An Auditory and Visual Discrimination Test For Kindergarten and F PDF

University of Massachusetts Amherst
ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst
Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014
1-1-1970
An auditory and visual discrimination test for

kindergarten and first grade children : a new
approach.
Sarah Street Van Camp
University of Massachusetts Amherst
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1
Recommended Citation
Van Camp, Sarah Street, "An auditory and visual discrimination test for kindergarten and first grade children : a new approach."
(1970). Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014. 2492.
http://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1/2492
This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in
Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact
scholarworks@library.umass.edu.
AN AUDITORY AND VISUAL DISCRIMINATION TEST
FOR KINDERGARTEN AND FIRST GRADE CHILDREN
A NEW APPROACH
A dissertation presented
By
Sarah S. Van Camp
Submitted to the Graduate School of the

University of Massachusetts in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
July 1970
Major Sub.ject Reading

AN AUDITORY AND VISUAL DISCRIMINATION TEST
FOR KINDERGARTEN AND FIRST GRADE CHILDREN
A NEW APPROACH
A Dissertation
By
Sarah S. Van Camp
Approved as to style and content by:
/// ///// A
(•Head of Department)
(\iJLJr //
(Member
/
CMember
Dcui.
^Member)
Hjjl /
MuLcy_
('Mont n) (Year)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The following study developed out of twenty five
years of working with young children, observing their
common behavior and their idiosyncracies .Timetables
of development vary so enormously from one child to an-
other that a classroom teacher is hard-put to keep up
with each individual child. It is to the hard-working,
largely unappreciated, disadvantaged classroom teacher
that this study is dedicated . (Any teacher of kindergar-
ten or first grade children who has more than twenty
children is disadvantaged.)
This study would not have been possible without the

help and cooperation of four of those teachers: Mrs.
Sylvia Torrey, Mrs. Sandra Gray, Miss Carol Korytaski,
and Miss Virginia Sullivan. To them I offer grateful
thanks, as well as The Amherst-Pelham Public Schools
which gave me permission to work with these children.
The concern and help of other doctoral candidates at the
School of Education, University of Massachusetts was
gratifying, particularly Peter Sartwell, who photographed
the children, Carl Hoagland, who videotaped a testing
sequence. Thanks also to Denis Bannister an Upward
Bound student, who helped collate data. William Gorth,
Howard Hung, and Howard Peelle led me through the intri-
cacies of computer programming at the University of
Massachusetts, and Lawrence E. Wright, Director of The
Computer Center at Williams College, loaned his facilities
and advice. Curt Huff, Political Science Department at
Williams College helped me to interpret the data, and
Rose Kerewsky, School of Education, University of Massa-
chusetts proof-read and encouraged my project. Mrs.
Cynthis Howard and Mrs. Eileen Sprague typed the manu-
script in record time, bearing with my fallacies and
peccadillos
Fred and Ruth Greene nurtured and nested me during

the final period of writing. Without their faith and
prodding I surely would have fallen by the wayside. Dr.
David Yarington, Assistant Professor of Education of the
School of Education, University of Massachusetts, guided
me throughout this prolonged endeavor. His advice was
invaluable, as was that of Daniel Jordan and Gerald
Weinstein, faculty members of the School of Education,
University of Massachusetts.
Finally, my son, Jonathan, deserves heartfelt thanks

for allowing himself to be uprooted and manipulated for
a two year sedge of mother-as-student ,
rather than mother-
as-mother. I am endlessly grateful to him for his under-
standing .
July 14, 1970

CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES AND PHOTOGRAPHS ii
CHAPTER I - The Problem 1
CHAPTER II - Review of the Literature 20
CHAPTER III - Procedure 46
CHAPTER IV - Evaluation 60
CHAPTER V - Summary and Conclusions 138
REFERENCES 15 3
APPENDIX 168
ii
LIST OF TABLES AND PHOTOGRAPHS
Page
CHAPTER II - TABLE II-l Early Studies Comparing the

Audio, Visual, and Audiovisual Modes 22-23
CHAPTER III - Administration of AVDT - Form B

Photographs 59
CHAPTER IV - TABLE IV-1 Total Group Analysis 6l
TABLE IV- 2 Hand and Eye Dominance 63-64
TABLE IV-3 Item Analysis -

Auditory - Form A - All
Students - Total Scores 66

Visual - Form A - All
TABLE IV- Item Analysis -

Auditory - Form B - All

Visual - Form B - All

Auditory - Form A - All
Students by Item -
1 through 12 70-73

Visual - Form A - All
Students by Item -
1 through 12 -
75-78

Auditory - Form B - All
Students by Item -
79-82
-
TABLE IV-10 Item Analysis
Visual - Form B - All
Students by Item -
83-86
1 through 12
86
TABLE IV-lOa Item Analysis Summary
iii
Page
CHAPTER IV - TABLE IV-11 Item Analysis -
Wepman Auditory Discrimination
Test - All Students -
Total Score 88
TABLE IV- 12 Correlation of Incorrect

Answers with Wepman Auditory
Discrimination Test -
All Groups 89
TABLE IV-13 Correlation of Incorrect

Kindergarten - Center School . 90
TABLE IV-14 Correlation of Incorrect

Kindergarten - Mark's Meadow
School 91

First Grade - Center School . . 92

First Grade - Mark's Meadow
School 93
TABLE IV- 17 Summary of All Test Scores -

All Groups 95
TABLE IV- 18 AVDT - Correlation -

All Groups 96
TABLE IV-19 AVDT - Cross Correlation by

Group - Each Kindergarten .... 98
TABLE IV- 20 AVDT - Cross Correlation by

Group - Each First Grade 99
TABLE IV-21 AVDT - Correlation

Kindergartens only 100
iv
—\
Page
CHAPTER IV - TABLE IV-22 AVDT - Correlation -

First Grades only 101
TABLE IV-23 AVDT - Correlation -

Center School only 102
TABLE IV- 2 4 AVDT - Correlation -

Mark’s Meadow School only .... 103
TABLE IV-25 AVDT - Correlation by Sex -

All Groups 105
TABLE IV- 2 6 AVDT - Correlation - All

Groups 107
TABLE IV- 2 7 AVDT - Scores Correlated with

Father's Occupation -
Auditory - Form A 108
TABLE IV-28 AVDT - Scores Correlated with

Father’s Occupation -
Visual - Form A 109
TABLE IV- 2 9 AVDT - Scores Correlated with

Auditory - Form B ,
110
TABLE IV- 30 AVDT - Scores Correlated with

Visual - Form B 111
TABLE IV- 31 AVDT - Summary of Kindergarten

Test Scores - Teacher Rating,
de Hirsch Battery and PPVT 113
. . .
TABLE IV- 32 AVDT - Correlation - Kinder-

garten only - Teacher Rating,
de Hirsch Battery and PPVT . . 115
TABLE IV- 3 3 Correlation of Teacher

Rating with Variables for
First Grade only . 116
Graph of "Maverick" Scores . . 119

TABLE iv- 3 4
;
Photographs of AVDT Correlation using 120

APL\360 . .
121
V
Page
CHAPTER IV - TABLE IV- 35 Mean Scores - Primary

Mental Abilities Test -
Perceptual Speed Section -
By Groups 130
TABLE IV-35a AVDT Summary by Class

of Mean and Standard
Deviation 130
TABLE IV- 36 Raw Scores - All Tests

by Groups 133
136
1
CHAPTER I
AUDITORY AND VISUAL DISCRIMINATION TESTS

FOR KINDERGARTEN AND FIRST GRADE CHILDREN;
A NEW APPROACH
The Problem
grows an-
Although the number of "Reading Specialists"
so-called reading
nually in our nation's schools, as do
the actual processes
problems," little is really known about
involved in reading. It is a field which encompasses psy-
neurology, sociology,
chology, linguistics, anthropology,
and, of course, education. Many authors write about the im-
significance of being able to

portance of reading skills, the
universal literacy for civilized
read, and the implications of
It is estimated that one

half of the world's adult
society.
population is illiterate.
that reading is potential-
Neil Postman (1970) postulates
a position that few
educators would
ly a political activity,
comparatively recent history
quibble with, in light of the
He comments: (p. 2411)
(since 1500 A.D.) of man.
a most sinister
Teachers of reading comprise presence and
leal group. Whose continuedalarm than cele-
for
strengths Ire mire a cause
brat ion . .
and, I.
Mv argument rests on a fundamental
&>-
6
f oundlypolitical in the sense ^L^being
of h
designed to produce one sort an fduca-
r
syêral-ysLroceeds from soie model of
?ion: i
what a human being ought to be like...
And what is called reading, it seems to me,

just about heads the list. For to teach reading,
or even to promote vigorously the teaching of
reading, is to take a definite political position
on how people should behave and on what they ought
to value
Postman goes on to suggest that reading may well become ob-
solete in a world where multi-media is rapidly becoming the
vehicle for the curriculum. In a sense, public television
is fast becoming a substitute for reading, a cause for des-
paj_ 2
f* in some educator^ *
minds . Robin Day ,
an outstanding
television newscaster for the British Broadcasting Company,

to
in the May 1970 issue of Encounter allays this distress
some extent
not,
A good basic news service is essential, but
by itself, enough. It must be supplemented by
deeper programmes of analysis, and enquiry... .
Even then television will be inadequate.

