but both groups showed similar improvement

patterns--signlfleant improvement in Burpee squat thrusts, a relatively

complex activity, and modest gains on the other two skills, throwing

a ball at a target and simple maze tracing.

A few years ago mentally retarded boys enrolled in a public school

public education program showed this same pattern on the American

Association of Health, Physical Education and Recreation Youth Fitness

Test (96). While normal comparison groups scored significantly higher

on both raw and percentile scores based on national age norms, the

amount-of change of the scores on each of the seven items of fitness were similar and non-significantly related. This study spanned one

school year and was organized in such a way that the subjects did not

know that they were a part of a research investigation. When the

percentile scores for these subjects were compared to the national

norms, quartlle distributions for both October and -May administration

fell into normal distributions in thirteen out of fourteen comparisons;

the single significant exceptions favored the mentally retarded

subjects.

Keogh and Oliver (61) in clinical observations of educationally

subnormal children found these performance difficulties: (1) Hesitating 28 and halting movements--also difficulty in initiating movements; (2)

Consistent failure in one side of the body; (3) Movement in one set of limbs interfered with movement in another set; (4) Difficulty in initiating and maintaining movements requiring alteration of rhythm or count such as alternate foot hopping; (5) Unable to control force or

speed of movement. Commitment in one direction seemed to prevent a

child from preparing to move in another direction; (6) Inability to perform in a limited area but could hop or move about in a large area;

(7) Extraneous or superfluous movement was evident; and (8) Timid lack of effort.

Most previous studies have collected data from children classified

as educable mentally retarded (intelligence quotients from 50 to 75) rather than with children of poorer mental ability. Investigations by

Kugel and Reque (72) present data on children whose mean Intelligence

quotients are below 50. The California Infant Scale of Motor

Development has been employed with some success when evaluating the motor competencies of mongoloids (24:194).

Most of these previous investigations have utilized too few

subjects within various categories upon which to establish valid norms.

The findings presented have frequently suffered from a lack of

appropriate statistical verification (18, 80). An investigation by

Guyette, Uapner and others (50) contain findings which suggest that as

the retarded child grows older he becomes more dependent upon modifi­

cations in bodily tonus when making visual judgments (52).

Cratty (24) took thirty-eight mongoloid children and youths from

the ages of five to twenty-four years and tested them individually 29 throughout the summer of 1966. These children were evaluated on twelve sites in which they were participating in educational and recreational programs. Their mental ages ranged from "untestable" to intelligence quotients of 50.

The test battery was developed by Cratty consisting of tasks purporting to evaluate six perceptual-motor attributes of retarded children; body perception, gross motor attributes of retarded children; body-perception, gross ability, balance, locomotor agility, throwing, and tracking-catching. The test consisted of tasks at two levels of difficulty within each of the six categories, and if a child completed the initial level, he was permitted to proceed to the second level.

The test was reliable with a test-retest correlation of .91. The findings were: (1) Scores obtained from the mongoloids evidenced higher intercorrelations than are obtained when similar scores of children with higher intellectual capacities are compared; (2) A correlation of .88 was obtained between the body-perception score and

the score in the total battery of tests; (3) The mean scores of the

children were in all cases lower than scores obtained from the trainable

retardate who does not evidence Down's syndrome. This difference was

significant when the total battery scores were compared; (4) Develop- mentally the balance ability of the mongoloid does not evidence

Improvement with age. This finding does not imply that training will

not improve their balance, as the Investigation was not a longitudinal

study of change as a function of age; (5) None of the mongoloids

evidenced the ability to make any left-right discriminations better 30

than would be expected by chance; (6) The primary problems evidenced

by these children were in the performance of tasks in which movement was paired with vision.

Kirk (66) has indicated that in view of the repeated sporadic

efforts throughout history of the education of the mentally retarded

to emphasize physical and motor training, further research efforts

along this line may be worthwhile.

4. Non Supportive Literature

Physical educators tend to place much emphasis on the value of a

motor program as an important adjunct to the education of the mentally

retarded.

Within the past ten years, some clinicians working with the

severely neurologically handicapped children through movement have

published remarkable assertions regarding physical-intellectual

relationship.

Cratty (24) is not convinced of the veracity of these latter

claims; however he does believe that there are relationships between

the quality and quantity of obvious motor output of children and their

ability and/or inclination to engage in various tasks within the

classroom. He believes that motor activities can be helpful learning

modality, but to best utilize movement taskB within schools one must

carefully examine research findings rather than simply paying blind

devotion to one of the popular "movement messiahs" (24:8).

Recent experimental findings testify to the Importance of early 31 visual imprinting upon later Intellectual and emotional functioning

(50) while studies by Dennis and others suggest that artifical restrictions of children's motor activities do not necessarily result in developmental lag (24:8).

Despite the improvement claimed for children subjected to neurological programs, there is an increasing number of well-controlled scientific studies which make one skeptical of this kind of neural lamination. Robbins not only found that extensive programs of creeping and crawling failed to elicit improvement in scores elicited from standardised perceptual, reading and achievement tests, but also found that no improvement in laterality was forthcoming after engaging in these types of activities (24:9).

The finding of studies in which more structured movement programs were inserted led to questioning of their worth in all educational programs. Kershner found that after a program of crawling, as outlined in the- Doman-Delacato program, experimental subjects improved in crawling and in a picture identification test of intelligence quotients, despite the fact that the control group Improved more in a battery of perceptual-motor tasks.

Solomon and Pragle (94), in a causal study, found that an improvement in a retardate population subjected to a special physical education program was obtained only in motor ability, with intelligence quotients and other measures of school achievement remaining unaffected.

In a study by Brown (14) it was found that while certain measures of perceptions were Improved in children who had engaged in activities 32 outlined by Kephart, no significant improvement in reading scores was

forthcoming.

Robbins, (88) in investigating the influence of the Doman-Delacato

program upon the subjects' ability to distinguish left from right, to

read and to form other perceptual judgments, found that the program

exerted no significant influence upon the attributes tested.

Furthermore, in the groups tested too few children were laterallzed at

the end of the treatment than at the beginning. He concluded the

following: (1) Reading was not related to creeping; (2) Reading was not related to laterality; (3) Reading improvement was not related to exposure to Delacato's experimental program; (A) The data did not

support the postulated relationship between neurological organization, as measured by creeping and laterality and reading achievement.

Lapray and Ross (7A), using first grade children who were low in both reading and visual perception, found that one group after being trained in simple reading materials improved in reading, while another group given training in large muscle activities and visual training improved

in these attributes but not in reading.

Seven perceptual forms of the Winter Haven Perceptual Forms Test

(PFT) were administered to twenty educable mentally retarded children before and after participating in a fifteen week physical developmental program, and to twelve educable mentally retarded children not enrolled in the developmental program. All subjects were students at the Austin

State School Annex, Austin, Texas. A comparison of pre and post program test performance of the participating children, compared to the 33

performance of the control children indicate that (a) gross motor

developmental programs do not improve performance on the Perceptual

Forms Test, (b) experimental and control subjects improved on only three

items of the Perceptual Forms Test, and (c) the Perceptual Forms Test is

reliable and may be used successfully with the educable mentally

retarded children.

They concluded that although the Winter Haven Perceptual Forms

Test predicts academic success, the programs that have improved Winter

Haven scores have also predicted that children are more ready for

school, gross motor developmental programs may not be considered among

those methods that improve scores. Therefore, gross motor activities

probably do not have a substantial Influence on academic success in

the early grades (17).

Assubel and Pelper (5) refuted the statements of Kephart and

Piaget who contended that infantile reflexes flow into voluntary movement patterns and pointed out that reflexes and voluntary movements

are divisible early in life.

Research findings put forth by Kephart (62) which suggested that

poor balance reflects a defect on the cerebellum which would short

circuit from the cortex, were reported by Cratty(28) to be difficult to

locate.

Sleeper (92) found that there was no significant relationship

between balance and perceptual processes while Fleishman, Thomas and

Hunroe (45) indicated that various balance measures were not predictive

of each other. 34

Kilpatrick (64) suggested that infants organize their perceptions of the world about them in both direct and indirect ways. The infant moves and gains "motor copies" of objects with his exploring hands.

However, studies of children born with deficient limbs indicated that their intellectural capacities were not necessarily impaired by the lack of opportunity to explore their environment directly (51).

Abercombie (2) and her colleagues have presented findings that children in late childhood and early teens who have lacked movement attributes from birth (cerebral palsy) perform on an equal level on tests of performance and perception with normal children.

Proponents of certain programs of sensory-motor education suggest that achieving smooth eye movements by requiring the child to watch a ball swinging on a string will enhance reading, but research indicates that in reading the eye moves In irregular stops and starts and is fixed about ninety per cent of the time when viewing the printed page

(105)..

Subjects in Kilpatrick's (64) study were able to solve the familiar distorted room illusion when they were able to move a stick or throw a ball around the room or when they were permitted to watch another individual throw a ball or move a stick.

Gross dominence or studies of the hand preference have been forth­ coming, but the importance of these factors is becoming less influential in regard to education. Belmont and Birch (9) have indicated the incidence of cross dominence was as prevalent In populations of normal children as in groups of children with learning disabilities. Sunination

In recognition o£ the conflict which exists in published research in regard to factors which influence a child’s development, one might question the worth of a physical education program or a motor program

for mentally retarded children.

The inclusion of a motor program for the mentally retarded must be made to Include activities to meet their social, emotional and physical needs. All children have a desire to play and to move.

Whether the child is normal or retarded, he should be taught with the above goals always in mind.

To many, the objective of physical education Is physical fitness.

The impetus of the Fitness Counsel, first established by President

Eisenhower and given further attention by Presidents Kennedy and

Johnson, has its objective programs of vigorous activities to heighten cardiorespiratory systems, endurance and muscle strength.

When one surveys physical education programs you will see some conducting a "squat thrust" program, while others are engaged in a form of stimulus response conditioning. On the midground are the majority who utilize physical education activities in a variety of ways— to Induce better physical conditions, to teach socially accepted skills, and to encourage the children to structure and to think about their actions. To operate at either extreme neglects the developmental phases for which we are responsible.

Children are motivated by conditions external to the task, by social stimulation, and by various obvious rewards in the form of 36

emblems, money and the like (23). As children mature, however, they

are less susceptible to be influenced by various external rewards and

are more likely to be motivated by their interest in the task, its

novelty and complexity (24:43). His skill of the game will usually

draw him into participation.

Children are complex. To work with them we must accommodate to

more facets of their behavior than simply the ability to exert

muscular force for varying amounts of time.

The answer to complexity of human functioning is educational programs which provide experiences accommodating to more than one facet of adolescent behavior. The answer to complexity is not a retreat to simplicity (24:44).

Research does not support the claims that physical education

classes or movement programs act as remediators of classroom

difficulty; however, they can play a vital role in the interdiscipline

of teaching the retarded child. As evidenced in the nonsupportive

literature, clinical programs have not proven claims of improved motor and intellectual behavior. CHAPTER III

Methods and Procedures

The general objectives of the present study were to compare the

perceptual motor abilities of two groups of Institutionalized mentally

retarded children with an equated group of normal children enrolled in

a public school. The general hypothesis to be tested was that the

perceptual motor abilities of the mentally retarded children would not

change significantly after treatment programs.

Description of Subjects

Two groups, consisting of twenty children in each group, were

chosen at the Columbus State Institute, Columbus, Ohio, to be comparable

on the following factors: (1) chronological ages ranging from six -

twelve years; (2) 13 boys and 7 girls in each group; (3) diagnosed as

Trainable Mentally Retarded with intelligence quotients ranging from

30 - 50; (4) etiology: each group contained seven diagnosed as having

Down's Syndrome (Mongolism - 640); eight diagnosed as Encephalopathy

(due to unknown cause or uncertain causes during structural manifesta­

tion -790); three caused by unknown prenatal influence (690); one due

to uncertain cause with functional manifestations (890); one diagnosed

37 38 as cultural familial (810); and (5) free of any physical handicap which would make them non-ambulatory.

