The Beery-Buktenica

Developmental Test of
Visual-Motor Integration
(Beery VMI-6)
CSP 534
11/4/14
Emilie Wilson
Maressa McDonald

History
Main author: Keith E. Beery
contributing authors: Norman Buktenica & Natasha Beery

copying geometric forms correlated significantly with academic

achievement
neurologists, psychiatrists, and psychologists: diagnoses of
emotional & neurological problems based on how well children
copied geometric forms
1960: a child can have well-developed visual and motor skills but be unable to integrate the
two (Kephart, 1960)
1961: Beery began to put together a sequence of forms increasing in difficulty w/help from
Buktenica
1964: Developmental Form Sequence - a sequence of 24 items arranged in a developmental
sequence was created & normed with children
1967: Published as the Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual Motor Integration
2010: 6th edition of the VMI

Construct
Visual-motor integration (VMI): the degree to which visual
perception (information) and finger-hand movements are well
coordinated. (Beery, 1997)
the ability to use vision to perform motor tasks
Poor VMI = difficulties in reading, mathematics, handwriting, self-care skills, fine
motor skills, overall academic achievement
((Daly, Kelly & Krauss, 2003; Goldstein & Britt, 1994; Schneck, 2005; Sortor & Kulp, 2003)

VMI and visual perception problems:

neuromuscular conditions: cerebral palsy

traumatic brain injury
developmental conditions: ID
pervasive developmental disorders: autism
developmental delays & learning disabilities

(Goyen, Lui, & Woods 1998, Schultz et al. 1998, Roger 2005)

Purpose
The Beery VMI is designed to measure the hyphen in the
term visual-motor integration on the premise that a whole
can be greater than the sum of its parts and that the parts
may function well independently but not in combination.
(Beery & Beery, 2010, p. 12)

Beery VMI
Developmental sequence of
geometric forms
Full form: 30 items; 10-15 minutes;
ages 2-100
Short form: 21 items; less than 10
minutes; ages 2-7

Designed to assess a childs ability to

integrate visual and motor abilities

Supplemental Tests
Recommended for individual testing of those
who score below average on the VMI
If all three tests are administered, must be
given in a particular order to yield valid
results
VMI
Visual Perception
Motor Coordination

Visual Perception (VP)

Evaluates visual perception when
not integrated with fine motor skills
Young children begin by identifying various items
Examinees are presented with an array of similar figures, one
of which is the target
Examinees point to the figure that is the same as the target
figure
3 minute time period (beginning at item 7)

Motor Coordination (MC)

Evaluates fine motor skills when
not integrated with visual perception
Young children begin with items 1-3
Following items consist of shapes in which
examinees attempt to connect dots without going
outside of the borders
5 min time period (beginning at item 7)

Administration
Materials: pencil/pen and test booklet
Group Administration (pg. 20-21 of manual)
Please do not open your booklets until I ask you to
do so. The page with the hand pointing up should
face you.
Remember-only one try on each form and you
cannot erase.

Individual Administration
Place the booklet in front of examinee square to the
table and keep it in this position
Children under functional age 5 (pg. 22-23)
Start on page 2, number 4
Watch me. Im going to draw a line here. Draw top-tobottom vertical line.
Point to line you just drew and then the blank space below it.
Make one like that. Make yours right here.
At least one point: continue on with copying tasks
If not: Spontaneous Drawing or Scribbling Task

Individual Administration
Children over functional age of 5 and adults (pg.23-24)
Start on page 4, number 7
Point to item 7 and then to the blank space below it. Make one
like that. Make yours right here.
Good. Go ahead and do the rest of them. Turn to the next
page when you finish them.
Allow one try per task with no erasing
Do not let student skip any
Testing can end after three consecutive items that earn no
points or after completing the entire form

Lets Draw!

Scoring
One point for each imitated or copied item up
to three consecutive failures
Refer to manual for scoring criteria (pg. 30-79)

If in doubt, score an item as meeting the

criteria

Lets Give it
a Shot!