Newspapers, periodicals and books are not rendered
unnecessary in the television age. .On the con-
and
trary, they are more vital to a civilized
ever. Television can
democratic society than But
shock, can stir consciences, can illuminate.
give society its
only the printed word can a
can
intellectual dynamic. Only the printed word and
faculty
give full exercise to the critical ,
the dis-
can provide an adequate instrument for
cussion and development of ideas.
"know" what reading
Although literate people everywhere
to try to analyze the abilities
is, it is much more difficult
process.
that are utilized in the reading
3
Carl A. Lefevre* (1966, p. 291) states:
Reading involves a complex of facilitating arts

and skills, closely interwoven with speech and
writing - none ends in themselves, but communica-
tive means to personal and social maturity, to
the ultimate ends of education and of humanity
itself, in fact. Reading is not reading unless
it gives access to meanings; and it is difficult
to refute the proposition that the meanings ex-
pressed in speech and writing comprise a large
share of communicable human experience. The
skills of speech are the essential humanizing
skills, because it is language that makes man
man. For literate man, reading is the principal
further means of acquiring not merely information
and concepts, but also attitudes, insights, under-
standings, and values, required to comprehend
the development of human life and human cultures.
Reading is a powerful means to maturity and ac-
culturation .
However, this does not really tell us what the "complex of
facilitating arts and skills" is. Goodman (1968) says that

reading evolves out of aural input, as differentiated from
oral output, and is basically a secondary representation of
oral language. He introduces the concept of three proficiency
levels in the process of learning to read which eventually
lead to an almost simultaneous input, decoding, encoding, and
output, in the experienced reader. This tells us what happens,
but it does not tell us how. Levin (1966) feels that the task
of reading breaks down into two major divisions; (1) learning
of the code and (2) learning to use the code. He feels that
far too much research time, effort and money has been spent
* Goodman, Kenneth S., Editor, Psycholinguist ic Nature of

the Reading Process, Wayne Univ Press Detroit 1968.
.
,
in comparing "good readers" with
the "poor readers" rather
than a systematic analysis of
what constitutes the reading
process itself. He states (p.
154)
... we must aver that the
process of learning: to
read and of reading is not well
understood. There
are a number of reasons for this.
To my mind the
wheel-spinning" characteristics of reading
search have resulted from the concern re-
if f erences in the performance
with individual
of this skill to the
10n f the S dy ° f the
"sel? Tha t 1
Th ®,
h of process
the em P lr ical paradigm has been
5
to compare good and "poor" readers,
M ,
some global, nonanalytic criterion, selected by

rather than to
dissect the process itself. It is the prejudice
this discourse that fruitful hypotheses
and
indings will come only from an analysis of
the acts
of reading.
Cohen ( 1969 ) , p. 5D states:

Reading is the processing of a symbol of experience.
Thus, it is two steps removed from reality.
The
written symbol c-a-t represents the oral-aural
symbol / cat/ which represents the experience of
,
a cat. When a child reads the letters* c-a-t it
,
is not enough that he decode into the spoken
word
/ cat/. That is merely replacing one symbol with
another. He must take it a third step by picking
out of his memory bank those experiences involving
cats, including associated affective tone.
So far a rather simplistic approach has been used to des-
cribe the reading process. "Decode" and "Encode" are convenient

short cut words to describe what probably takes place in a
complicated pattern of the central nervous system. Many au-

thors postulate the brain as a master computer, which receives
sensations, decodes them into messages which are stored in
retrievable form, and utilizes a feedback system for encoding

and output purposes. This theory is a rather sophisticated
outgrowth of Thorndike's Stimulus-Response theory, which was

espoused by most psychologists during
the early part of this
century. Hunt (1964) has an excellent summary
of the develop-
ment of psychological thought in his book
Intelligence and
Experience (chapters three and four). He summarizes the work
of Hebb (1949) Newell, et al
(1958) and Pribram (i 960 ) in
presenting an electronic computer-type learning
theory.
(p. 107)
It was Hebb (1949) who gave us a new conceptual

synthesis of developments in neurophysiology with
behavioral knowledge to provide a conception of
central processes which could be helpful in account-
ing for perceiving and problem-solving. This
conceptual scheme derives from these central pro-
cesses, cell assemblies, and phase sequences, from
experience, and distinguishes sharply 'between
primary learning, through which they get established,
and later value. The potential of an organism for
complex problem-solving is seen as a function of
its A/S ratio, i.e., the size of the associative
areas, where the central processes are presumably
located, relative to the size of the motor and
sensory areas of the cortex... The reflex arc
.
gives way to a Test-Operat e-Test-Exist sequence

that operates after the fashion of an analogue com-
puter... The empirical studies of early experience
.
on later perceptual and problem-solving capacity have

been prompted by Hebb's theorizing. Studies by
Riesen (1947, 1958) and others of the effects of
rearing animals in darkness indicate that perceptual
capacities do indeed demand a background of perceptual
experience
Hunt goes on from this point to elaborate on Piaget's theories
of intellectual development; namely, that intellectual develop
ment is sequential, that areas of learning are contingent up-
on an earlier stage of learning, and that these stages can be
identified by observation and carefully constructed tests.
Simplist ically , Piaget says, in effect, "that the more one

6
learns, the more one wants to learn;" that

the child as-
similates new experience (through sensorimotor
operations
as an infant) accommodates to .new knowledge
by relating it
to past experience in a search for
equilibration, and through-
out his learning years, extends this same
basic process.
Hunt takes learning a step further than Piaget
in a plea for
each child to reach his potential through appropriate
learn-
ing experiences based upon his present level of learning
and pattern new learnings from this. Hunt (1964), p. 357 )

states
Within the domain of Piaget's third theme (accom-

modation and assimilation, editor's note) the
nature of accommodation implies great importance
for the match between the kind of external circum-
stances encountered and the kind of internal
organization already present in determining the
nature and degree of effect of any given encounter.
'Shis match is still poorly understood, but it is
the appropriateness of the match between the
circumstances that the child encounters as he
develops and the nature of his own intellectual
organizations at the time of the encounters that
appears to determine in very large part his rate
of intellectual development.
And later (p. 346)
It is highly unlikely that any society has developed

a system of child-rearing and education that maxi-
mizes the potential of the individuals which compose
it. Probably no individual has ever lived whose
full potential for happy intellectual interest and
growth has been achieved. Various bits of the evi-
dence reviewed hint that if the manner in which en-
counters with the environment foster the development
of intellectual interest and capacity were fully
understood (italics mine), it might be possible to
increase the average level of intelligence within
the population substantially.
7
What does all of this have to do with the process

of
learning to read?" one might ask. One might think of the
child’s mind as a reservoir of experience and learnings,
most of them unformulated and non-conceptualized at the

point
when formal education begins. It is the job of the teacher
to try to assess that background, analyze it and introduce
materials to be learned in a way consonant with each child's
past. This implies an individualized approach to each child,
as well as a diagnostic and prescriptive program.
This is highlighted in a statement by Frank (1966).
"It is probable that increasing attention will be

given to the study of individuality in infants and
in children to supplement the variety of standardized
tests and measurements and age norms. Clearly any
systematic program to foster the health and well
being of infants and children and to help them learn
and achieve the fulfillment of their individual
personalities, must focus upon the individual organism-
personality and provide what will be congenial to,
and effective for, that maturity that is compatible
with and contributory to his individualized needs,
capacities, and latent potentialities."
It is difficult for many teachers, who adhere to the
above notion, of the uniqueness of each individual, and the
necessity of treating each child as a distinct personality,
to be faced with the task of teaching 25 or more children at
a time. How can reading be individualized? If one subscribes
to the theories of child development as exemplified by Piaget
( 1967 ) and Bruner, (i960) (that there are distinct stages of
learning and that each stage builds upon the previous stage)
Erikson (1963) and Frank, (1966) (who feel that the emotional
8
well-being of the child in infancy

forms the base for each
new stage and that self trust and
supported independence
form the basis of a healthy, learning
personality) and of
Hunt (1961), (who states that the problem is of
a match be-
tween the child’s present level of learning
and his aspira-
tions and potential) it is impossible to
view a classroom
of children as just that, a group.
Unfortunately, most young teachers are taught

how to
make a group presentation, how to motivate a
body of learners,
and how to test and score children on the "curve."
Although
many teachers would like to individualize instruction,
they
are not given the tools for doing so ... either a child achieves
grade level" or he fails, because he has not come up to the
group norm. Children are placed in "homogeneous" groups on

the basis of group tests, although the "norm" implies that
half of the children will fall above it and half below. Many
young children are lost when it comes to taking a group test,
particularly a "speed" test, where individual idiosyncracy is
ignored. Teachers and administrators recognize individual
differences, but when it comes to testing, placing, and grad-
ing, the child is measured against the group. This is a denial

of child development research findings and philosophy. A
child can only be measured against himself when it comes to
establishing achievement, ability, and progress. Our present
instruments are inexact in measuring what a child can do,
what he knows, and how he should be taught.