Twenty children at Berwick Elementary School, Columbus, Ohio, were comparable to the training groups on the following factors: (1) chrono­ logical age ranging from six-twelve years; (2) 13 boys and 7 girls;

(3) classified as being normal in intelligence (above 100 intelligence quotient); and (4) free of any physical handicap which would disrupt their mobility. (See detailed tables of subjects in Appendix.)

TABLE I.--Description of Subjects.

C (N) I (S) I”[I (M) Male Female Male Female Male Female N»13 N=7 N-13 N=7 N=13 N=7

Average Age 10 10 10 10.7 10 10 Average I.Q, 39 40 36 43 114 119

Etiology Down's Syndrome 640 0 0 4 3 6 1 Encephalopathy 790 0 0 5 3 6 2 Prenatal Influence 690 0 0 2 1 0 3 Uncertain Cause 890 0 0 1 0 1 0 Cultural Familial 810 0 0 1 0 0 1

Description of the Test

In order to establish test scores for the three groups of children, a test which would measure their perceptual motor abilities was

selected. Cratty's Test for Evaluating the Perceptual Attributes of

Neurologically Handicapped and Retarded Children (24) was chosen to 39 assess these qualities as being the most appropriate test available to secure the desired results.

The norms upon which the decile rankings of this test are based were derived from an investigation of over two hundred children carried out during the summer of 1966. The battery is reliable with a correlation of .91 recorded when the test-retest scores of 83 children were compared within the same study (24:222).

The selection of tests comprising the battery were devised by

Cratty (24) under the assumption that much of the time perception and movement are Inseparable. The tests at the first level were intended to evaluate children with relatively obvious movement problems and the tests at the second level were designed to identify children with perceptual motor impairments.

Cratty (24) believes that most children who can successfully complete all of the tests contained in the second level may be expected to compete effectively with others of their age (24:222). Administra­ tion of these tests should point to specific curricular implications for certain children or groups of children.

Administrative Procedures

Permission was obtained from the two schools mentioned above.

Both are located in the City of Columbus, Ohio. Subjects were drawn from the schools until there were twenty subjects in each group. The trainable groups were subdivided into two groups; one for instruction in motor activities and one for involvement with singing games and 40 action songs. Both treatment programs were conducted for ten weeks duration. The group involved in musical activities was used to control for the Hawthorne Effect.

Assistance in the collection of test data Was obtained through the help of properly oriented students from Capital University. The same equipment, procedures, testors and test order were maintained to control the test results. A complete description of test items, procedures and scoring sheets are included in the appendix of this dissertation. This investigator was present at all testing periods and the instructional sessions to supervise as well as test.

The test periods were planned to be held at the discretion of the principals of each school. Due to schedule conflicts, most sessions had to be held during the afternoon and early evening hours. The battery of tests were designed so that the test was administered to a single child within a period of twenty to thirty minutes.

The Screening Test for Evaluating the Perceptual Motor Attributes of Neurologically Handicapped Children (24) was given during the school day for all of the normal children and most of the retarded children.

It was necessary to pre-test some of the retarded children during recreation time after their evening meal due to school classtime conflicts.

The procedures for the administration of the test are as recommended by Dr, Bryant J. Cratty (24) and as demonstrated by use in various studies. (See Appendix A for test directions.)

All children were initially exposed to all the tests on the first 41 level, and if they achieved an overall average of 4.0 (out of a possible 5) they were given tests at Level II. If, within a single category in Level I, they scored a 5.0 they were given the tests in the corresponding category at Level II. (See Appendix A for complete description of the test battery.)

Twenty mentally retarded children met three times a week for thirty-forty minutes per session to take part in physical education activities. A second group of twenty mentally retarded children met three times a week for thirty-forty minutes per session to take part in music activities. Several students from Capital University assisted this investigator in conducting both programs. (See Appendix B for a complete description of the treatment programs.)

Statistical Treatment

All data was analyzed through the use of Clyde Computing Service and the Ohio State University Computer Center*.

A one-way analysis of variance was used to determine if the mean differences in the three groups were equal.

A "t" test for differences was done to test the hypothesis that the mean of the difference was equal to zero.

The null hypothesis was assumed. The null hypothesis asserts that the means are equal against the alternative that they are in some way different.

*Special credit to Dr. Jean Hensel and Mr. Daniel Given. CHAPTER IV

Analysis of Data

The purpose of this investigation was to determine if a physical education program will Improve specific skills of mentally retarded children. The specific skills measured were: (1) body perception,

(2) gross ability, (3) locomotor ability and agility, (4) balance,

(5) ball throwing, and (6) ball tracking.

Three groups of twenty students each were used. One group consisted of twenty normal children while the other two groups were experimental ones with each consisting of twenty institutionalized trainable mentally retarded children.

The two experimental groups were matched according to I.Q. and etiology. One of the experimental groups received a musical regimen and the other group a motor regimen. (See Table II, page 43.)

42 43

TABLE II. Mean Item Scores. Group I (N) Group II (S) Group III (M) Average Score Average Score Average Score Pre test Posttest Pre test Posttest Pre test Posttest 1. Body Perception 8.75 9.15 2.70 2.60 3.20 3.70 2. Gross Agility 9.30 9.35 2.55 3.00 4.35 4.40 3. Locomotor Agility 8.00 7.30 1.50 1.50 2.15 2.00 4. Balance 8.00 7.30 2.50 3.35 2.60 4.30 5. Ball Throwing 6.95 6.40 2.05 2.40 3.00 3.45 6. Ball Tracking 5.90 6.15 3.20 4.05 3.70 4.80 Total 46.90 45.65 14.50 16.90 19.00 22.65 Mean 7.81 7.60 2.41 2.81 3.16 3.77 Standard Deviation 1.22 1.35 .58 .87 .78 .99

The above table indicates that Group I (N) increased their mean scores in three items; Group II (S) increased their mean scores in four items and Group III (M) increased their mean scores in five items.

Statistical Procedures

To determine if the training program had any Influence on the test

scores, each of the three groups was administered a series of tests and

their scores recorded. The two experimental groups were then given the appropriate training program and upon completion the three groups were again given the same series of tests and their scores recorded. Since

the post training scores were not independent of the pre training

scores, the differences in the two scores were used to compare the

affects of the training program. A one-way analysis of variance was 44 used to determine if the mean differences in the three groups were equal. Table III gives the results of this test.

TABLE III.— Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Difference in Pre and Post Training Scores for Total Battery.

Source of Degree of Sum of Kean F Variance Freedom Squares Square Ratio Between Groups 2 162.23 81.12 2.00 Within Groups 57 2308.75 40.50 TOTAL 59 2470.98

These results indicate there is no statistical difference in the means of the differences of the three groups. Another way of stating this is that the trained retarded children did not respond differently than the normal children. The results could possibly be attributed to factors of maturation, daily living conditions, or environmental facilities.

Since there is no difference in the means, the next question to be answered is did the training improve the scores of the two groups of retarded children. To determine this the two groups were pooled and a

"t" test for differences was done to test the hypothesis that the mean of the differences was equal to zero (training did not Improve scores) against the alternative that the mean of the differences was greater than zero (training improved scores). The "t" statistic was found to be 3.16 with 39 degrees of freedom and thus the hypothesis is rejected at the 0.01 level of significance and it is concluded that the training regimens improved their scores. 45

In order to look at Group II (S) and Group III (M) Individually, a

"t" test for differences was done for each group to test the hypothesis

that the mean of the differences was equal to zero (training did not

improve scores) against the alternative that the mean of the differences was greater than zero (training improved scores). The "t" statistic

for Group II (S) was found to be 1.67 with 19 degrees of freedom and

thus the hypothesis is rejected at the .06 level of significance. The

"t" statistic for Group III (M) was found to be 2.33 with 19 degrees of

freedom and thus the hypothesis is rejected at less than the .05 level

of significance. It is again concluded that the training regimens

improved their scores.

TABLE IV.— Mean Scores for Group II (S) and Group III (M).

Pre Test Mean Group II (S) Group III (M) Standard Error of the Mean 2.49 1.86 "t" Test on Difference 1.67 2.33

A one-way analysis of variance was used to determine if the mean

differences in the three groups were equal on Level I and Level II of

the test battery. The tests at Level I are Intended to evaluate children

with relatively obvious movement problems. The tests at Level II are

designed to identify children with mild perceptual-motor impairments.

Table V gives the results for Level I and Table VI gives the results

for Level II. 46

TABLE V.--Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Differences in Pre and Post Training Scores - Level I

Source of Degree of Sum of Mean F Variance Freedom Squares Square Ratio Between Groups 2 67.23 . 33.62 2.25 Within Groups 57 849.75 14.91 TOTAL 59 916.98

TABLE VI.— Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Differences in Pre and Post Training Scores - Level II

Source of Degree of Sum of Mean F Variance Freedom Squares Sauare Ratio Between Groups 2 32.03 16.02 1.08 Within Groups 57 848.95 14.89 TOTAL 59 880.98

These results indicate there is no statistical difference in the means of the differences of the three groups at both levels.

To determine if the training improved the scores of the two groups at each level, a "t" test was done to test the hypothesis that the mean of the differences was equal to zero (training did not improve scores) against the alternative that the mean of the differences was greater than zero (training improved scores). The Mt" statistic for Level I was found to be 2.67 with 39 degrees of freedom and thus the hypothesis is rejected at the 0.01 level of significance. For Level II the "t" statistic was found to be 2.14 with 39 degrees of freedom and thus the hypothesis is rejected at the .025 level of significance. It is 47 concluded that the training regimens improved their scores at both

Level I and Level II.

Means and Range of Performance

To compare performances of each group on the Individual test items, means and range of performance were recorded in the six test itemB at both Level I and Level II. (See Table VII)

TABLE VII.-~Ranges and Means of Individual Test Scores.

Groun I (N) Group II (S) Group III (M) Pre test Posttest Pre teat Posttest Pre test Posttest Level I 1 Body Perception Mean 4.4 4.65 2.6 2.55 2.95 3.0 Range 2 - 5 3 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 4 3 - 4 2 - 4 2 Gross Agility Mean 4.85 4.9 2.15 2.5 3.2 3.3 Range 5 4 - 5 0-5 0-5 0-5 0-5 3 Balance Mean 4.95 4.95 12.5 14.5 2.0 1.85 Range 4 - 5 4-5 0-5 0-5 0-5 0 - 5 4 Locomotor Agility Mean 4.9 4.5 2.3 3.5 2.85 3.4 Range 4 - 5 4-5 0-5 1-5 1-5 1 - 5 5 Ball Throwing Mean 4.0 3.75 2.5 2.5 2.8 2.9 Range 3 - 5 2 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 5 2 - 5 0 - 5 6 Ball Tracking Mean 4.7 4.95 2.95 3.7 3.55 4.45 Range 4 - 5 4-5 0-5 1-5 3-5 3 - 5 48

TABLE VII,(continued)

Group I (N) Group II (S) Group III(M) Pre test Posttest Pre test Posttest Pre test Posttest Level 11 1 Body Perception Mean 4.35 4.50 .10 .05 .25 .70 Range 4 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 2 0 - 1 0 - 4 0 - 5 2 Gross Agility Mean 4.45 4.45 .45 .50 1.15 1.10 Range 3 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 5 0 - 5 3 Balance Mean 3.05 2.70 .25 .05 .15 .15 Range 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 - 1 0 - 2 0 - 2 4 Locomotor Agility Mean 3.1 2.8 .2 .5 .05 .90 Range 0 - 4 0 - 4 0 - 4 0 - 5 0 - 1 0 - 3 5 Ball Throwing Mean 2.95 2.65 0 .35 .20 .55 Range 0 - 5 0 - 5 0 0 - 4 0 - 2 0 - 3 6 Ball Tracking Mean 1.2 1.7 .25 .35 .15 .35 Range 0 - 4 0 - 5 0 0 - 5 0 - 2 0 - 3

The post test means of Group I (N) show very little gain and in

some items the mean is lower than the pre test mean. In most items the

range is smaller indicating most children achieved at the higher range

of performance. j The post test meanB of Group 11 (S) show some gain in seven of the i I twelve items with the highest gain being evidenced with balance on

Level 1. The ranges for this group are larger indicating more

variability in performance. It could be speculated that warmer weather

and outside playground equipment accounted for the increased gain in 49 balance scores.