Scoring Supplemental Tests

Visual Perception (pg. 80-86)

Items 4-6 are teaching items (even if child got it correct)

Start timing at item 7-give exactly 3 minutes
Mark all the childs responses (child can do themselves)
One point per correct item until three consecutive incorrect
items or the time limit is reached

Motor Coordination (pg.87-97)

Items 4-6 are teaching items

Start timing at item 7-give exactly 5 minutes
Score all tasks (1-3, teaching items, and those within time limit)
Do NOT stop scoring after three consecutive failures

Standardization: 6th ed.

normed in the U.S. 6x over 40 years on more than 12,500 children

virtually no changes in mean raw scores for ages 2-18 between the first
norming in 1964 and the sixth norming
Norming characteristics: 201o census
disabling conditions: sample size or nature of disabilities?
ages: 1-18 (n= 1,737) , up to 100
sample sizes over 100 per age except for ages 1 and 18
examiners = school psychologists & occupational therapists
stratification: not indicated for the 6th norming

normalized standard scores for ages 2 - 100; 3-month age intervals for ages 2 - 13

Reliability: 6th ed.

VMI
Internal consistency
(childhood sample only)
Spearman-Brown values
Cronbachs coefficient
alpha: subjects
performance across
items

Visual

Motor

odd - even
.82 to .93

odd - even
.79 to .91

odd - even
.78 to .95

single test
.79 to .89

single test
.74 to .87

single test
.71 to .89

test-retest
142 children (5 - 12)
full range of abilities
14 days

.88

.84

.85

interscorer
2 raters
100 random tests from
childhood norming group

.93

.98

.94

(Beery & Beery, 2010; McCrimmon, Altomare, Matchullis, & Jitlina, 2012)

Validity
content validity: item selection

all test items have remained the same since the first edition (1967)
geometric forms arranged in a developmental sequence
Rasch-Measurement Model:
400 Australian children: ages 5-12 given the Beery VMI-5
hierarchical ordering: same level of difficulty for items 26, 27, &
29; 18, 22, & 24; 4, 5, & 11.
ceiling may not be valid or accurate
gender bias: item 9 was easier for girls to complete than boys
unidimensional construct: items are measuring visual-motor
integration
(Brown, Unsworth, Lyons, 2009)

above .7 = strong
.3 to .7 = moderate
less than .3 = weak

Validity

concurrent validity: comparing the results of the test to those of other tests
designed to measure similar constructs

122 students from K-5 in regular public schools: 4th ed. norming study (1997)
tests are outdated!!! DVTP-3 updated in 2014
VMI

Wide Range of Assessment of Visual Motor Abilities

(WRAVMA; 1995): Drawing subtest

0.52 correlation

VMI

Developmental Test of Visual Perception-Second

Edition (DTVP-2; 1993): Copying subtest

0.75 correlation

VMI: Visual Perception

DTVP-2: Position in Space

(shapes are rotated)

.62 correlation

VMI: Motor Coordination

DTVP-2: Eye-Hand Coordination

(draw inside the line)

.65 correlation
(Beery & Beery, 2010)

above .7 = strong
.3 to .7 = moderate
less than .3 = weak

Validity
Beery VMI and Bender Visual-Motor Gestalt Test (BG-II)

Most frequently used tests of fine motor and visualperceptual skills (Brannigan & Decker, 2006)
both: copy series of geometric designs, claim to assess
visual motor skills
differences: content, administration, scoring
inconsistent correlations from .29 to .93
median of .56 (Beery & Beery, 2004)

Volker et al. (2010): conclusions made could be strongly

influenced by which test is used.
Typically Developing

HFASD

mean BG-II Copy

standard score

lower end of high

average range

average

mean Beery-VMI
standard score

average range

lower portion of below

average range

Validity
construct validity: the degree to which it measures visual-motor integration
4 key areas of evidence

#1: VMI scores increased with age of children (2010 norming data)
correlation between
chronological age

Beery VMI

Visual
perception

Motor coordination

childrens total norming

sample (n = 1,737)

.89

.85

.84

Validity
construct validity: the degree to which it measures visual-motor integration

#2: part-whole hierarchy--VMI composite harder to complete than either

of supplemental tests
on average: children made more correct responses on supplemental
tests than on the VMI composite (4th - 6th ed. norming population)
further supporting data?!