9
For example, in the now famous Texarkana Project (a
private contract between the Boards of Education of Arkansas
District 7 and the Liberty-Eylau District of Texas and the
Dorsett Educational Systems to operate Rapid Learning Centers
on a guaranteed performance basis to raise achievement levels
in reading and mathematics) the Iowa Tests of Educational
Achievement were used in the spring of 1970 to perform the
"internal evaluation." Although there were apparent gains
among more than two thirds of the students, 32 per cent had
made no progress. Charles J. Donnelly, resident director of
Dorsett Educational systems, points out, in an article by Stanley
Elam in the June 1970 issue of Phi Delta Kappan , (p. 513)
"the unexpected unreliability of Form I of the Iowa tests
(admitted by Houghton Mifflin, the publisher, who pleads that
the tests were never intended to determine whether a contrac-
tor is paid for instruction.) The fact that literally thousands
of children have been tested and "placed" because of the re-
sults of the Iowa Tests is a highly sobering thought. There
is a need for more sensitive instruments, teachers,

and ad-
ministrators. The need is particularly acute with the neophyte;
the beginning reader, as well as the beginning teacher.
Reading might be called the harmonious operation of a
and
complex combination of physiological, experiential,
enterprise,
emotional states working together in a common,
and reconstruct grapher.e-
i.e., on a primary level, to recognize
phoneme correspondence. This is not to say that each child is

10
at a similar state of readiness

in the three above mentioned
areas. Obviously there are literally hundreds
of variations
among children which operate to help
or hinder reading ability
But the fact of the matter is that
the majority of children
appear to learn to read without too much
difficulty by the
time they have reached third grade. It is estimated that
eight to fifteen percent experience some
degree of failure
in reading, and perhaps another
25 percent lag behind their
peers. Bond and Tinker (1967, p. 9) state:
Every survey completed at any grade level beyond
the first reveals numerous cases of retarded
readers. The percentage of seriously retarded
readers (one year in the lower grades and two
years or more at the higher levels) range from
about 10 to 25.
Whether this is due to inherent

constitutional disability, intel-
lectual variation, or poor teaching, is impossible to assess.
The ease with which most children learn to speak their native
language, complete with correct grammatical structure, syntax,
and phrasing, with no direct teaching on the part of their
parents or contemporaries, should reassure educators that the
logical outgrowth of this, (translation into the written code)
should not be an impossible task. Perhaps if educators could
assume, as parents unconsciously do in language mastery, that
children will naturally bring their cognitive skills to bear
on learning to read in time, some of the present pressure
which both children and teachers feel about the mastery of
reading will wane. Bond and Tinker (1967, p. 23) comment:

11
Under favorable circumstances, and provided

mental growth, emotional adjustment, and that
status are normal, in time, the child not physical
only will
e ready to read but also he
will be eager to read.
Obviously, there are marked differences in
the rate
with which children acquire reading readiness.
A
few are ready even before reaching the first
grade
many are ready soon after beginning the first
grade
but a few are not ready until later.
Although the actual skills and abilities involved

in reading
are not fully known, they are thought to consist of
develop-
mental readiness, i.e., visual, auditory, and muscular
"maturity," social and emotional skills, (the ability to
withstand frustration, participate with a group, follow

ct ions , listen without becoming distracted) and some con-
ceptual understanding of the material presented (up, down,'

over, behind, fast, slow, stop).
Probably the majority of children in middle class and
upper class America equate going to school with learning to
read. They enter school with interest and high motivation,
sometimes expecting that on the first day they will miraculous-
ly and magically suddenly be able to read. What happens from
that point on is largely up to the school, the system, and the
teacher. Educators such as John Holt (196-4) and George
Dennison ( 1969 ) would blame the children’s failure to achieve
on the school, not the child. The new movement of Community
Schools, the Open Classroom, and the Leicestershire Model are
the result of parent and teacher reaction to the over-crowded,
increasingly computerized approach to mass public education.
Featuring emphasis upon learning centers, humanism in the

12
classroom, and alternative routes to learning through free-
dom of movement, these schools are reminiscent of the
Progressive Movement in education, exemplified in the wri t-
ings of John Dewey. The following quotation from the June 20,
1970 issue of Saturday Review (p. 77) highlights this point
of view, Bonnie Barrett Stretch.
"The longer they've been in public school, and the

worse their experience there is, the longer it
takes for them to settle down, but eventually
they all do", says Bill Kenney, who has taught at
Pinel School in Martinez, California for ten years.
Pinel is an essentially Summerhillian school
where classes in subjects such as reading and
arithmetic are offered, but the children are not
compelled to attend. Based on his experience at
Pinel, Mr. Kenney believes that in a school that
is solidly middle class (italics mine) it can be
expected that any happy, healthy child will eventu-
ally learn to read, write, and do basic arithmetic,
whether or not he is formally taught. The experi-
ence of other middle-class free schools tends to
corroborate this assumption.
But obviously not all children come from a middle class
background. Children bring to their school experience im-
plicit understandings and a frame of reference based upon
their own cultural experiences (poverty or affluence, urban
or rural background, ethnic and racial frameworks of reference).
It is in this latter area that a great deal of national at-
tention has been focused in the last ten years. (Deutsch,
1964; Gray and Klaus, 1963; Reissman, 1962; and Harrington,
1962, to name but a few.) Frost (1968, p. 375) comments:
Any depth understanding of the disadvantaged child

necessarily begins with a realistic recognition of
the prevalent ignorance of level of concept develop-
ment in the pre-school child. Stott and Ball (1965)
state that the assessment of the intellectual
development of first-graders is currently un-
reliable and inconsistent . This lack of under-
standing marks the educational novice as the
great "unknown factor" in education, especially
should be he arrive at school from a disadvantaged
background, the implications of which we are only
beginning to understand ... The school is in
.
a state of naive ignorance with no records

of
what the incoming child knows; what concepts he
has developed; no understanding of how this child
may perceive the world; and to date no accurate
way of overcoming this institutional stupidity.
On these grounds, teaching begins.
Almost without exception, educators refer to the importance
of auditory and visual perception as the base of reading.
Strang (1968, p. 17) states:
All but a few exceptional children learn to read

by associating the sound of familiar letters
and words with their corresponding written sym-
bol. Consequently, both visual and auditory
acuity are a basis to success in beginning read-
ing.
The recent preoccupation of educators of children who have
learning disabilities has highlighted the functioning of
these senses in the reading process.
A vast new area of experimentation, conjecture, research
and expenditure of Federal Funds (Head Start, Job Corps, EASA
Title III, for example) has grown out of this interest in
children with learning disabilities. In the process, a good
deal more is being learned about how "normal" children learn.
Johnson and Myklebust (1967 3 p. 3) state:
Many years ago educators recognized that integrity

of hearing and vision was essential to normal
learning. As a result, special education was
provided to meet the detrimental effects deriving
from these deficiencies. Gradually, as knowledge
accrued concerning the ways in which sensory de-
privation modified learning processes as found in
normal children, a psychology of deafness and
blindness developed (Myklebust, 1964; Revesz, 1950;
Zahl 1950)
, 1 hrough
. these developments progress
has been made in understanding the role of the
senses in learning.
They report on the early work of Monroe (1932) and Pernald
(1943) , the former being concerned with auditory discrimina-
tion of speech sounds as a primary step and gradually
transferring to visual and tactile or kinesthetic awareness
of sounds and symbols. Fernald took the opposite tack,

concentrating upon visual .awareness, tracing letters, looking
at the words, writing them without looking, and at this point,
saying the words while writing.
Although these teaching experiments were tried more than
a generation ago, little real progress or change has taken
place in either diagnosis or prescription since then. (Al-
though a good deal has been written about learning disabilities,
a few state laws passed providing for special education of
the perceptually handicapped, and a special commission ap-
pointed from the Office of Education in Washington to investi-
gate the problem, little is really yet known or substantiated
on the origin of the difficulties or their remediation.)
Present learning disabilities programs tend to rely upon
a broad "AVK" approach, (Auditory Visual Kinesthetic) recom-
mended originally by Orton (1933), elaborated by Gillingham
(1965) and developed further by various schools of thought