The post test means of Group III (M) show gain in nine of the twelve items with highest gains being evidenced with locomotor agility and ball tracking on Level I. As with Group II (S) the ranges are larger than Group I (N) indicating variability in performance. The motor regimen over a ten week period incorporated many activities involving locomotor agility and ball handling which could explain the increased means for these test items.

There is some evidence in the raw data tables (Appendix D) which indicate the normal children did improve in a few of the items. This may be attributed to pre training, environment, maturation or a combination of any of the three mentioned factors. Both Group II (S) and Group III (M) showed evidence of improved scores after training programs even though statistically one regimen was not shown to be better than the other. The primary factor which attributed to their improvement seems to be the increased attention and planned activities over a ten week period which are usually lacking in their daily lives at the Institution.

Because of the design of this study, it cannot be concluded whether the training programs were effective. Further studies would have to be conducted using a control group of retarded youngsters receiving no training program. If such a study were conducted, it would then show the value of a physical education program as compared to a music program or to no program at all. CHAPTER V

Summary and Conclusions

Summary

The primary purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of a physical education program on perceptual performance with trainable retarded children. Specifically, the study attempted to measure skills Involving body perception, gross agility, locomotor ability and agility, balance, ball throwing and ball tracking.

Three groups of twenty students each were used; the normal group consisting of twenty children (IN), and the two groups of mentally retarded which were given a training program were residents of Columbus

State Institute. The children within each of the three groups were matched, according to age and sex and the children within the two training groups were matched on I.Q. and etiology. One of the training groups received a musical regimen (II-S) and the other group a motor regimen (III-M).

Each group was administered six categories which included tests in the following areas:

1. Body perception was tested by directing the children to assume different body positions and to move various body parts.

2. Gross agility was tested by directing the children to change positions quickly.

50 51

3. Balance tests required the children to stand on one foot for certain lengths of time with arms at different positions. Most children evidenced Imbalance while attempting this task. Some physicians and psychologists have suggested that this "position of stress" is quite difficult for children and adults due to the disturbance of balance in relation to the sensory receptors of the skin.

4. Locomotor skills such as crawling, walking, hopping and jumping to test for locomotor agility.

5. Ball handling such as catching and throwing were tested.

6. Ball tracking was composed of a task which purported to evaluate the child's ability to anticipate and to react to a moving ball.

The task required the child to have above average fine motor skill in order to touch a small swinging ball. This writer witnessed difficulty in both the execution of the skill and the administration of the task.

A one-way analysis of variance was used to determine if the mean differences in the three groups were equal.

To determine if the training improved the scores of the two groups of retarded children, a "t" test for differences was done to test the hypothesis that the mean of the differences was equal to zero (training did not improve scores) against the alternative that the mean of the differences was greater than zero (training improved scores).

Conclusions

In general it appears that trained retarded and normal children responded similarly with respect to the difference in pre and post 52 test scores.

The evidence in this study indicates there is no difference between the two types of training programs. However, the physical education program increased the retarded childrens1 scores greater than the music regimen. Sex and etiology in no way affected the test scores.

Cratty?s (24) suggestion, "to properly evaluate and to improve the perceptual-motor ability of children one should provide a number of tasks involving balance, agility, hand-eye coordination and flex­ ibility," would support the motor treatment program of the twenty retarded children.

Even though W. Owens Corder's (18) study was designed to show

Intellectual- gains after a motor training program, he did report the eight retarded boys used as officials (and as controls for the Haw­ thorne effect) showed some improvement just by being present in a selective way. This tends to support the fact that the twenty retarded children who received the music regimen improved their scores as much as the motor group, possibly because of being selected to be in a select group; to be away from the wards and to be given added attention for a ten week period.

Because of the evidence of improved scores after training for the retarded groups, it would indicate that more activities involving motor skills would be extremely beneficial to institutionalized persons.

As previously stated in the review of literature, most previous investigations have utilized too few subjects in which to establish valid norms and that most previous studies have collected data from children classified as educable mentally retarded. 53

In taking these facts into consideration, this writer suggests further study be conducted with institutionalized retarded children.

In additional studies a longer training time would be advisable to eliminate the chance of the "novelty" factor affecting the findings.

It would also be more effective to have an additional group of re­ tarded youngsters pre and post tested but not receiving any training program to use as a control group.

It is further suggested that in future studies, subjects be comparable in intelligence quotient scores by means of a single,

individual intelligence test.

It is also suggested that further research be conducted to test

the reliability of Cratty's Test for Evaluating the Perceptual Motor

Attributes of Neurologically Handicapped and Retarded Children (24). APPENDIX A

TEST ADMINISTRATION

General Information

1. All children should be tested Individually In well-lighted rooms approximately 30 by 30 feet in size, with a ceiling about 9 feet in height. There should be no obstructions in the room. 2. Only the tester should be present, and administration time should be about thirty minutes, depending upon whether part or all of the second level is administered. 3. All tests should be described verbally and then demonstrated in exactly the same way the tester wishes the movement to be executed by the child. When it is indicated in testing direction, the tester may manually assist the desired movement. 4. The tester should follow the directions outlined for the adminis­ tration of each test as closely as possible. The child should be given every encouragement; and if he asks how he is doing he should be positively reinforced. 5. The initial test administered in Level I should be Ball Throwing, in order to gain rapport with the child. With this exception, the tests should be administered in the order given. 6. Each child should be first administered all tests in Level I. If his average score at this level is 4.0 or better, he should be adminis­ tered the tests in Level II. If any single test in Level I reaches a score of 5.0, he should be given the test in the corresponding category in Level II. Only five points are possible for each test at each level; total ten points per category. Sixty points possible in the total test. 7. When plotting the total score within a single category, the scores from Level I, and Level II should be combined on individual profile sheet. 8. The child should be brought into the room with the tester, intro­ duced, and informed that he will be "playing some games" with the tester for a few minutes." The word test should not be used.

Equipment

1. One rubber, air-filled playground ball, dark red in color, 8 1/2 Inches in diameter. 2. A solid, white, rubber softball containing a metal cleat so that it can be suspended by a white string. The ball should have a circumfer­ ence of 12 inches, and the string to it should be 18 inches in length. 3. A foam-plastic, canvas-covered mat, 4 by 6 feet, and 1 1/2 inches thick should be used. This mat should be marked off in 12 one-foot squares, as shown below. Alternate squares should be marked with diagonal lines, as shown, on one side of the mat. In the center of the 54 55 reverse side of the mat a black oilcloth square 2 by 2 feet should be placed when the target throw is evaluated. All of the tests except the pattern jumping should be given on this reverse side, and the black target should only be in place when the target throw is administered.

4. A clipboard and scoring sheets. 5. A stopwatch or a watch with a second hand. 6. The mat is Style 806, 4 by 6 feet, costing $2.30 per square foot, solid blue color. 7. The lines on the mat are made with one-inch, yellow Scotch tape, #471.

TEST ADMINISTRATION-LEVEL I

Level I-Test 1: Body Perception

Equipment: 4 by 6 foot mat. Preparation: The child should be placed, standing on the floor, with his toes against the mid-point of the 4-foot edge of the mat. The tester should stand next to the child, with his feet on the floor. General Considerations: The tester should describe and then demonstrate each movement, and then arise from the mat permitting the child to respond. The child should arise after each request and stand at the starting point described above. The child should be told "thank you" after attempting each movement. Testing; a. "______, please lie down on the mat like this on your front or stomach." (Tester then lies on his stomach, his head away from the 56 child, remains for two seconds, arises, and says, "Now try to do it too." Point is given if the child lies on his stomach regardless of whether or not head is turned away from or toward the tester. b. " , now please lie down on the mat like this on your back." Tester lies down slowly on his back, head away from the child, remains for two seconds, arises and then says, "Now try to do it too." c. " , now please lie down on the mat like this on your front or stomach, with your legs nearest me." Tester assumes lying position, with his legs nearest the child, arises and then says, "Now try to do it too." The tester should then go to the far end of the 4 foot side of the mat, and face the child with the mat between them. Point is awarded only if feet are nearest the tester and child is on his stomach. d. " , now please lie down on the mat on your side, like this..." Tester lies down on his left side, feet toward the child, arises, and then says, "Now you try to do it too." Point is awarded no matter which side the child chooses to lie upon, nor where the feet are relative to the tester. e. The tester should then say, "Now let me see you lie down on your left side." This should not be demonstrated. A 5th point is awarded in this category if the child correctly lies on his left side. Scoring: One point is given for correctly executing each of the requests. No points are deducted for a slowly executed response. Total of five points possible.

Level I-Test 2: Gross Agility

Equipment: 4 by 6 foot mat; stopwatch. Preparation; Child is asked to stand in the center of the mat facing a 4 foot side and the tester. Tester should be ten feet away. Then the child should be asked to lie down in the middle of the mat, his feet toward the tester. Instructions: After the child is in the above position, the tester should say, "I would like to see how fast you can stand up and face me." A stopwatch should be started as the child's head leaves the mat, and stopped as he has his knees straight as he assumes a standing position, facing the tester. If the child does not understand; the tester should demonstrate standing up rapidly. Scoring: 1 point if the child turns to his stomach first and then arises in more than 3 seconds. 2 points if the child turns to his stomach first and arises under three seconds. 3 points if the child sits up without turning over, and stands up without turning his back to the tester, but taking more than three seconds. 4 points if the child sits up, remains facing the tester when arising, and does so in two seconds. 5 points if the child sits up, remains facing the tester when arising, and does so under to seconds. Note: A second hand on the standard watch may be used in lieu of a stopwatch. Maximum of five points possible. 57

Level I-Test 3: Balance

Equipment: Stopwatch. Preparation: The tester should face the child on a level floor ten feet away. Instructions: After getting the child in this position the tester should say, "I would like to see how long you can stand on one foot like this." The tester should demonstrate balancing on his left foot, using his arms to assist him and should then say, "Now you try it too." Tester should demonstrate the held position for ten seconds. Scoring: 1 point if attempted and held for 1 second. 2 points if attempted and held from 2 to A seconds. 3 points if attempted and held from A to 6 seconds. A points if.attempted and held over 6 seconds. Second part: "Now let's see if you can balance on one foot with your arms folded, like this." Tester should demonstrate by posturing on one foot with arms folded across his chest for ten seconds. Scoring: Five points in this test if arm-folded balance is held from three to four seconds. Maximum of five points possible. Permit the child to remain balanced on both parts of this test for ten seconds, and then suggest that he stop. The scoring is not influ­ enced by the foot he decides to balance upon; however, it should be the same foot throughout.

Level I-Test A: Locomotor Agility

Equipment: A by 6 foot mat. Preparation: Ask the child to stand on the floor, with his feet touching the mat In the middle of one of its A-foot sides. The tester should place himself at the same end. Instructions: After the child is in place, the tester says, a. "______, let's see if you can crawl across the mat like this," Tester crawls on hands and knees in the correct pattern down the length of the mat away from the child, then toward the child, and then the tester says, "Now you try it too." One point scored if a correct cross-extension pattern is seen in the crawling movement. b. "_____ , let's see now if you can walk down the mat like this." Tester walks down the mat away from the child and then says, "Now let's see if you can do it too." Additional point is scored if cross-exten- sion pattern is seen in gait. c. "_____ , now can you jump across the mat like this?" Tester takes three to four jumps across the mat, using both feet together and proper arm lift as he travels and then says, "Now you try too." One point is scored if the child leaves the ground two to three times during trip down the mat. d. "_____ , now let's see you jump backwards down the mat like this." Tester, jumps backwards toward the child and then says, "Now let me see you do it." A point is given if the child can jump backwards two to three times without falling down, proceeding down the mat. He is permitted to look behind himself when executing this test. Tester 58

should return to the far end of the mat and await the child, stop him and prevent him from falling on the floor as he completes his trip. e. "______, now let's see you hop down the mat on one foot like this." Tester demonstrates one foot hopping, using his left foot across the mat away from the child and then says, "Now let me see you do it." One additional point is scored if child is able to hop on one foot (either one) from two to three times down the mat. Maximum of five points possible.