...thus the VMI appears to measure an integration factor in addition to

visual perception and motor coordination (Beery, 1997, p. 116)

Validity
construct validity: the degree to which it measures visual-motor integration

#3: VMI scores related to intelligence scores and academic achievement of

students (old data used in the manual from 70s and 80s)

4th ed. norming group (1996), 17 children

between 6 - 12, identified as having LD

Sortor & Kulp (2003)

*significant difference in performance
p values are less than .05

Raw score
correlations

Beery
VMI

Visual

Motor

Perception

Coordination

upper/lower
quartiles

VMI

VP

MC

WISC-R
Verbal IQ

.48

.43

.41

Reading

p = .020

p < .001

p = .027

WISC-R Full
IQ

.62

p = .004

p < .001

p = .01

(n = 39, 38)

.54

.51

Math
(n = 41, 40)

Validity
construct validity: the degree to which it measures visual-motor integration

#4: VMI results will be lower among populations with disabling conditions
Krab et al. (2011) - Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) vs. healthy children

children w/NF1:
scored lower on VMI
made more copying
errors
evidence of poorly
developed visual-spatial
skills
distribution of scores between NF1
(n= 70) and control (n = 19)

Examples of other conditions: FAS, epilepsy, leukemia,

Tourette syndrome, TBI, ADHD

Validity
Children: TBI (n = 123) and ADHD (n = 65)
VMI demonstrates criterion validity: TBI group performed
significantly worse than the ADHD group
some overlap between scores
VMI scores have poor classification accuracy in differentiating
children with ADHD and TBI (Sutton et al., 2011)

Pros

Simple and quick to administer and

score
Group and individual administration
Norms for a large age range
Manual provides Stepping Stones
development
Free of cultural bias
Fun to complete

Cons

Lack of recent research

Determining functional age to establish
start point
The rationale for young children to identify
features of their body is unclear
Manual not tabbed
Verbal instructions not clearly marked on
protocol
Scoring reliability
Price of protocols: $4/full form
Children w/disabilities in norming sample
not known
Items with same level of difficulty
Possible gender bias (item #9)
Students cant erase!
Must keep protocol straight

Thoughts from our Supervisors

Use as a fun icebreaker to rule out an OT assessment or
neurological concerns
Give it to students with difficulties in writing

Can make recommendations about printing out the notes rather than
students copying them

Give it to students who have low scores on a previous

assessment
Quick and easy to score
Rarely use it because visual-motor integration falls under OT
Incomplete assessment without the VMI (ha!)

References
Beery, K. E., & Beery, N. A. (201o). The Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration (Beery
VMI): Administration, scoring, and teaching manual (6th ed.). Minneapolis, MN: NCS Pearson.
Brannigan, G. G., & Decker, S. L. (2006). The Bender Gestalt-II. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76, 10-12.
Brown, T., Unsworth, C., & Lyons, C. (2009). An evaluation of the construct validity of the developmental test of visual
motor integration using the Rasch Measurement Model. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 56, 393402.
Krab, L. C., de Goede-Bolder, A., Aarsen, F. K., Moll, H. A., De Zeeuw, C. I., Elgersma, Y., & van der Geest, J. N. (2010).
Motor learning in children with Neurofibromatosis Type 1. The Cerebellum, 10(1), 14-21.
McCrimmon, A. W., Altomare, A. A., Matchullis, R. L., Jitlina, K. (2012). Test Review: The Beery Developmental Test of
Visual-Motor Integration. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30(6), 588-592.
Sutton, G. P., Barchard, K. A., Bello, D. T., Thaler, N. S., Ringdahl, N., Mayfield, J., & Allen, D. N. (2011).
Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration performance in children with traumatic brain
injury and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. (2011). Psychological Assessment, 23(3), 805-809.
Volker, M. A., Lopata, C., Vujnovic, R. K., Smerbeck, A. M., Toomey, J. A., Rodgers, J. D., Schiavo, A., & Thomeer, M. L.
(2009). Comparison of the Bender-Gestalt-II and VMI-V in samples of typical children and children with high
functioning autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 28(3), 187-200.