15
which have their own particular methods and materials to
use, i.e., Kephart (I960), Frostig (1964), Delecato
(1959) et al. This is a new area of investigation,
with much to be learned, and with obvious application to
normal learners
It is a happy side effect that frequently scientific
investigation of the abnormal has cast new light upon the
operation of the normal. In education there are the examples
of Binet-Simon, (1905) who, in trying to develop a means of
evaluating mentally retarded, developed an intelligence test
for measuring abilities in normal children. Montessori,
(1909) in developing an educational program for

children
who were presumed to be mentally retarded, developed an ed-
ucational program based upon graded stages of development

m
normal
young children, now widely accepted and used with
development and
children, and presaging Piaget's theories of
education. Piaget himself reports (p. 27) that his discovery

of his search for a
of the theory of conservation grew out
Psychology, May, 1970
means of diagnosing young epileptics. ,
beads,
I went around with four coins and four one-to-one
and I would put the coins and beads in
correspondence and then hide one of the coins.
then stretched
If the three remaining coins were
children
out into a longer line, the epileptic
No conserva
said they had more coins than beads. a method
tion at all. I thought I had discovered
children.
to distinguish normal from abnormal
children an
Then I went on to work with normal conservation.
discovered that all children lack
investigation into the
And so it may be that with increased
16
nature, diagnosis, and remediation of learning

disabilities,
more light will be thrown on how normal children
learn. The
latest definition of learning disability, as interpreted
by
fifteen specialists in a study institute at Northwestern
University in August, 1967 is simply this:*
Learning disability refers to one or more signi-

ficant deficits in essential learning processes
requiring special education techniques for remedi-
ation .
Whether this is developmental, genetic, or the result of in-
jury does not really matter pragmatically from the classroom
teacher’s viewpoint. It is the here and now that does make a
difference, and what she can do with a child who exhibits
some of these deficits. In time the neurologists and the
psychologists, (if not the educators) will come up with some
answer of causation or cure.
John Money ( 19 66 , p. 40) states:
Visual or acoustical impairment cannot as a matter

of course be implicated as etiological factors in
reading retardation. Nothing is gained by postu-
lating the disability as an effect of minimal
brain damage. It is more sensible to use a hy-
pothesis of functional maturational lag. This
maturational delay does not necessarily have only
one single cause. It may be the end result of
several different responsible agents.
Money ( 1966 )
postulates that there are observed and well-known
developmental differences that parents accept as natural in
children. The age of sitting, walking, and talking varies
* Journal of Learning Disabilities - Special Report, Vol. 2,

Number 7, July 1969, P- 376
17
considerably from one child to another.

Speech, itself,
is a highly complicated procedure.
Is it not logical that
something as complicated as processing
graphic symbols into
meaningful sounds could and,in effect
does,reflect in-
dividual maturat ional differences? Again,
Money (1966, p. 27)
states
Oral-visual matching is the ability to see what

hears and hear what one sees, which is a one
special
instance of the psychological phenomenon of
syn-
thesis, or transfer between the senses.
Individual
differences in ability to conform to the law of
synthesis in oral-visual (aural-visual) matching
of words are extremely varied.
Strang (1968) outlines, the steps which she feel s are
essential for diagnostic study and remediation of children's
learning problems. They include the need for auditory and

visual discrimination tests, after tests of visual or auditory
impairment. She delineates the various elements of perception
as, discrimination, memory, integration of visual and auditory,
and ability to communicate one's perception. She recommends

early diagnosis, in pre-school, kindergarten, or first grade,
and states that a differential diagnosis is more meaningful
than a total score.
It is because of this kind of conviction on the part of
reading and learning disability specialists that the present
study has developed. There is a need for a simple, easy to
administer test which will help pinpoint a child's strengths
and weaknesses in the two modalities; auditory and visual.
Classroom teachers of young children need a more reassuring

18
rating scale than their own hunches and observations.

Be-
ginning teachers are frequently not attuned to the child
who doesn’t seem to "catch on" to phonics, or to "look
and say” words. The child who consistently reads "play" for
help, was for "saw," and "stop" for "Spot" may have a
visual discrimination problem. Similarly, the child who

spells "flower" as "fir" and "pretty" as "ptry" might have
an auditory discrimination problem. This is not to negate

the role of maturation and training. Both problems may sud-
denly disappear as the child develops, has successful reading
experiences, and specific training in the skills he lacks.
However, in a large classroom of 25 or 30 children, this child
may well be overlooked. If there were a systematic test
available which the teacher could administer individually
with a minimum of effort, on a routine basis (much as the
school nurse administers audiometric and visual screening
tests), some of the discouragement which many children ex-
perience in beginning reading could be eliminated.
This study evolved from the theories of Piaget, Bruner,
Erikson, Frank, and Hunt, using them as a springboard for the
practical application of constructing and administering an
auditory and visual discrimination test. It is based upon
the assumption that there are developmental differences among
children and recognizes that maturation is a factor in ability
measurement. However, it is also assumed that there are basic
individual differences in children’s native ability to process

19
either auditory or visual presentations which, in spite of
maturation, still remain stable. In other words, some child-
ren may always remain more highly visual than auditory and
vice versa. If this can be established, with a measureable
difference in young children, it should be possible to measure
the same differences in older children with variations of the
same basic testing approach. The purpose is to help the
classroom teacher identify each child's learning style so that
beginning reading can be built upon the child's strengths.
Presumable, if one modality is demonstrably stronger than the
other, teaching in this area would be emphasized, while the
other modality would be given training and reinforcement.
It is hoped that by using this technique for identifying
each child's preferred modality his first experience with
beginning reading may be a happy and motivating experience,
rather than a failing one, and that a chain reaction of suc-
cessful experiences will follow.

I
20
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Present educational programs for the kindergarten child
reflect the comparatively recent rapid growth of investiga-
tion in the field of Early Childhood Education. Not only
are more states making Kindergarten a part of their state
educational system, but the subject matter and philosophy
of the kindergarten has become a matter of concern to local
school systems. Head Start has served as an impetus to
this educational movement., but Head Start itself grew out
of the increasing conviction that the preschool years are
the determiners of intellectual and psychological growth.
Bloom’s (1964) convincing thesis that 50 percent of the
individual’s intellectual level is established by the age
of four has given a new rationale to the establishment of
public preschool centers.
Although there have been educators during the past 200
years who have devoted their lives to developing educational
theories and programs for the child under six,* it is only
* Rousseau, 1796 publication date of Emi le Pestalozzi,

;
conducted school for poor children 1796-1798 Froebel,

;
established first kindergarten 1837; Montessori, estab-

lished new concepts in education of the retarded child,
1909 John Dewey, circa 1900-1935, development of edu-
;
cational theory of "learning by doing;" and Jean Piaget,

1924 to the present, who offers a whole new theory of
mental development based upon early stimulation of the
intellect through varied perceptual experiences.
21
in the past tsn or fifteen years that there has been a gen-
eral recognition on the part of psychologists and educators
of the vast extent of learning which takes place in the
young child before he goes to school. (Bloom, 1964; Hunt,
1964; Bereiter and Engleman, 1966; Erikson, 1963; deHirsch,
1966; Deutsch, 1964; Bruner, I960; to mention but a few.)
The grave problem of how to assess each child’s devel-
opment in terms of prescribing a meaningful educational
program for him becomes an all important problem for the
educator. Concomitant with this is the development of a
curriculum which will deal with each child from where he
stands and move him, with confidence and assurance, to the
limit of his potential. Implicit in this statement is the
conviction that each child is unique and has his own time-
table of development, which can be nurtured and hastened
by the skillful facilitation of a trained teacher.
Psychologists and educators have long been concerned
with the vexing problem of how learning takes place. As
the particular focus of this study is on auditory and visual
discrimination, the accompanying table, taken from Travers
(1967, p. 106) is of great interest. (Table II-l, p . 22) The
paucity of research in audio and visual modes during the 40
year period, from 1894 to 1936 is not particularly sur-
prising, but the scantiness of research in the 3^ years
since is surprising, especially in view of the great prog-
ress that has occurred in audio-visual techniques.