Level I-Test 5: Ball Throwing

Equipment; Rubber playground ball, 8 inches in diameter. Preparation; Ball is placed at the child's feet, tester faces the child, fifteen feet away. Testing; The child is asked to pick up the ball and throw it to the tester. The tester should say, "______, please pick up the ball and throw it to me." The tester should then execute a proper one- handed overhand throwing movement. And at the same time he should say, "Like this." The ball is rolled back to the child, and he should be permitted five throws. Scoring; 1 point is given if he pushes the ball with his hands or feet. 2 points are given if he throws the ball, either over­ hand or underhand, using both arms at the same time.' 3 points are given if the ball is thrown with one arm without any body shift into the throw. A points are given if the child throws with a weight shift forward of the body, without proper step on the opposite foot. 5 points are given if the child throws with a weight shift at the time the ball is released, and with a step with the opposite foot occurring at the same time. Give the child the proper score based upon the habital way he selected to throw the ball, i.e. the manner in which he throws it three out of five times. Maximum of five points possible.

Level I-Test 6; Ball Tracking

Equipment; 8 1/2 rubber, air-filled playground ball. Preparation; The child should face the tester ten feet away. The tester should hold the ball. Testing; The tester should then say, "Now I will bounce the ball to you; try to catch it any way you can." The tester then throws the ball so that it bounces once before the child gets it; the ball should bounce so that it comes chest high to the child. Two practice bounces are permitted to allot* the child and tester to become oriented to the problem. The tester should then say "Now do you understand? Catch it any way you can, with one or two hands." Five throws should then be made to the child, bouncing the ball once. The ball may be returned by the child any way he sees fit. About 59 five seconds should be permitted between throws. Scoring; Score one point for each time the ball is caught and controlled by the child. Maximum of five points possible.

TEST ADMINISTRATION-LEVEL II

Level II-Test I: Body Perception

Equipment: 4 by 6 foot mat. Preparation; The child is asked to lie on his back in the center of the mat, with his feet pointed toward the 4-foot end; the tester should stand at this end. Testing; The tester should say, "______, now I am going to ask you to do certain things with your arms and legs; please try to do them as quickly and as accurately as you can. First close your eyes." Then the tester should say, 1. "Raise you left arm in the air." Then the tester should wait until the child makes a decision and moves. Then the tester says, "Put your arm down now." 2. The tester should then say, "Raise your left leg up." The tester should wait until the leg is decided upon and moved and then say, "Put your leg down now," 3. The tester should then say, "Raise your right arm in the air." The tester should wait until the child selects an arm and raises it and should then say, "Put your arm down now." 4. The tester should then say, "Touch your left elbow with your right." After some movement is made, the tester should say, "Now bring your hand down again." 5. The tester should then say, "Touch your right knee with your left hand." After these movements are completed, the tester should ask the child to open his eyes and come to his feet. Scoring: One point is awarded for each correctly executed move­ ment. No points are deducted for slowly executed movements. If in numbers one through five, the movements are correct, but with wrong hand in every case, i.e. all movements backwards, a total of three points is awarded to the child for this test. Maximum of five points possible.

Level II-Test 2: Gross Agility

Equipment; 4 by 6 foot mat. Preparation; Child is placed in the center of the mat, standing and facing one of the six-foot edges. The tester stands ten feet away facing the child. Testing; "______, see if you can kneel down on one knee at a time, and then stand up on one leg at a time like this without touching anything." The tester then executes a four count, one to the second, movement kneeling first on one knee, then on the second, then standing on the first foot and arising on two feet. The tester says then, "Do you understand?" "Would you like to see it again?" If the child wishes 60

to see the movement again, the tester should do so; after this second demonstration, the tester should then say, "Now you try it too." Scoring: 1 point is awarded if the child uses his hands on his thighs and on the floor to assist him in descending and/or arising. 2 points are awarded if the child touches one or both hands to his thighs when ascending and descending, or if the child comes down to both knees at once, or gets to both feet at the same time. 3 points are awarded if the child uses one or both hands only while getting up or if he falls to one knee while arising. 4 points are awarded if the child executes movement without the use of the hands, but there is general unsteadiness, i.e. extra steps taken as the child resumes his feet, etc. 5 points are awarded if the child executes movement perfectly with the hands at the sides, not assisting the movement, and with the feet coming down and up separate­ ly- No points are deducted if the child comes up first with a different foot from the one kneeled upon. Maximum of five points possible.

Level II-Test 3: Balance

Equipment: Stopwatch. Preparation: Place the child in the standing position on a level floor and facing away from obstacles, with the tester ten feet away. Testing: After placing the subject in the position described above, the tester should say, a. "I would like to see if you can stand on one foot like this (the tester should fold his arms) with your arms folded for ten seconds." b. If the child can accomplish this for five seconds or more, the tester should say, "I would now like you to balance on one foot like this, with your arms at your sides and your eyes closed." c. If the child can accomplish this for five seconds or more, the tester should say, "I would like you to balance on one foot with your eyes closed and your arms folded like this." The tester should demon­ strate with eyes closed, an arm-folded, one-foot balance. d. If the child can accomplish this for five seconds, the tester should say, "Now try to balance on one foot with your eyes closed, arms held at your sides, but using the other foot this time." The tester should be aware of the foot preferred by the child and request that the opposite one be used. e. If the child can accomplish this for five seconds, the tester should say, "Now try to balance on the same foot (non-preferred) with your arms folded and your eyes closed." Scoring: One point is scored for each of the above tests completed successfully, i.e. held over five seconds. No points are given if the arms become unfolded if they are required to be folded, or if the child 61

opens his eyes when they are required to be closed. In each case the stopwatch should be started, or the second hand observed, as the foot leaves the ground and stopped when it touches the next time. "Arms at your sides," means that the child can use the arms for maintaining his balance in any way that is helpful. From ten to fifteen seconds rest should be permitted between trials. Maximum of five points possible.

Level II-Test 4: Locomotor Agility

Equipment; 4 by 6 foot mat laid out in 12 one-foot squares. Preparation; The child should face the tester at the far end of the middle of a 4-foot side. The tester should stand on the floor with his feet at the middle of the other end of the 4-foot side of the mat, facing the child. Testing; With the child and tester in the above positions, the tester should say, a. "Now let's see if you can jump down the mat like this." The tester then jumps taro feet at a time down the mat, moving straight ahead, and jumping carefully in all six squares. The tester should then say, "Now let's see you do it; be sure to jump In each square and move straight ahead." b. After this is attempted, the tester should say, "Now let's see you jump back and forth (using only the unmarked squares so that he jumps forward with each jump) like this." The tester should then say, "Now let's see you do it; be sure to jump only in the unmarked squares." c. After this is attempted, the tester should say, "Now let's see you jump backwards down the mat like this." The tester should jump directly backwards down the mat, using both feet, and landing in all six squares. The tester should then say, "Now let’s see you do it too; be sure to jump in all six squares." The child can be permitted to look backwards as he jumps. d. After this is attempted, the tester should say, "Now let’s see you hop down the mat like this." The tester should then hop on the mat straight ahead, using all six squares. The tester should then say, "Now let's see you do it. Jump in each square and move straight ahead." e. After this is attempted, the tester should say, "Now let's see you hop down the mat like this." The tester should then hop on one foot, hopping only in the unmarked squares, so that every hop moves him forward and from side to side. The tester should then say, "Now let's see you do it too; be sure only to hop in the unmarked squares." Scoring; One point is given for each successful trip, i.e. one with less than two errors in it. An error is scored when a foot (or feet) does not land in a square, when the second foot is touched when hopping on one foot, or when an extra step is taken in a square. Maximum of five points possible. Ten to fifteen seconds rest should be permitted between trips. Either foot may be used for hopping, but the same foot must be used for each trip. 62

Level II-Test 5: Ball Throwing

Equipment; Playground ball 8 1/2 inches in diameter. 4 by 6 foot mat with target side up. Preparation; The child should stand fifteen feet away from the 4-foot end of the mat. Testing: After the child has assumed the above position, the tester should stand next to him and throw the ball toward the mat's center on which is painted a 2 by 2 foot square "target." This should be done three times, and the tester should then say, "I would like you to take this ball and try to make it drop in the center of the mat. Do you understand?" If the child is aware of the nature of the task, he is permitted to throw, either overhand or underhand, with one or two hands, at the target five times. Scoring; 1 point is given if three attempts have hit the mat, but not the center target. 2 points are given if five attempts have hit the mat, but not the target. 3 points are given if two attemps have hit the target regardless where other throws have landed. 4 points are given if three attempts have hit the target, regardless where other throws have landed. 5 points are given if four or five throws land within the target. The child receives one of the scores above; highest score possible is five points.

Level II-Test 6: Ball Tracking

Preparation: The tester should face the child about two feet away; he should ask the child to extend his arm at the shoulder, fist clenched. He should then suspend the ball on the 15-inch string so that it hangs, when motionless at the level of the child's chin (top of the ball just under the chin) and a distance away determined by the length of the child's arm plus the clenched fist. The ball should then be suspended by the tester's left hand so that it hangs as described above. The ball should then be grasped with the tester's right hand, brought to a position which makes the string hori­ zontal, and released so that it swings from the child's left to right in a vertical plane, parallel to the one in which the child is standing. Testing: The tester should then permit the ball to swing back and forth in this manner six times and ask the child to watch it. The tester should then say, "See this ball swing back and forth? See if you can touch it with one finger like this (the tester holds the ball motionless with one hand and uses the opposite index finger on the ball touching it quickly with the tip of the opposite index finger) as it passes by you." The tester should then hang the ball in front of the child and make sure that he starts his movement from his side, and that the touch is made directly in front of the child. 63

The tester should start the ball five times, allowing it to swing past the child three times after each release. As soon as the child touches it or attempts to, or the hand is extended and the ball comes back on it, and stops, the ball is stopped by the tester and started again. Scoring; Score one point (maximum five) for each time during each of the five sets of three swings each that the child is able to touch the ball. Make sure that no score is given if the ball touches the hand, i.e. as it swings back to the extended hand after a "miss" has occurred. 64 TEST BATTERY - SCORE SHEET

(Examiner) (Subject No.)

(Adm. No.) (Date)

(Name) (Age) (Sex)

Motor Problems? ______Diagnosed as ______yes-no

Degree of Retardation I.Q.

SCORES LEVEL I LEVEL IX

Test 1: Body Perception Body Perception

a. stomach-front ____ a. left a r m ______b. back ____ b. left leg ______c. stomach legs ____ c. right ar m ______. d. nearest tester side ____ d. left elbow ______e. left-side ___ e. left knee ______Total Score ______Total Score ______

Test 2: Gross Agility (quick get ups) Gross Agility (knee and rise)

Total Points ______Total Points ______Test 3: Balance (eyes open) Balance: (arms folded, eyes closed) Total Points ______Total Points ______|______Test 4: Locomotor Agility (crawl-hop) Locomotor Agility (pattern jump-hop) Total Points Total Points . ... Test 5: Ball Throwing (form) Bail Throwing (at target) Total Points ______Total Points ______Test 6: Ball Tracking (catching) Ball Tracking (swinging a ball) Total Points ) Total Points

Level I ______Level I I ______

Average Score: Level I __ Average Score: Level II ______

Total Score, Total Battery

Average Score, Total'Battery APPENDIX B

Treatment Programs

Treatment TC

The activities presented during the motor treatment program were designed by this writer as being most appropriate on the basis o£ previous experience and comparable to similar movements used during the execution of the test items. Each session was conducted three times a week; Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays for thirty-forty minutes per session.