22
TABLE Il-lt
EARLY STUDIES COMPARING THE AUDIO, VISUAL

AND AUDIOVISUAL MODES
Name Date Sub j ects Material Results
Elliott 1936 Adults Advertising AV>V, AV>A

Names and A>V*
Copy
Koch 1930 14 College Nonsense AV> to all,

Women syllables V>A
0 Brien
' 1921 7 Graduate Meaningful V>A>AV
Students Nonsense AV>V>A
Henmon 1912 6 Advanced Nouns, 2 A>V, AV>V

Psychology digit no's, AV>A**
Students nonsense A >.V, AV>.V,
syllables AV>A
von Sybel 1909 17 Students Nonsense AV>V with

syllables long expo-
sure time
V>AV with
short expo-
sure time
AV>A V>A ,
Schuyten 1906 Subjects aged Digits A>AV

11 to 14 1/2 A>V
large N
Kemsies 1900 German students Latin and A>AV>A be-

-01 15 1/2 and German fore prac-
12 1/2 yr. olds vocabulary tice ef-
N=29, N=30 words fects
added
A>V>A
after
Smedley 1900 All elementary 4 to 8 AV>A* *

-01 and secondary digit AV>V**
school child- numbers V>A above
ren in Chicago 8 yr. old
A>V below
8 yr. old
t From Travers, Robert M. W. (1967) p* 106.

23
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Name Date Subjects Material Results
Quantz 1897 50 University Common words AV>A, V

Juniors and Prose A>V**
Seniors Competing
prose
Passages
Munsterberg 1894 5 subjects Numbers and AV>V>A
and Bigham colors
* A>V means that audio was superior to visual

** Very slight differences
One of the earliest studies, a case histories approach
by Pernald (1936), presents data on 47 "cases" of disabled
readers, including vision, eye dominance, handedness, and
speech, although no specific test scores are reported.
Auditory testing is not reported. Fernald advocates a
tactile and visual approach, and makes no mention of a
phonics method of teaching, although auditory reinforce-
ment follows this initial tactile and visual program.
Gates, Bond and Russell (1939) attempted to test
the value of "practically every type of test, rating, ex-
amination, or other means of appraisal which had then been
suggested, or which the authors could think of, as a means
of predicting reading progress" (p. 3)* Sixty-eight tests
were used with approximately 300 kindergarten and first
grade children in New York City . Tests were administered

three times during the year. In the final correlation,
39
different categories of tests were used,
(word perception
tests, rhyming words, etc.). Auditory and visual discrim-
ination tests were used, including the audiometer
and the
telebinocular , as well as digit recall, identifying iden-
tical and similar words, memory of nonsense
syllables, and
associative learning of geometric figures and pictures.
The tests which appeared to be most predictive of
reading
success were word-recognition techniques; grasp of story
structure; familiarity with printed words, letters, phono-
grams, and familiarity with auditory features of words as
shown by tests of rhyming, blending, and giving letter
sounds. Tests of perception of various items excluding
words gave low correlations.
In another interesting study in 1940, Phelan investi-
gated the nature of perceptual ability and its relation to
achievement in reading and spelling. A battery of nineteen
tests, administered to 460 fourth and fifth grade children,
was grouped loosely as Perception Tests; Cognitive Tests;
Memory Tests; and Reading and Spelling Tests. In regard
to the perception tests, Phelan found that there is no
factor universal to all the tests; there is more evidence
of functional unity involving words and syllables than
among those with digits or designs; there is the possi-
bility of a more extensive common factor than could be
isolated because of the limitations of the data; and no

25
memory factor was isolated but rote

memory tests with
paired associates of words and words,
and words and let-
ters were found to be similar in
their correlation pat-
terns. The most significant findings were
in the cogni-
tive tests, where 53 percent of the
variance in reading
achievement and 39 percent of the variance
in spelling
was attributable to variation in
cognition as measured.
There is a hiatus of research studies in
this area
until the comparatively recent fifties and
sixties. One
might conjecture that the period of the war
years (194l-
19^5), the shortage of schools and teachers following
that
time, the "little recession" in the late forties
and the
Korean War in 1950-1953 pre-empted research money. With
the advent of Sputnik in 1957 and the great reading con-
troversy as highlighted by Flesch's Why Johnny Can’t Read
(1955 ) 3 as well as a period of economic and social passiv-
ity during the Eisenhower Era, attention was again turned
to the problem of underachieving learners.
The expansion of audio-visual media, computers, and
programmed instruction has again raised the questions of

how children learn, and how their abilities and achieve-
ment can best be measured. Traditionally, classroom tests

have focused primarily on learning achievement rather than
ability, deriving their status from the test-conscious
thirties and forties. Present primary assessment tests
are generally given on a group basis and consist of

26
so-called readiness tests, achievement tests, and intelli-
gence tests such as the Houghton-Mif f lin Diagnostic Reading
Survey ,
S.R.A. Primary Mental Abilities Test ,
Metropolitan
Achievement Tests, Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills ,

and
Lorge Thorndike Intelligence Tests .
Unless a child shows gross reading problems or the
school itself has undertaken a specific research study, it
is rare for children to be individually tested.

The time
commitment to such testing and the lack of trained ex-
aminers has made this procedure exorbitant in terms of
time and money. For most children, therefore, beginning

*
learning often consists of a hit or miss proposition,

the
teacher directed and structured, and focused on
"average" child. The teacher, generally, is enjoined to

it seems ap-
follow a specific curriculum whether or not
As a result of
propriate to the needs of "her" children.
of children
this shotgun approach we have thousands
education, reading
floundering along in the gray areas of
finally dropping out
below capacity level for years and
essential skills necessary
of school entirely without the
increasingly literate society.
to maintain themselves in an
a child's
means of assessing and evaluating
Better
readiness for formal learn-
total personality in terms of
used by the classroom teacher.
ing must be devised to be
scales are one way of eval-
Broad checklists and rating
who generally enters first
uating the kindergarten child,
27
grade on a pre reading basis. These are apt to be somewhat

subjective, depending, as they do, upon a particular
teacher’s interpretation and bias. For instance, "Does he

follow adult leadership without objection or show of re-
sentment?" and "Does he alter his own methods to profit by
an example set by another child?" and "Can he give reason
for his opinions about work of others or his work?"
(Russell, 1961, pp . 55-57). Admittedly, these are lifted

out of context from a 55-item list to be answered by "Yes"
or "No," but they illustrate the point. Checklists often
contain items asking "Are hearing and vision normal?"
Many schools devise their own checklists, which reflect
their particular concerns and philosophy. These are not
always appropriate, as in large school systems where the
school population may range from lower class to upper,
with the special values of the middle class implicit in the
questions: "Does he understand the mathematical concept of
set?"; "Can he relate a story, such as Three Little Pigs ,
using at least 100 words and employing grammatical form?";
"Does he respect school property?" Further examples of
evaluations of a child’s readiness for first grade can be
found in Anderson (1964), Spodek and Robison (1965) and
in most school systems.
It is apparent that such evaluations have little mean-
ing for the first grade teacher. There have been a number
of attempts in recent years to improve the assessment of

children’s readiness to read. Notable among them is a
study by Katrina deHirsch, published under the title of
Predicting Reading Failure . By observing 53 children over
a three-year period, deHirsch found that success in read-
ing could be predicted through a battery of tests admin-
istered at the kindergarten level. It is an interesting
sidelight that children born prematurely tend to do less
well on these tests as well as in beginning reading. Her
battery, which includes Word Recognition , diagnosis of
pencil use, Draw a Person Test ,

the Bender Visuo Motor
Gestalt Test ,
the Horst Reversal Test , Tapping Test (for
auditory memory), the Wepman Auditory Discrimination Test ,
sections of the Gates Word Matching Test , and a Story
Telling Test ,
depends upon special training of an examiner,
unlimited time for individual testing, and sophisticated
interpretation, particularly for the Bender Gestalt Test .
The deHirsch tests, in conjunction with the Frostig
Developmental Test of Visual Perception ,

is currently being
used in a number of "forward looking" school systems.
The Frostig test seeks to measure five operationally
defined perceptual skills:
Test I — Eye-Motor Coordination
Test II — Figure-Ground
Test III — Constancy of Shape
Test IV — Position in Space
Test V — Spatial Relationships