March 13, 14, 15

1. Crawling on a line 2. Walking on a line a. Forward b. Backward 3. Identification of Body Parts a. Swinging arms like an elephant b. Making arm movements like an airplane c. Making movements like a kangaroo d. Raising right arm, left arm e. Lifting right leg, left leg 4. Jumping on a line a. Forward b. Backward 5. Hopping on a line a. Forward b. Backward 6. Circling to the left and to the right

65 66

March 20, 21, 22

1. Crawling on a line 2. Walking on a line 3. Hopping Co form a circle a. Hop into circle b. Hop back out of circle c. Hop to one side d. Hop to other side 4. Body Parts Identification - "Hokey Pokey" 5. Hoop Activity a. Circling with one arm b. Circling with other arm c. Circling with right foot d. Circling with left foot e. Circling around the waist 6. Crawling through hoops (individually) 7. Marching through hoops 8. Walking on the balance beam 9. Balancing on beam; hopping to steps; walking up and down steps; walking a line back to beam

March 27, 28, 29

1. Rolling ball to a partner (sitting); rolling ball back to a partner (sitting) 2. Rolling ball to partner (standing); rolling ball back to partner (standing) 3. Bouncing ball to partner (standing); bouncing ball back to partner (standing) 4. Ball chase - rolling ball forward and returning 5. Throw and Catch a. Throwing with one hand b. Body weight shift (opposite foot forward) c. Catching ball d. Returning the ball to partner 6. Bounce and Catch (individual) 7. Individual hoop work

April 3, 4, 5

1. Body Parts Identification - "Hokey Pokey" 2. Circle Activities a. Hopping on one foot b. Hopping on other foot c. Hopping forward ■d. Hopping backward e. Jumping on two feet f. Jumping forward .g. Jumping backward 67

3. Balance a. Balance on one foot b. Balance on other foot 4. Obstacle course a. Crawling across mat b. Walking on balance beam c. Walking up and down stairs d. Walking and/or swinging through bars (repeated from beginning) 5. Free play with toys and slide

April 10, 11, 12

(Same as previous week except 5)

5. Free play with toys, slide, hoops and balls

April 18, 19, 20

1. Rolling ball to a partner (sitting) Bouncing ball to a partner (sitting) 2. Rolling ball to a partner (standing) Bouncing ball to a partner (standing) Throwing ball to a partner (standing) 3. Throwing ball overhanded Throwing ball through a hoop Throwing ball at a target 4. Individual work with hoops 5. Individual work with balance boards

April 25, 26, 27

1. Body Farts Identification - "Hokey Pokey" 2. Individual work on jumping and hopping a. Forward b. Backward c. All around the room 3. Hopscotch (hopping and jumping) (two designs)

(using two feet in each square) (using one foot and then two) 68

4. Walking on foot prints (varying distance to encourage walking, slow runningi_— — % /---

5. Walking COon balance beam ^ ^ CX ^ May 1, 2, 3 % 1. Body Farts Identification - "Hokey Pokey" 2. Balance a. Balance on one foot b. Balance on other foot 3. Obstacle Course a. Crawling through chair maze b. Walking on balance beam c. Jumping over board d. Crawling through hoops (repeat) 4. Free play - slide

May 8, 9, 10

1. Bean Bag Activities a. Throwing bean bags to a partner b. Throwing bean bags in the air and catching c. Throwing bean bags through hoops d. Walking with bean bags on head (1) Forward (2) Backward (3) All around the room 2. Hoop Activities a. Walking around on hoop moving sideways b. Walking around on hoop moving forward c. Walking hoops with bean bags on head d. Individual play with hoops 3. Agility Activities - quick get ups a* From squat position b. From sitting position c. From lying position

May 15, 16, 17

1. Working with balls a. Throwing to a partner -b. Bouncing to a partner c. Throwing at a target d. Throwing up into the air e. Throwing through a hoop 69

2. Body Farts Identification - "Hokey Pokey" 3. Agility Activities - quick get ups a. From squat position b. From sitting position c. From lying position 4. Free play with toys, slide and balls

Treatment II

This treatment program consisted of music activities to control

for the Hawthorne Effect. Each session was conducted three times a week; Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday for thirty minutes per session.

1. With guitar accompaniment a. Sounds of Silence b. Peelin' Groovy c. Cum Bia My Lord d. Don't Let the Sun Catch You Crying e. California Dreaming f. What's Your Name g. Hey, Little Girl h. Gloria i. Kansas City j. If I Had a Hammer k. Eve of Destruction 1. House of the Rising Sun m. Little Red Riding Hood n. Scarborough Fair

Tape Recordings a. Where Have All the Flowers Gone? b. Go Tell It On the Mountain c. Act Naturally

Without Accompaniment If You're Happy b. This Old Man c. Teensi Weensi Spider d. I'm a Little Teapot e. Head, Shoulders, Knees, Toes f. The People on the Bus g. Old MacDonald h. Ohio State Marching Band Fight Song i. Musical instruments playing their own music APPENDIX C

Description of Subjects Group I (N) Group II (S) Group III (M) Ages Male Female Male Female Male Female 6 1 0 0 0 1 0 7 0 0 3 0 0 0 8 1 1 1 0 1 1 9 2 2 1 1 4 1 10 4 2 1 2 2 2 11 3 I 3 2 4 2 12 2 1 4 2 1 1

I.Q.

30-34 7 1 5 3 35-39 2 0 2 0 40-44 1 3 3 1 45-49 1 2 0 2 50-54 2 1 3 1

100-104 3 0 105-109 0 0 110-114 1 2 115-119 3 1 120-124 1 3 125-129 2 1 130-134 1 0

70 APPENDIX D

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: ______Rhoda______Age: 12

Sex: F______!.

Group: I(N)______

Pre Test Post Test Level I Level II Level I Level II

Body Perception 4 5 5 5

Gross Agility 5 5 5 5

Balance 5 2 5 0

Locomotor Agility 5 2 5 3

Ball Throwing 4 3 4 2

Ball Tracking 5 17 f

Ball Catching 5 2

Total 28 34 29 17

71 72

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: ______Denise_____ Age: 11

Sex: F I.Q.: 127

Group: I(N)

Pre Test Post Test Level I______Level II______Level I______Level II

Body Perception 5 A 5 5

Gross Agility 5 5 5 5

Balance 5 1 5 3

Locomotor Agility 5 A 5 5

Ball Throwing A 2 A 0

Ball Tracking 5 0 5 0

Total 29 16 29 18 73

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: ______Peggy______Age: 10

Sex: F I.Q.: 122

Group: I(N)

Pre Test Post Test Level I Level II Level I Level II

Body Perception 5 5 5 4

Gross Agility 4 4 5 5

Balance 5 3 5 5

Locomotor Agility 5 5 5 3

Ball Throwing 4 3 3 1

Ball Tracking 5 0 5 0

Total 28 20 28 18 74

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: Deborah Age: 9

Sex: F______I.Q.: 110

Group: I(N)______

Pre Test Post Test Level I Level II______Level I______Level II

Body Perception 5 1 5 5

Gross Agility 5 5 5 5

Balance 5 1 5 5

Locomotor Agility 5 3 4 3

Ball Throwing 4 3 4 2

Ball Tracking 5 13

Ball Catching 5 1

Total 29 26 28 21 75

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: Susan Age: 9_____

Sex: F X.Q.: 124

Group: I(N)

Pre Teat Post Test Level I Level II Level I Level II

Body Perception 4 5 4 5

Gross Agility 5 5 5 5

Balance 5 5 5 5

Locomotor Agility 5 3 5 3

Ball Throwing 4 2 5 3

Ball Tracking 5 4

Ball Catching 5 3

Total 28 24 29 24 76

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: Terri______Age:

Sex: F I.Q.: 122

Group: I(N)______

Pre Test Post Test Level I______Level II______Level I______Level II

Body Perception 5 4 5 4

Gross Agility 4 5 5 5

Balance 5 5 5 5

Locomotor Agility 5 5 4 3

Ball Throwing 3 3 5 3

Ball Tracking

Ball Catching 5 22 5 0

Total 27 44 29 20 77

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: ______Rebecca______Age:

Sex: F______I.Q.: 117

Group: I(N)______

Pre Test Post Test Level I Level II Level I Level II

Body Perception 3 0 4 5

Gross Agility 4 0 5 5

Balance 5 5 5 1

Locomotor Agility 4 0 4 0

Ball Throwing 2 0 3 0

Ball Tracking 5 5 5 2

Total 23 10 26 13 78

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: Werner Age: 12

Sex: M I.Q.: 102

Group: I(N)

Pre Test Post Test Level I______Level IX______Level I Levelll

Body Perception 4 5 5 5

Gross Agility 5 5 5 5

Balance 5 1 5 1

Locomotor Agility 5 4 4 4

Ball Throwing 4 2 3 4

Ball Tracking 5 0 5 1

Total 28 17 27 20 79

Raw Bata

Scoresheet

Name: ______David Age: 12

Se* : M I.Q.: 117

Group: I(N)_____

Pre Test Post Test Level I______Level II______Level I______Level II

Body Perception 5 5 5 5

Gross Agility 5 3 5 5

Balance 5 5 5 4

Locomotor Agility 5 3 4 1

Ball Throwing 4 4 4 2

Ball Tracking 5 21

Ball Catching 5 3

Total 29 41 28 20 80

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: ______Woody Age: 11

Sex: M______I.Q.: 103

Group: IftO

Pre Test Post Test Level I Level II Level I Level II

Body Perception 5 5 5 5

Gross Agility 5 5 5 5

Balance 5 2 5 0

Locomotor Agility 5 3 4 3

Ball Throwing 4 3 3 4

Ball Tracking 5 13

Ball Catching 5 0

Total 29 31 27 17 81

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: Mark Age: 11

Sex: M I*Q*: 123

Group: I(N)

Pre Test Post Test Level I Level II Level I Level II

Body Perception

Gross Agility

Balance

Locomotor Agility

Ball Throwing

Ball Tracking

Total 20 82

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: Steve______Age: 11

Sex: M I.Q. 106

Group: I(N)

Ere Test Post Test Level I______Level II______Level I______Level II

Body Perception 5 5 5 5

Gross Agility 5 5 4 5

Balance 5 3 5 4

Locomotor Agility 5 0 4 2

Ball Throwing 4 5 4 5

Ball Tracking 5 19

Ball Catching 5 0

Total 29 37 27 21 ’ 83

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: Eddie ______Age: 10

Sex: M I.Q. 126

Group: I(N)

Pre Test Post Test Level I______Level II______Level I____ Level II

Body Perception 4 5 4 5

Gross Agility 5 5 5 5

Balance 5 4 5 4

Locomotor Agility 5 4 5 4

Ball Throwing 5 3 4 4

Ball Tracking 5 2 5 4

Total 29 23 28 26 84

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: Robert Age: 10

Sex: M I.Q.: 130

Group: I(N)

Pre Test Post Test Level I Level II Level I Level II

Body Perception 5 5 5 5

Gross Agility 5 5 5 5

Balance 5 5 5 5

Locomotor Agility 5 2 5 3

Ball Throwing 4 3 5 5

Ball Tracking 5 3 5 1

Total 29 23 30 24 85

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: ______Mark Age: 10

Sex: M I.Q.: 115

Group: I(N)

Pre Test Post Test Level I Level II Level I Level II

Body Perception 5 5 5 5

Gross Agility 5 5 4 5

Balance 5 1 5 4

Locomotor Agility 5 3 5 3

Ball Throwing 4 3 3 4

Ball Tracking 5 3 5 3

Total 29 20 27 24 86

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: Mike Age: 10

Sex: M I.Q.: 109

Group: I (N)

Pre Test Post Test Level I Level II______Level I______Level II

Body Perception 3 5 3 5

Gross Agility 5 5 5 0

Balance 5 5 5 1

Locomotor Agility 5 4 5 4

Ball Throwing 5 5 5 5

Ball Tracking 5 4 5 4

Total 28 28 28 19 I

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: Heath Age: 9

Sex: M I.Q.: 113

Group: I N)

Pre Test Post Test Level I Level II Level I Level II

Body Perception 5 5 5 5

Gross Agility 5 3 5 5

Balance 5 3 5 A

Locomotor Agility 5 A A A

Ball Throwing A A 2 0

Ball Tracking 5 2 5 1

Total 29 21 26 19 88

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: Jim______Age:

Sex: M I.Q.: 116

Group: I (N)

Pre Test Post Test Level 1______Level II Level I Level II

Body Perception 5 5 5 5

Gross Agility 5 3 5 4

Balance 5 5 5 0

Locomotor Agility 4 3 4 3

Ball Throwing 4 4 3 0

Ball Tracking 5 1 5 4

Total 28 21 27 16 89

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: Danny Age: 8

Sex: M I.Q.: 101

Group: I (N)

Pre Test Post Test Level I Level II Level I Level II

Body Perception

Gross Agility

. Balance

Locomotor Agility

Ball Throwing

Ball Tracking

Total 90

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: Michael Age: 6

Sex M I.Q. 125

Group: I (N)

Pre Test Post Test Level I Level II Level I Level II

Body Perception 2 4 5 3

Gross Agility 5 3 5 5

Balance 4 1 4 0

Locomotor Agility 4 1 4 0

Ball Throwing 4 2 2 0

Ball Tracking 4 1 4 0

Total 23 12 24 8 91

Raw Data '

Scoresheet

Name: Andrianne Age: 11

Sex: F I.Q.: 44

Group: II(S)

Pre Test Post Test Level I Level II Level I Level II

Body Perception 1 0 3 0

Gross Agility 0 0 2 0

Balance 0 0 0 0

Locomotor Agility 0 0 2 0

Ball Throwing 1 0 0 0

Ball Tracking 2 0

Ball Catching 1 0

Total 4 ; 0 8 0 92

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: ______Penny Age: 12

Sex: F I.Q.: 50

Group: II(S)

Pre Test Post Test Level I Level II Level I Level II

Body Perception 3 0 3 0

Gross Agility 1 0 0 0

Balance 0 0 0 0

Locomotor Agility 0 0 2 0

Ball Throwing 2 0 1 0 Ball Tracking 2 0 Ball Catching 4 0

Total 8 0 10 0 93

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: Jamie Age:

Sex: I.Q.: A3

Group: IKS)

Pre Test Post Test Level I Level II Level I Level II

Body Perception

Gross Agility

Balance

Locomotor Agility

Ball Throwing

Ball Tracking

Ball Catching

Total 94

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: ______Tammy Age: 10

Sex: F I.Q.: 49

Group: II(S)

Pre Test Poet Test '. Levd. I______Level II______Level I______Level II

Body Perception 3 0 1 0

Gross Agility 4 0 3 0

Balance 1 0 0 0

Locomotor Agility 4 0 4 0

Ball Throwing 0 0 1 0

Ball Tracking 3 0

Ball Catching 3 0

Total 15 0 12 0 95

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: Connie Age: 12

Sex: F I.Q.: 49

Group: II(S)______

Pre Test Post Test Level I Level II Level I Level II

Body Perception 4 0 3 0

Gross Agility 0 0 1 0

Balance 0 0 0 0

Locomotor Agility 2 0 2 0

Ball Throwing 4 0 2 0

Ball Tracking 3 0 5 0

Total 13 0 13 0 96

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: Chris Age: 11

Sex* F I.Q.: 30

Group: 1I(S)

Pre Test Post Test Level I Level II Level I Level II

Body Perception 2 0 3 0

Gross Agility 0 0 2 0

Balance 0 0 0 0

Locomotor Agility 2 0 2 0

Ball Throwing 2 0 3 0

Ball Tracking 3 0

Ball Catching 5 0

Total 9 0 15 0 97

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: Dixie Age: 10

Sex: F_____ I.Q.: 40

Group: II (S)______

Pre Test P o B t Test Level I Level II Level I Level II

Body Perception 2 0 3 0

Gross Agility 0 0 2 0

Balance 1 0 0 0

Locomotor Agility 2 0 3 0

Ball Throwing 3 0 1 0

Ball Tracking 3 0

Ball Catching 3 0

Total 11 0 12 0 98

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: ______Bruce Age: 11

Sex; M I.Q.: 33

Group: II (S)

Pre Test Post Test Level I Level II Level I Level II

Body Perception 0 0 3 0

Gross Agility 0 0 0 0

Balance 0 0 0 0

Locomotor Agility 1 0 1 0

Ball Throwing 0 0 2 0

Ball Tracking 2 0

Ball Catching 2 0

Total 3 0 8 0 99

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: James Age: 12

Sex; M X.Q.: 50

Group: II(S)

Pre Test Post Test Level I______Level II______Level I______Level II

Body Perception 5 2 4 0

Gross Agility 5 5 5 0

Balance 5 5 5 0

Locomotor Agility 5 4 5 2

Ball Throwing 4 0 5 3

Ball Tracking 5 4 5 5

Total 29 20 29 10 100

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: Ronald______Age:

Sex: M I.Q.: 45

Group: II(S)

Pre Test Post Test Level I______Level II______Level I______Level II

Body Perception 2 0 3 1

Gross Agility 3 0 4 3

Balance 2 0 4 0

Locomotor Agility 3 0 5 2

Ball Throwing 2 0 3 0

Ball Tracking 4 0

Ball Catching 5 0

Total 16 0 24 6 101

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: Cornelius Age: 7

Sex: M _____ I.Q.: 37

Group: II(S)

Pre Test Post Test Level I Level II Level I Level II

Body Perception 2 0 0 0

Gross Agility 3 0 1 0

Balance 0 0 0 0

Locomotor Agility 0 0 1 0

Ball Throwing 1 0 3 0

Ball Tracking' 2 0

Ball Catching 4 0

Total 8 0 9 0 102

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: Vernon Age: 12

Sex: M I.Q.: 34

Group: II(S)

Pre Test Post Test Level I Level II Level I Level II

Body Perception 2 0 3 0

Gross AGility 4 0 1 0

Balance 1 0 1 0

Locomotor Agility 2 0 5 1

Ball Throwing 2 0 1 0

Ball Tracking 5 0

Ball Catching 5 0

Total 16 0 16 1 103

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: Dave Age: 12

Sex : ______M______I.Q.: 43

Group: II(S)______

Pre Test Post Test Level I Level II Level I Level II

Body Perception 3 0 3 0

Gross Agility 3 0 3 0

Balance 1 0 2 0

Locomotor Agility 2 0 4 0

Ball Throwing 2 0 1 0

Ball Tracking 0 0

Ball Catching 5 0

Total 11 0 18 0 104

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: Larry______Age: 11

Sex; M I.Q.: 50

Group: 1I(S)______

Pre Test Post Test Level I Level II______Level I______Level II

Body Perception 4 0 3 0

Gross Agility 5 4 5 3

Balance 4 0 2 1

Locomotor Agility 5 3 5 5

Ball Throwing 2 0 5 4

Ball Tracking 4 0

Ball Catching 5 5

Total 24 7 25 18 105

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: Robert Age: 8

Sex: _____ 2 X.Q.: 30

Group: II(S)_____

Pre Test Post Test Level I Level IX Level I Level II

Body Perception 3 0 3 0

Gross Agility 3 0 2 ~ 0

Balance 1 0 5 0

Locomotor Agility 5 0 4 0

Ball Throwing 2 0 1 0

Ball Tracking 4 0 3 0

Total 18 0 18 0 106

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: Tim______Age:

Sex: M I.Q.: 30

Group: II(S)_____

Pre Test Post Test Level I Level II Level I Level II

Body Perception

Gross Agility

Balance

Locomotor Agility

Ball Throwing

Ball Tracking

Total 107

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: Steve Age: 12

Sex: M I.Q.: 30

Group: II(S)

Pre Test Post Test Level I Level II Level I Level II

Body Perception

Gross Agility

Balance

Locomotor Agility

Ball Throwing

Ball Tracking

Ball Catching

Total 108

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name; ______Fred______Age: 11

Sex: M I.Q.: ____ 37.

Group: IX (S)

Pre Test Post Test Level I______Level II______Level I______Level II

Body Perception 4 0 3 0

Gross Agility 3 0 2 0

Balance 4 0 1 0

Locomotor Agility 4 0 4 0

Ball Throwing 2 0 4 0

Ball Tracking 5 0 5 0

Total 22 0 19 0 109

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: Jeff______Age: 10____

Sex: M I.Q.i 31

Group: II (S)

Pre Test Post Test Level I______Level II______Level I______Level II

Body Perception 4 0 3 0

Gross Agility 3 0 5 A

Balance 2 0 3 0

Locomotor Agility 4 0 5 0

Ball Throwing 5 0 A 0

Ball Tracking 5 0

Ball Catching 3 0

Total 23 0 23 A 110

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: John Age: 9

Sex: M I.Q.: 30

Group: IX (S)

Pre Test Post Test Level I Level II Level I Level II

Body Perception 3 0 3 0

Gross Agility 3 0 3 0

Balance 2 0 5 0

Locomotor Agility 3 0 4 0

Ball Throwing 5 0 1 0

Ball Tracking 4 0 4 0

Total 20 0 20 0 Ill

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: Richard Age: 6_

Sex: M I.Q.: 41

Group: III 00

Pre Test Post Test - Level I Level II______Level I Level II

Body Perception 3 0 3 1

Gross Agility 3 0 3 0

Balance 0 0 2 0

Locomotor Agility 1 0 3 0

Ball Throwing 2 0 2 0

Ball Tracking 3 0

Ball Catching 4 0

Total 12 0 17 0 112

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: Jo______Age: 10

Sex: M I.Q.s 35

Group: i l l (M)

Pre Test Post Test Level 1 Level I Level I Level II

Body Perception 3 0 3 1

Gross Agility 2 0 3 2

Balance 3 0 5 0

Locomotor Agility 2 0 5 3

Ball Throwing 5 0 4 1

Ball Tracking 5 0

Ball Catching 5 0

Total 20 0 25 7 113

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: Jim______Age: 10

Sex: M_____ I.Q.: 50

Group: III (M)

Pre Test Post Test Level x Level II Level I Level II

Body Perception 4 0 3 0

Gross AGlllty 3 0 3 0

Balance 5 0 2 0

Locomotor Agility 4 0 5 2

Ball Throwing 4 0 3 0

Ball Tracking 4 0

Ball Catching 4 0

Total 24 0 20 2 114

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: Richard Age: 11

Sex: M I.Q.: 32_

Group: III(M)_____

Pre Test Post Test Level I f; Level II______Level I ______Level II

Body Perception 3 0 3 0

Gross Agility 5 3 5 4

Balance 5 1 3 0

Locomotor Agility 5 0 5 3

Ball Throwing 2 0 4 1

Ball Tracking 5 1

Ball Catching 4 2

Total 25 5 24 10 115

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: ______Mike Age: 11

Sex: M I.Q.: AO

Group: III(M)

Pre Test Post Test Level I______Level XI Level I______Level II

Body Perception 4 0 4 0

Gross Agility 5 2 4 0

Balance 2 0 1 0

Locomotor Agility 5 0 4 0

Ball Throwing 3 0 4 0

Ball Tracking 4 0

Ball Catching 4 0

Total 23 2 21 0 1X6

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: Kim Age: 12

Sex: M I.Q.: 34

Group: III(M)______

Pre Test Post Test Level I______Level II______Level I_____ Level II

Body Perception 3 0 4 0

Gross Agility 5 4 5 4

Balance 0 0 2 0

Locomotor Agility 5 1 ■ 5 2

Ball Throwing 2 0 5 3

Ball Tracking 5 0 5 0

Total 20 5 26 9 117

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: James Age: 9

Sex: M i.Q.s 40

Group: III(M)