29
The developer of the test, Marianne Prostig,

claims that
each of the above testable areas are essential
prerequi-
sites for success in beginning reading and writing.
Cohen
(1969) suggests that this test is closely related to meas-
uring aspects of intelligence, due to its correlation

with
Primar y Abilities Test . In a study he has done with
352 seventh and eighth graders, he found very little rela-
tionship between the perceptual test and reading achieve-
ment. It takes considerable time to give the test and
score it, requiring training and test sophistication on
the part of the examiners
The deHirsch Battery and Frostig Test are used as
diagnostic tests in private learning disability clinics
throughout the country. They are time consuming and ex-
pensive, and dependent upon the presence of a school psy-
chologist for proper use in a classroom.
Another test which is being used to identify children
with possible learning disabilities is the Illinois Test
of Psycholinguis tic Abilities (ITPA). Produced by McCarthy
and Kirk at the University of Illinois in 1961, the experi-
mental edition purported to measure nine different factors
thought to be related to either the visual or auditory
functioning of the child two to nine years old. These
included
Auditory-Vocal Automatic Test (grammatical rules)
Visual Decoding Test (matching)

30
Motor .Encoding Test (Appropriate

gestures for
manipulation of a given object)
Auditory-Vocal Association Test (analogy)
Visual-Motor Sequencing Test (reproduce

from memory) sequence
4
Vocal Encoding Test (unique, meaningful

adjectives)
Auditory- local Sequencing Test (digit
recall)
Visual-Motor Association Test (relate visual
stimuli)
Auditory Decoding Test (controlled vocabulary
test)
Leeds (1970) presents a summary of research
and his
commentary on the ITPA in the May, 1970 Journal of
the
Reading Specialist. He stresses that the test, now being
used in clinics and schools across the country, is the

ex-
perimental edition and has not as yet been validated or
standardized. A revised edition (1968) is now available,

but much of the research has been done on the earlier
edition. Leeds reviews some of the studies used with this
version. Among them is Cripe (1966). He tested 36 first
grade children in four experimental tasks as follows: The

children selected showed a discrepancy of at least one
standard deviation on two ITPA decoding and/or association
sub-tests when any discrepancy between the sub-test pair
was not reversed. They were assigned to either the Audi-
tory or Visual group. The tasks involved absolute iden-
tification of eight stimulus items which enabled the re-
searcher to compare the subject’s performance on auditory
and visual linguistic and non-linquistic learning tasks.

Cnpe concluded that: 1 ) differences measured by the ITPA,
if existent, are extremely
subtle, and 2) that discrep-
ancies m a child's ability to learn
auditory and visual
stimuli are not measured by this
test.
Golden and Steiner ( 1969 ) using the revised edition,
investigated the relationship between
specific auditory
and visual functions and reading
performance. Twenty sec-
ond graders classified as good or
poor readers, partici-
pated in this study which utilized five
sub-tests from
the revised edition of the ITPA
(Visual-Sequential Memory,
Auditory-Sequential Memory, Visual Closure, Auditory
Closure, and Sound Blending). They concluded that poor
readers appear to be lacking in auditory rather
than in
visual functions.
A number of factor-analytic studies have

been done to
test McCarthy and Kirk's contention that there are
twelve
distinct psycholinguis tic abilities that the ITPA iden-
fifi es and measures. (The revised edition contains three
additions. Visual Closure, Auditory Closure, and Sound
Blending.) Notable among these studies is that of
Wisland and Many (1969). They tested 97 children, giving
them the complete battery twice during a two-week period
to determine a coefficient of stability as well as to
provide data for the factor analysis. A centroid method
was used. Leeds states (p. 176)
The results of the study reveal that as many as

32
nine factors may be involved in the test, with

three factors accounting for 79 percent of the
total common factor variance of the entire test.
The general psy cholinguistic factor appeared
consistently on each of the nine subtests.
Three other factors which appeared were: gen-
eral sequencing, visual-motor sequencing, and
an auditory factor involved in vocabulary ac-
tivity. The authors concluded that the "find-
ings do not support the hypothetical construct
proposed by Kirk and McCarthy" of nine distinct
factors measured by the test.
Swearengen used the ITPA and the Gates Primary Reading Test
to investigate the psycholinguistic abilities of unilingual
and bilingual first grade children in a two-year program.
Skills in the auditory-vocal channel were found to be bet-
ter predictors of reading achievement than those in the
visual-motor channel. This agrees with the findings of
Golden and Steiner, reported earlier, and in a separate
study by Cynthia Deutsch (1964), to be reported later in
this chapter.
Another study using the ITPA was conducted by Ryckman
and Wiegerink (1968), factor analyzing the correlation
matrices of eighteen studies. They concluded that the
ITPA assesses a more global language pattern at the lower
age levels and a more differentiated and specific language
pattern at the upper age levels. They also concluded that
although the test does not measure single abilities which
are mutually exclusive, it does assess two channel dimen-
sions, (auditory-vocal and visual-motor) with some valid-
ity. They caution that use of the test with younger

children is probably not
justified, but that with older
children, 6-0 to 9-0, clinical
utilization is valid.
Other research studies reported
by Leeds (1970 ) in-
clude the following: Brown and Rice (1967); Dickson
(1967); Hepburn (1968); Hirshoren
(1969); Horner (1967);
Kass (1966); Lombardi (1970);
O'Grady (1968). Leeds con-
cludes from his survey of these
studies that at the kin-
dergarten level there appear to be
advantages in using
the XTPA scores to predict
achievement two years later,
and that it appears possible to
construct programs to
prevent reading disabilities and
concomitant school
failure. He cautions, however, that the test
is still
in the experimental stage and that
standardization is not
complete, in spite of the revised 1968 edition.
The Ill inois Test of Psycholinguistic

Abilities is
still somewhat controversial in terms of isolating
and
measuring specific linquistic factors. The administra-
tion of the test requires special training, is expensive
in terms of professional and subject time, and is

not,
therefore appropriate for general classroom use.
The Primary Mental Abilities Test developed by
Thurstone and Thurstone (1953) and available through Sci-
ence Research Associates is used by a number of school
systems to help "place" children in first grade according
to their abilities as measured by this test. The test is

divided into four sub-tests covering verbal meaning,
34
perceptual speed, number facility.

and spatial relations,
The instrument is promoted
because of its differential
information, which yields scores
on each sub-test as well
as a total score.
In a study of Primary Abi

lities at Mental Age Six .
Meyers, Orpet Attwell, and Dingman

,
( 1962 ), through use of
a battery of 13 tests,
attempted to isolate four specific
factors as refinement of a general
concept of intelli-
gence. Their study consisted of matching
100 children
with a Chronological Age of
72.1-72.3 with 100 mentally
retarded males and females with a
Chronological Age of 18
years or under, and a Mental Age of
72.0-72.5, to deter- •
mine whether they could identify four

discrete abilities;
hand-eye psychomotor, perceptual speed,
linguistics, and
spatial reasoning. Intercorrelation matrices yielded
oblique factors including six for the school
group, (the
four mentioned above plus a very probable
immediate mem-
ory factor as tested by the digit span,
and a highly ten-
tative expressive language factor.) Five factors emerged
for the retarded group, without evidence of a
divergent
factor. The spatial section of the PMA gives some clues
about how a child perceives relationships, but, as it is
a performance task, it is not particularly useful in terms
of analyzing whether a child in "visually minded" or not.
The most commonly used test in kindergarten, exclu-
sive of those tests accompanying the basal reader series.