Pre Test Post Test Level I______Level II______Level I Level II

Body Perception 3 0 3 1

Gross Agility 3 0 2 1

Balance 2 0 5 0

Locomotor Agility 5 0 5 2

Ball Throwing 5 2 5 3

Ball Tracking 0 0 5 0

Total 18 2 25 7 118

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: Andrew Age: ____ 8_

Sex: M I.Q.: 50

Group:

Pre Test Post Test Level I Level II Level I Level II

Body Perception 4 0 3 0

Gross Agility 3 0 1 0

Balance 2 0 1 0

Locomotor Agility 2 0 2 0

Ball Throwing 2 0 2 0

Ball Tracking 5 0

Ball Catching 4 0

Total 18 0 13 0 Ii i 119

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: Daniel Age: 9_

Sex: M I.Q.: 36

Group: III(M)_____

Pre Test Post Test Level I Level II Level I Level II

Body Perception 3 0 3 0

Gross Agility 5 3 4 0

Balance 0 0 1 0

Locomotor Agility 0 0 4 0

Ball Throwing 5 2 4 0

Ball Tracking 4 0 4 0

Total 17 5 20 0 120

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: ______Athy Age: 9

Sex: M I.Q.: _ 31

Group: III 00

Pre Test Post Test Level I Level II Level I Level II

Body Perception 2 0 3 0

Gross Agility 0 0 4 0

Balance 1 0 0 0 locomotor Agility 1 0 3 0

Ball Throwing 2 0 2 0

Ball Tracking 3 0

Ball Catching 5 0

Total 9 0 17 0 121

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: ______Paul Age: 11

Sex: M I.Q.: 50

Group: III(M)

Pre Test Post Test Level I______Level II Level I______Level II

Body Perception 3 0 4 3

Gross Agility 2 0 5 3

Balance 2 0 0 0

Locomotor Agility 3 0 3 0

Ball Throwing 2 0 3 0

Ball Tracking 4 0

Ball Catching 5 0

Total 16 0 20 6 122

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: Mike______,___ Age: 11

Sex: M______I.Q.: 31

Group: III (M)______

Fre Test Post Test Level I Level II Level I Level II

Body Perception 3 0 2 0

Gross Agility 4 2 3 0

Balance 2 0 0 0

Locomotor Agility 5 0 2 0

Ball Throwing 5 0 1 0

Ball Tracking 5 0

Ball Catching 5 0

Total 24 2 13 0 123

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: William Age: 9

Sex: M_ I.Q.: 32

Group: III (M)

Pre Test Post Test Level I Level II Level I Level II

Body Perception 3 0 2 0

Gross Agility 5 0 4 0

Balance 5 0 5 0

Locomotor Agility 3 0 4 0

Ball Throwing 3 0 2 0

Ball Tracking 4 0

Ball Catching 5 0

Total 23 0 22 0 124

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: Joan Age: 9

Sex: F X.Q.: 30

Group: III(M)______

Pre Test Post Test Level I Level II Level I Level II

Body Perception 0 0 3 0

Gross Agility 0 0 1 0

Balance 0 0 0 0

Locomotor Agility 0 0 3 0

Ball Throwing 0 0 2 0

Ball Tracking 0 0

Ball Catching 5 0

Total 0 0 14 0 125

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: ______Lorraine______Age: 10

Sex: F I.Q.: ______30

Group: III (M)______

Pre Test Post Test Level I Level II Level I Level II

Body Perception 1 0 1 0

Gross Agility 2 0 0 0

Balance 0 0 0 0

Locomotor Agility 0 0 1 0

Ball Throwing 2 0 0 0

Ball Tracking 5 0

Ball Catching 3 0

Total 10 0 5 0 126

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: ______Natalie______Age: 12

Sex: F_____ I.Q.: 46

Group: III (M)

Pre Test Post Test Level I______Level II Level I Level II

Body Perception 4 0 4 5

Gross Agility 1 0 2 0

Balance 1 0 0 0

Locomotor Agility 3 0 3 0

Ball Throwing 2 0 3 0

Ball Tracking 3 0

Ball Catching 5 0

Total 14 0 17 5> 127

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: Janice______Age: 11

Sex: F I.Q.: 45

Group: III(M)

Fre Test Post Test level I______Level II______Level I______Level II

Body Perception 4 0 4 2

Gross Agility 1 0 3 0

Balance 1 0 1 0

Locomotor Agility 3 0 4 0

Ball Throwing 3 0 3 0

Ball Tracking 3 0

Ball Catching 5 0

Total 15 0 20 2 128

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: Tammy Age: 8

Sex: I.Q.: 33

Group: III(M)

Pre Test Post Test Level I Level II Level I Level II

Body Perception

Gross Agility

Balance

Locomotor Agility

Ball Throwing

Ball Tracking

Ball Catching

Total

v 129

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: Charlotte Age: 11

Sex: F I.Q.: 44

Group: III(M)

Pre Test Post Test Level I Level 11 Level I Level II

Body Perception 5 1 4 1

Gross Agility 5 5 5 5

Balance 5 2 5 2 Locomotor Agility 5 0 5 3 Ball Throwing 2 0 4 3

Ball Tracking 5 2

Ball Catching 5 3

Total 27 10 28 17 130

Raw Data

Scoresheet

Name: Shirley______Age: 10_

Sex: F I.Q.: _____ 50

Group: III(M)______

Pre Test Post Test Level I______Level II_____ Level I______Level II

Body Perception 4 4 4 1

Gross Agility 5 4 4 3

Balance 4 0 4 1

Locomotor Agility 5 0 5 3

Ball Throwing 2 0 5 0

Ball Tracking 4 0

Ball Catching 5 2

Total 24 8 27 10 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbott, Robert E. "A Report of the Waukegan Early Evaluation Program" State of Illinois: District #61. Results not published.

Abercrombie, M. L. J., P. A. Gardiner, E. Hanson, J. Linda Jonckheere, G. Solomon, and M. C. Tyson. "Visual Perception and Visumotor Impairment in Physically Handicapped Children," Perceptual Motor Skills. Monograph Supplement, 1964, pp. 3-18.

Abshler, Mildred and Robert Carroll. "To Play Is The Thing," Journal of Health. Physical Education and Recreation. (April, 1966), pp. 33-34.

Assmussen, E. and K. Heeb el-Nielsen. "Physical Performance and Growth in Children: Influence of Sex, Age, and Intelli­ gence," Journal of Applied Psychology. 8:4 (January, 1956), pp. 371-80.

Ausubel, David P. "A Critique of Piaget's Theory of the Ontogenesis of Motor Behavior," Journal of Genet Psychology. 109 (1966), pp. 119-122.

Ayres, A. Jean. "Patterns of Perceptual-Motor Dysfunction in Children: A Factor Analytic Study," Monogram Supplement 1-20 (1965).

Bayley, Nancy. "Comparisons of Mental and Motor Test Scores for Ages One-Fifteen Months by Sex, Birth Order, Race, Geograph­ ical Location and Education of Parents," Child Development. 36 (1965), pp. 379-411,

Beaber, James D. "The Performance of Educable Mentally Handicapped and Intellectually Normal Children on Selected Tasks Involv­ ing Simple Motor Performance," Doctoral Dissertation, Syracuse University, 1960, pp. 146, as reported by G. Orville Johnson in Psychology of Exceptional Children and Youth by William Cruickshank. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1963.

Belmont, L. and H. Birch. "Lateral Dominence, Lateral Awareness and Reading Disability," Child Development. 36 (1965), pp. 57-71. 132

10. Benoit, J. Paul. "Extending the Mind Through the Body," American Journal of Health, Physical Education and Recreation. (April, 1966), pp. 28-30.

11. Benton, Arthur L. "Evaluation and diagnosis," Mental Retardation? A Review of Research by Stevens and Heber. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964, p. 37.

12. Benyon, Sheila Doran. Intensive Programming For Slow Learners. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Publishing Company, 1968.

13. Boles, G. "Personality Factors in Mothers of Cerebral Palsied Children," Genet Psychology Monogram, 59 (1959), p. 159.

14. Brown, Roscoe C. "The Effects of a Perceptual-Motor Education Program on Perceptual-Motor Skills and Reading Readiness," Speech presented to Research Section, American Association of Health. Physical Education and Recreation Convention, St. Louis, Missouri, April 1, 1968.

15. Cantor, 6. N. and W. L. Stacey. "Manipulative Dexterity in Mental Defectives," American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 56 (1951) pp. 401-10, as reported by Arthur L. Benton in Mental Retardation: A Review of Research by Stevens and Heber. Chicago; University of Chicago Press, 1964, p. 37.

16. Cassell, R. H. "The Vineland Adaptation of the Oseretsky Tests," Training School Bulletin, Monogram Supplement Series No. 1 (1949), pp. 1-32.

17. Chasey, William C. and Waneen Wyrlck. "Effect of a Gross Motor Developmental Program on Form Perception Skills of Educable Mentally Retarded Children," Research Quarterly, 41, No. 3 (October, 1970), pp. 345-52.

18. Corder, W. Owens. "Effects of Physical Education on the Intellec­ tual, Physical, and Social Development of Educable Mentally Retarded Boys," Journal of Health. Physical Education and Research. 32 (1966), pp. 357-64.

19. Cratty, Bryant J. Active Learning. New Jersey: Prentlce-Hall, Inc., 1971.

20. . Developmental Sequences of Perceptual-Motor Tasks. New York: Newport, Long Island, Educational Activities, Inc., 1967.

21. . "Human Imprinting," in New Perspectives of Man In Action, by Roscoe Brown and Bryant Cratty in Perceptual Motor Processes Behavior and Educational Processes. Springfield, Illinois: Thomas, 1969. 133

22. ______. "Motor Activity and the Education of Retardates," Monograph. Los Angeles: University of Chicago.

23. ______. Movement Behavior and Motor Learning. Philadelphia: Lea and Feblger, 1967.

24. ______. Perceptual-Motor Behavior and Educational Processes. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1969.

25. . "Principles of Perceptual-Motor Training for Children With Minimal Neurological Handicaps," Monograph. Los Angeles: University of Chicago.

26. . Psychology and Physical Activity. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1968.

27. ______, and Theressa A. Sams. The Body Image of Blind Children. New York: The American Foundation for the Blind, 1968.

28* '» and Sister Margaret Mary Martin. Perceptual -Motor Efficiency in Children. Philadelphia: Lea and Febinger, 1969.

29. Cruickshank, William M. Psychology of Exceptional Children and Youth. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963.

30. Delacato, Carl H. The Diagnosis and Treatment of Speech and Read­ ing Problems. Springfield, Ohio: Thomas Publishing Company, 1963.

31. Denny, M. Ray. "Learning and Performance" in Mental Retardation: A Review of Research by Stevens and Heber. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1964, pp. 129.

32. Doll, E. A. "The Oseretsky Test," The Training School Bulletin. 43 (1946), pp. 1-13.

33. DuBols, F. S. "The Security of Discipline," Mental Hygiene. 36 (1952), pp. 353-372 in Child Development by Elisabeth Hurlack. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1964, pp. 462.

34. Dunham, Paul J. "Teaching Motor Skills To The Mentally Retarded," Exceptional Children. 35:9 (May, 1969), pp. 739-43.

35. Dunsing, Jack and N. C. Kephart. "Motor Generalizations In Space and Time," in Learning Disorders by Bernie Straub and Jerome Hellmuth. Seattle: Special Child Publications, Seattle Sequine School, 1966.

36. Early, George H. Perceptual Training in the Curriculum. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1968. 134

37. Ebersole, Marylou, Newell C, Kephart and James B. Ebersole. Steps To Achievement for the Slow Learner. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1968,

38. Edwards, Allan L. Statistical Analysis. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1969.

39. . Statistical Methods for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Rinehart and Company, Inc., 1954.