which are used in some
kindergartens, is probably
the
Metropolit an Reading R eadiness
.. . Thisconsists of six
tests ranging from "Word
Recognition" and "Listening,"
through "Matching," "Alphabet"
and "Numbers," to
Copying." Prom an auditory
standpoint the "Listening"
test may have some validity,
and "Matching" might be
con-
sidered visual. It is a group administered
test, as is
the g^H^Jtoital Abilities
Test, wlth the expected re _
suit that some of the children
"tune out" during its
administration
For the most part, first grade

teachers have to rely
upon their own teacher judgment
in deciding which child
IS "ready" to start reading.
In many classrooms this is
done on a "Look-Say" basis.
According to Jeanne Chall
(1967), who carried on an exhaustive
three year study, it
appears likely that for some children
this approach makes
for poorer readers and spellers than
if they were taught
"the code."
It is clear from the foregoing that

there are few in-
struments of an easy diagnostic nature
available for the
classroom teacher to rely upon in deciding when
a child is
ready to read. Furthermore it is not clear from present
tests what specific method should be used on an
individual
basis to insure optimum success for each child. Although
thousands of research studies have been conducted in some
area of the reading process, very little has been done to

identify or compare a child’s
preferred modality.
The most commonly used
test for auditory
discrimina-
tion, aside from the
aural-graphic sections of most
readi-
ness tests, and audiometer
examinations, is the Wepman
Auditory Discrimination Test.
This is individually given
with the examiner reading
40 pairs of words, ten of
which
are identical and the other
thirty having different be-
ginnings or endings. The child stands with his
back to
the examiner and tells whether
the words are the same or
different. The possible faults in this
test lie in dis-
crepancies of dialect and pronunciation
of the examiner,
plus his inability to tell whether
he has the child's full
auditory attention during the test.
A number of studies have been carried

out in transfer
abilities from one modality to another
as in Abravanel
The Development of Intersensory
Patterning With
R egard to S el ected Spatial Dimensions
. In this study,
preschool children were given specific shapes
to handle,
sight unseen, and asked to identify them.
As children
matured in age their handling of the shapes became
more
digital and more accurate.
Gibson, Gibson, Pick, and Osser (1962), in a now
classical study, came to the same conclusions. A set of
12 standard letter-like forms was constructed with 12
variations in each, representing rotations, reversals,
changes from straight to curved lines, changes of

37
perspective and "topological"

changes, with breaks and
closure. The test was given to
H to 8 year old
children
with the finding that as the
children matured, their dis-
crimination increased.
Another much quoted study was

carried out by Bishop
(1964) to compare the effect of
training in letter-sound
training with whole word training using
unfamiliar Arabic
letters. One group of subjects received
"phonics" train-
ing, (transfer of phoneme to
grapheme) and the other "look-
say." After an initial teaching task,
new letters and two-
syllable words were presented. The group which had re-
ceived the letter-sound correspondence
training did signif-
icantly better.
Birch and Belmont (1964, 1965) developed a

research
study requiring children to match a pattern of
events in
one modality with a pattern of events in
another modality,
such as listening to a tapping pattern and then picking
out
a visual representation of the same pattern. Variations of
this have been done by Beery (1967) and Blank and Bridger
(1966). In reference to auditory discrimination in retarded
readers. Blank (1968) states: (p. 1092)
It has been found that retarded readers have much

greater difficulty with word pairs that have dif-
ferent endings than those that have different be-
ginnings. For example, they did less well (on
the Wepman Auditory Discrimination Test) on the
pair web-wed than on the pair din-bin even,
though the same phonemes are to be discriminated.

It should be noted that most information is given
in the first part of the word, particularly when
38
a word is heard in context. Therefore, retarded

readers' poor discrimination of word endings
may
result from the fact that they do not "need" to
attend to the endings of words to gain meaning.
Mira (1968) developed an interesting study. Twenty-

four children were presented with a complex arrangement
where, by the use of electrical switches which required
increasing strength of response, they could respond to
either visual or auditory stimuli. This is based on the

theory that children will work to achieve that which gives
them pleasure. Half of these children were disabled
learners. About this study Mira states: (p. 657 )
The patterns of responding discussed above con-

firm that children demonstrate individual pat-
terns of attention to auditory and visual events.
This indicates that instructional material could
be more effective if programmed according to a
child's pattern of modality preference. Audio-
• visual instructional aids of great flexibility
are available to the educator, but, unless a
child has an obvious sensory impairment, the
channel through which the learning material is
presented is seldom selected on the basis of an
analysis of the child's modality preference.
Hall ( 1967 ) constructed a paired associates' test of
visual and aural material to be given to kindergarteners
and second graders. The results suggested that children
do not learn faster aurally than visually. Otto (1962-
63 ) did a research study of the differential effects of
verbal and pictorial representations of stimuli upon re-
sponses evoked to 80 fourth graders. The results suggest
that (a) pictorial presentation of stimuli tends to evoke
more responses than verbal presentations of the same

39
stimuli, but the magnitude of the

difference is influenced
by the particular stimuli used,
and that (b) responses
evoked by the pictorially presented
stimuli tend to differ
in nature from responses evoked by
verbally presented ma-
terial.
Travers (1969) studied the advantages and

disadvan-
tages of presenting simplified rather
than complex visual
materials in instructional material. He found
that the
more complex the visual material, the more
learning oc-
curred. Stylized pictures had little meaning. Falk
(1968), in presenting a test of Object and Pattern Dis -
crim ination Learning to young children, found that

as
children become older, they need less cues to identify
patterns
Kling (1968) describes a highly sophisticated (and
expensive) test he devised to examine the possibility
that there is a direct relationship between audition and
vision in terms of frequency, duration, and amplitude.
He designed an Auditory Discrimination Test using a Gen-
eral Radio beat-frequency oscillator which produced fre-
quencies from 532 to 495 and taped pure tones at 7.5
inches per second. For Visual Discrimination he used
filmed sine wave patterns, keeping amplitude, length, and
width constant for 128 different wave patterns. The test
was administered to 66 college students who were asked to
discriminate between pitch for Auditory, and width for

Visual. The conclusions from this study suggest that the
individual differences in the sensory modes are not nec-
essarily highly correlated. Kling also suggests that
additional data such as intelligence, visual and auditory
perceptual scores, and school subjects such as reading
and spelling, should be utilized for analyzing the re-
sults. He recommends that the effects of auditory and
visual discrimination training should be studied, and
that a longitudinal study should be conducted to deter-
mine the relationship between maturation and the inter-
relationships of auditory and visual discrimination. The
implications of this research for the present study are
enormous and will be elaborated upon later.
Dykstra (1966) studied the auditory discrimination
abilities of 632 first-grade children. They were given a
battery of tests including the Lorge-Thorndike Intelligence
Test and seven auditory discrimination tests. The object
was to examine the relationship between pre-reading dis-
crimination tests and reading achievement at the end of
the first grade as measured by the Gates Primary R eading
Test. His overall conclusion is that presently available
auditory discrimination tests are found to be significantly

is in
related to reading achievement, but their main value
learn-
predicting which child may encounter difficulty in
ing to read. They still left a great deal to be desired
as far as predicting the reading

achievement of individual
pupils. Girls were significantly superior to boys in the
auditory discrimination skills measured.
Cynthia Deutsch (1964), in her much reviewed study.
Auditory Discrimination and Learning: Social Factors ,
examines the implications of a poor socio-economic home
condition and beginning school success. She correlated
various measures of visual discrimination and the Wepman
Auditory Discrimination Test with good and poor readers
from grade levels I, III, and V. She found that poor
readers have more difficulty with auditory discrimination,
they have greater difficulty in shifting from one modality
to another, and they are more inefficient at a serial
learning task when the stimuli are auditory than when
those are visual. She concludes (p. 293)

•
Most reading readiness tests in current use em-
phasize readiness in terms of visual perceptual
skills, rather than auditory ones. Most of
these tests have been constructed with middle-
class subjects in mind. Most of the subjects
who contributed to the data presented here were
lower-class children ... it may well be that lower-
class children, who live in very noisy environ-
ments, do not develop the requisite auditory
discrimination abilities to learn to read well -
or adequately - early in their school years....
It is not meant here to imply that all children
from disadvantaged environments are going to be
poor in auditory discrimination, while all middle-
class children are going to have adequate skill in
this area. Rather, the implication is that the
conditions under which children live, particu-
larly early in life, are going to affect audi-
tory skill in a predictable way....
Cynthia Deutsch goes on to suggest that because most of
the reading research has included mainly middle-class

42
subjects, the finding of poor auditory discrimination has
not been as wide-spread as if the subjects had been from
lower class urban homes. She states, "the discrepancy in
incidence of reading retardation between middle-class and
lower-class children is very large, and it is possible
that at least a portion of this discrepancy is attribu-
table to differential difficulties in auditory discrimina-
tion." (p. 293)
Nancy E. Wood, Director of Language Disorders, Cleve-
land Speech & Hearing Center, in a seminar report prepared
for professional personnel in 1959, states that many chil-
dren may be able to perform adequately when visual clues
are presented, but become confused and often echolalic,
repeating only the last word of a question, when the selec-
tion must be made by auditory clues only. "In a school
setting, where many instructions and learning principles
are presented through the auditory medium, this becomes
an important factor in the evaluation and resulting educa-
tional recommendations." (p. 18) Dr. Wood also discusses
the difficulties that some children have in reauditorizing
words or sounds because they cannot retain the sound pat-
terns sufficiently long for identification, while others
have difficulty revisualizing words or letters because
they cannot retain the visual patterns of words. This is
typical of some so-called dyslexic children. She con-
tinues (p. 24) "Although it is not unusual for some