40. Ellis, Norman and others. "Motor Learning and Retention In Normals and Defectives," Perceptual and Motor Skills. 10 (1960), pp. 82-91.

41. Espenschade, Anna. "Perceptual Motor Development In Children," • Academy Papers. The American Academy of Physical Education, Arizona (March, 1967), pp. 74-79.

42. Fait, Hollis F. Special Physical Education. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders and Company, 1972.

43. . and H. J. Kupferer. 1 "A Study of Two Motor Achievement Tests and Their Implications in Planning Physical Education Activities For The Mentally Retarded," American Journal of Mental Deficiency. 60 (April, 1956), pp. 729-732.

44. Fleishman, Edwin A. and Gaylor D. Ellison. "A Factor Analysis of Fine Manipulative Tests," Journal of Applied Psychology in Perceptual Motor Efficiency in Children by Bryant J. Cratty and Sister Margaret Mary Martin. Philadelphia: Lea and Feblger, 1969.

45. Fox, Margaret G. "Perceptual-Motor Development: Action With Interaction," Journal of Health, Physical Education and Recreation. (January, 1971), pp. 36-38.

46. Francis, B. J. and G. L. Rarick, "Motor Characteristics of the Mentally Retarded," American Journal of Mental Deficiency. 63 (1958-59), pp. 792-811.

47. Funk, Dean C, "Effects of Physical Education on Fitness and Motor Development of Trainable Mentally Retarded Children," Research Quarterly. 42, No. 1 (March, 1971), pp. 30-34.

48. Gallahue, David L. "The Relationship Between Perceptual and Motor Abilities," Research Quarterly. 39, No. 4 (December, 1968) pp. 953-57.

49. Getman, G. N. "How To Develop Your Child's Intelligence," Research Publication. 7th Edition (1967), 135

50. Goldfarb, W. "The Effects of Early Evidence of Imprinting in t Human Infants," Journal of Psychology 12 (1943), pp. 106.

51. Guaren, Decorie T. "The Mental and Educational Development of Thaledomide Children," Inter-'Clinic Information Service, Committee of Prosthetic Research and Development, (January, 1968), in Perceptual Motor and Efficiency in Children by Bryant J. Cratty and Sister Margaret Mary Martin. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger, 1969, pp. 6-12.

52. Guyette, Anna, Wapner, Seymour, Werner, Heinz and Davidson. "Some Aspects of Spare Perception in Mental Retardates," American Journal of Mental Deficiency. 69 (1966), p. 90.

53. Heath, S. R. "Rail Walking Performance As Related To Mental Age and Etiological Type Among The Mentally Retarded," American Journal of Psychology. 55 (1942), pp. 240-47, as reported by Arthur L. Benton in Mental Retardation: Review of Research by Stevens and Heber, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964, p. 37.

54. ______. "The Military Use of Railwalking Test As An Index of Locomotor Coordination," Psychological Bulletin. 40:4 (April, 1943), pp. 282-84.

55. Howe, C. "A Comparison of Motor Skills of Mentally Retarded and Normal Children," Exceptional Children, 25:8 (April, 1959), pp. 352-54.

56. Humphrey, James H. "Academic Skill and Concept Development Through Motor Activity," Academy Papers. The American Academy of Physical Education, Arizona (March, 1968) No. 1, pp. 29- 36.

57. . Child Learning Through Elementary School Physical Education. Dubuque, Iowa: Brosn, 1966.

58. Hurlack, Elisabeth B. Child Development. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964.

59. Ismail, A. H., John Kane and Dr, R. Kirkendall. "Relationships Among Intellectual and Non-intellectual Variables," Research Quarterly. 40:1 (March, 1969), pp. 83-92.

60. Johnson, G. Orville. "Psychological Characteristics Of The Mentally Retarded," in Psychology of Exceptional Children and Youth by Cruickshank. New Jersey: Prentlce-Hail, Inc., 1964. p. 463. 136

61. Keogh, J. F. and J. N. Oliver. "Physical Performance of Retarded Children: Diagnosis and Prescription," paper presented at the Joseph P. Kennedy Foundation, Scientific Symposium on Mental Retardation, Boston, Massachusetts, April 11, 1966., . K ' ** ' 62. Kephart, Newell C. The Slow Learner In The Classroom. Columbus, Ohio: Charles Merrill Publishing Company, 1960.

63. Kershner, John R. "Doman-Delacato's Theory of Neurological Organization Applied With Retarded Children," Exceptional Children. (February, 1968), pp. 441-450.

64. Kilpatrick, F. P. "Two Processes in Perceptual Learning," Journal of Exceptional Psychology. 47 (1954), pp. 362-70, lti Perceptual-Motor Efficiency in Children by Bryant J. Cratty and Sister Margaret Mary Martin. Philadelphia:’ Lea and Feblger, 1969, p. 13.

65. Kirk, Samuel A. Early Education of the Mentally Retarded. Chicago: Board of Trustees, University of Illinois, 1958.

66. . "Education" in Mental Retardation: A Review of Research by Stevens and Heber. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964, p. 91.

67. . and Johnson. Educating The Retarded Child. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1951.

68. . Teaching Reading To Slow Learning Children. New York. Houghton-Mlfflin Company, 1940.

69. Klausmeir, Herbert and J. Check. "Relationships Among Physical, Mental, Achievement, and Personality Measures in Children of Low, Average and High Intelligence at One Hundred Thirteen Months of Age," American Journal of Mental Deficiency. 63 (1959), pp. 1059-68 as reported in Psychology of Exceptional Children and Youth by Cruickshank. New Jersey: Prentice- Hall, 1964.

70. . Lehman and Beeman. "Relationships Among Physical, Mental and Achievement Measures in Children of Low, Average and High Intelligence," Journal of Mental Deficiency. 63 (1959), pp. 647-56.

71. . "Physical Growth of Mental Retarded Children," School and Society. 86 (1958), p. 140 reported in Psychology of Exceptional Children and Youth by Cruickshank. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1964.

72. Kugel, R. B. and D. Reque. "A Comparison of Mongoloid Children," Journal of Mental Deficiency. 175 (1961), p. 959. 137

73. Kulclnskl, L. £. "The Relation of Intelligence To The Learning Of Fundamental Muscular Skills," Research Quarterly. 16:4 (December, 1945), pp. 266-76.

74. LaPray, M. and R. Ross. "Auditory’ and Visual-Perceptual Train­ ing," in Vistas In Reading, by Allen Flgwial, Editor, International Reading Conference Proceedings, XI (1966), pp. 530-32,

75. Lassner, R. "Annotated Bibliography On The Oseretsky Tests of Motor Proficiency," Journal of Consulting Psychology. 12 (1948), pp. 37-47.

76. Lawhorn, Wayne T. "Physical Fitness For The Mentally Retarded: A Reality," Training School Bulletin. 63:2 (1966), pp. 45-48.

77. Malpass, L. F. "Motor Proficiency In Institutionalized and Non- Institutionalized Retarded Children and Hormal Children," American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 64 (1960), pp. 1012- 15.

78. Mathews, Donald D. Measurement in Physical Education. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company, 1964.

79. Myers, Patricia I. and Donald D. Hammill. Methods For Learning Disorders. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1969.

80. Oliver, J. N. "The Effects of Physical Conditioning Exercises and Activities On The Mental Characteristics Of Educationally Subnormal Boys," British Journal of Educational Psychology, 28 (1958), pp. 155-65.

81. Oxendine, Joseph B. Psychology of Motor Learning. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1968.

82. Pangle, Roy and Julien U. Stein. "What Research Says About Psycho-motor Function of the Retarded," Journal of Health. Physical Education, and Recreation. 37 (April, 1966), pp. 25-28.

83. Piaget, Jean and B. Inhelder. The Child's Conception of Space. London: Rutledge and Kegan, Paul, 1956.

84. . The Construction of Reality In The Child. New York: Basic Books, 1954.

85. Rabin, H. M. "The Relationship of Age, Intelligence and Sex To Motor Proficiency in Mental Defectives," American Journal of Mental Deficiencies, 62 (1957), pp. 507-16, 138

86. Reading Research Foundations. Perceptual Motor Training and Cognitive Achievement. Chicago, Illinois (1969).

87. Roach, Eugene G. and N. C. Kephart. The Purdue Perceptual-Motor Survey. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1966.

88. Robbins, Melvin P. "A Study Of The Validity Of Delacato's Theory of Neurological Organization," Exceptional Children. 32 (April 1966), pp. 617-623.

89. Shriver, Eunice. "Hope for Retarded Children," Saturday Evening Post, 235 (September 22, 1962), pp. 71-75.

90. . "Recreation For The Mentally Retarded," Journal For Health. Physical Education and Recreation. 36 (1965), pp. 16-18.

91. Singer, Robert N. "Physical Characteristics, Perceptual-Motor and Intelligence Differences Between Third and Sixth Grade Children," Research Quarterly. 40:4 (December, 1969), pp. 803-11.

92. Sleeper, Mildred. "Body Balance and Space Perception," Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of California, 1965.

93. Sloan, J. "The Lincoln-Oseretsky Motor Scale Development," Journal of Consultant Psychology. 51 (1955), pp. 183-252.

94. Soloman, A. and R. Prangle. "Demonstrations of Physical Fitness Improvement in the Educable Mentally Retarded," Exceptional Children. 33 (November, 1967), pp. 177-181.

95. Stein, Julian. "Motor Functions and Physical Fitness of the Mentally Retarded: A Critical Review," Rehabilitation Literature, 24:8 (August, 1963), pp. 230-42.

96. . "The Potential of Physical Activity for the Mentally Retarded Child," Journal of Health, Physical Education and Recreation. (April, 1966).

97. . ‘'What Research Says About Psycomotor Functions of the Retarded," Journal of Health. Physical Education and Recreation. (April, 1966).

98. Stevens, Harvey A. and Rick Heber. Mental Retardation: A Review of Research. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1964. rr~

139

99, . "Overview," in Mental Retardation; A Review of Research by Stevens and Heber. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1964, p. 5.

100. Strauss, A. A. and N. C. Kephart. Psych-Pathology and Education of the Brain Inlured Child. Volume 2. Progress in Theory and Clinic. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1950,

101. Sutton-Smith, B. and P. Gump. "Games and Status Experience," Recreation. 48 (1955), pp. 172-174.

102. Taylor, Raymond G., Jr., and S. Van L. Nolde. "Correlative Study Between Reading Laterality, Movility and Blnacularity," Journal of Exceptional Children. 35:8 (April, 1969).

103. The National Mental Health Foundation. "About The Mentally Retarded," Parent Volunteer Association, Columbus State School, 1601 West Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio, 1964.

104. Throne, John. "Activity Programs For The Mentally Retarded," Journal of Health. Physical Education and Recreation. 37 (April, 1966).

105. Tinker, M. A. "The Study of Eye Movement in Reading," Psycholo­ gical Bulletin. 43:93 (1946), In Perceptual Motor Behavior and Educational Processes by Bryant J. Cratty. Springfield, Illinois: Thomas Publishing Company, 1969.

106. Tlzard, J, O'Connor and J. M. Crawford. "The Abilities of Adolescent and Adult High Grade Male Defectives," Journal of Mental Science. 96 (1950), pp. 889-907 as reported in Mental Retardation: A Review of Research by Stevens and Heber. Chicago: The University of Qiicago Press, 1964, p. 37.

107. Werner, H. and W. Wapner. "Sensory-Tonic Field Theory of Percep­ tion," Journal^ of Personality, 18 (1949), p. 88, in Perceptual Motor Behavior and Educational Processes by Bryant J. Cratty. Springfield, Illinois: Thomas Publishing Company, 1969.

106. Witkin, H. H. "Perception of Body Position and Of The Position Of The Visual Field," Psychology Monograph. 63:7 (1949), in Perceptual Motor Behavior and Educational Processes by Bryant J. Cratty. Springfield, Illinois: Thomas Publishing Company, 1969.