^3
children to have difficulty in both of these sensory

areas,
this differentiation must be made before maximum
benefits
from therapy can be obtained."
Myklebust (1968) suggests that there are three areas
language which the individual must develop in order to
have meaningful communication. These are: inner lan-

guage, where one organizes one's thoughts; receptive lan-
guage, where one processes the communication of others;
and expressive language, which is the medium through which
one expresses his thoughts to others. This latter develop-

ment assumes that the first two areas are well inte-
grated. Conversely, if there is a breakdown here in the •
expressive language, manifested through poor expression
of either verbal or written communication, one might ex-
pect a reading disorder.
Bannatyne ( 1969 ) reports on a study he carried out de-
signed to explore the relationships between visuo-spatial
and visuo-motor memory for designs and other sensorimotor
and psycholinguistic variables. Fifty third grade children
were given a memory for designs test, (Bannatyne Visuo-
Spatial Memory Test:BVSMT). The original design was pre-
sented and eight more stimuli were presented: with the
figures rotated, mirror imaged, simplified, fragmented,
out of proportion, complicated, and symmetrical, as well
as similar. (This is somewhat reminiscent of the Gibson,
Gibson, Pick, and Osser study reported earlier in the

chapter.) He correlated the results with a number
of other
factors, (including handedness), reaching some very tenta-
tive conclusions. One states that it is possible to con-
struct a motor-free visuo-spatial memory test such as the
BVSMT which will assist in the diagnostic differentiation
of visuo-spatial and visuo-motor functioning .(! The other

)
conclusions, relating to handedness, rotation, sex of child,
et at ., need further testing, as the author himself states.
One final report seems pertinent in discussing the
problems of children with learning difficulties. Coleman

and Dawson (1969) have written a definitive statement of
the kinds of pitfalls that many children with visual-
perceptual-motor dysfunction encounter when being given in-
telligence, achievement, and various readiness tests. Most
tests, both individual and group, rely to some extent on
visual functioning. Even a cursory review of some of some
of these tests, with this point in mind, serves to alert
one to the fact that innate ability is not being measured,
but rather a performance on a given test at a given time
in a given circumstance. The dependence on scores of
group tests, such as are customarily given in schools
throughout America has been mentioned earlier. Coleman
and Dawson underline this in the following statement:
(p. 15 )
The general and most pertinent problem is the

children who are "lost." The guilt is not the
children's - nor can it be assigned to any one
45
discipline. Researchers derive methods, ex-

aminers give tests, educators apply the re-
sults to practice in educational settings
Somehow, the wide divergence in training and
understanding leaves out the children, to
whom all profess their dedication. It is
rather akin to round vs square conference
.
tables - except educators and specialists

seem to go round and round a square table.
The last quarter of a century has seen a tremendous
upswing in the number of research studies, conjectures
and essays on the reading process and the causes of read-
ing failure. An exhaustive report of these is beyond the
scope and purpose of the present paper. Each writer,
whether he be an educator, a psychologist, a linguist, or
a neurologist, has his own particular view of the problem.
Perhaps it is up to the reader of these reports to decide
finally upon the ones which make the most sense to him,
knowing that the final choice will reflect his own bias.
The bias of the present study is towards a theory of di-
agnosis of individual idiosyncracies ,

whether genetically
or environmentally induced, to find a pragmatic approach
which will define a problem and find a solution to it.
It is appropriate in the limitations just described to
quote Dr. Martin Deutsch (1964, p. 249)
Examination of the literature yields no explana-

tion for any child with an intact brain, and who
;ls not severely disturbed, not to learn all the
basic scholastic skills. The failure of such
children to learn is the failure of the schools
to develop curricula consistent with the environ-
mental experience of the children and their sub-
sequent initial abilities and disabilities.
I
46
CHAPTER III
PROCEDURE
HXBP-t hesis . It is the hypothesis of this study that,

in
a randomly selected population of kindergarten
and first grade
children, some children will show a preferred modality.
It is
postulated that if this population were given an auditory
and
visual discrimination test (with one section visually oriented
and the other auditorially oriented) the resulting scores

would
indicate that some children favor one modality over the other.
Pilot procedure . A class of 25 kindergarten children
was presented with a preliminary test on an individual basis.
Using the International Code, ten children were asked to
discriminate between an original stimulus set of signals on
a "Make-Break" telegraphy circuit and two other consecutive
sets of signals. The same procedure was used in presenting
visual stimuli (International Code signals) with each symbol
inked in on 8-1/2 x 11 inch tag board. This was more success-

ful than with the auditory, but was cumbersome.
Another task was devised, with the examiner presenting a
set of International Code signals and asking each of five
children to duplicate the sound on the telegraphy set. Al-
though the subjects were intrigued with the novelty of this
kind of communication, for most of them it was too difficult.
The visual aspect was handled as above. Part of the problem
evolved around sustaining the attention of each subject.

Abandoning the physical presence of the telegraphy
key, the examiner taped a story about a mother
rabbit teach-
ing her baby to discriminate sounds in the woods.
The baby
(child) was asked to listen carefully to a preliminary
signal,
listen to two more signals, and tell which was like the
first.
Although three of the ten children tested could do this with
some degree of success, it was apparent they were

(1) more
interested in the story than their part in it, (2) were being
asked to process too much information, and (3) the signals
were not dissimilar enough for immature perception. Rather

than an auditory discrimination test, it became an auditory
memory test.
The visual test consisted of the same process, with slides
presented through a lighted LOGAN Electric Slide Viewer, No.
210, for viewing 2-1/4 x 2-1/4 inch slides. The slides
(DIARAMAR, made in Sweden by AB Biwex, Gofene) were made from
negatives of the Code signals, deriving from photographs taken
of 8-1/2 x 11 inch black construction paper with white code
symbols. An Ikoflex Twin Lens Reflex camera was used with
Tri-X film, and a speed of l/25th of a second with a lens
opening of 5*6. Although the viewing process was satisfactory,
again the same objections as outlined above were present. Too
much information was being fed to the subjects and this be-
came a visual memory test rather than a visual discrimination
test. Also, the test took a minimum of twenty minutes, too
long for the more restive six-year olds.

It was apparent that a simpler version
of the test was
necessary, from the standpoint of directions as
well as in-
formation to be processed. It was decided to use a "Same-
Different" response to two sets of signals for twelve

dif-
ferent tasks of listening, and a similar number of
visual
tasks. This decision was substantiated by research studies
reported by Travers ( 1 6 , p. 90 ).
Where absolute judgements are involved there

appears to be an upper limit set on the amount
of information which can be used and this limit
is set by central rather than peripheral factors
Henneman and Long summarize current knowledge in
the following words (p. 11 ):
"The major conclusion from the above re-

search is that there seems to be some maximum
amount of information that can be obtained from
the absolute judgements of a single stimulus
dimension, this being 2 or 3.32 bits and equiva-
lent to the use of ^ to 10 categories. This
indication of a general information-handling
capacity for all senses suggests the operation
of a brain mechanism at work rather than sense
organ processes as the principal determiner of
rate of information assimilation."
In the final format of the Auditory and Visual Discrimina-
tion Test ( AVDT ) the signals were taped, using the same "Make-
Break" telegraphy circuit as described earlier, with microphone
feedback arrangement (homemade) and a frequency of 3000 cycles.
The stimulus was of approximately one second's duration, vary-
ing progressively as more information was processed. A set of
signals consisted of two sounds at the beginning of the test
for two items, three sounds for the next four, and progressed
to four for the last half of the test, six items. A Craig
49
Model 2603 Cassett Recorder was used both for the

instruc-
tions and for the auditory discrimination section.
The
slides and viewer as described above were retained
for the
visual discrimination section. Time for viewing each slide
was approximately one second, depending, as it did, upon
human idiosyncracy . That is, for younger children it was

more difficult to get sustained attention. However, because
of the nature of the projector, it was fairly easy for the
examiner to be sure that the subject was actually looking.
This kind of a projector was selected with this in mind,
rather than using a screen or an overhead projector.
The test is arranged in four sections. The first is

either an auditory or visual section with six questions, fol-
lowed by its counterpart (visual or auditory) of six questions.
The second half of the test, (the third and fourth sections)
are similar in format to the first half, presenting more in-
formation, but having a counterpart in the other modality.
In other words, the stimulus is the same, whether presented
auditorially or visually, using the same sets of signals. This
was a deliberate attempt to try to assess the processing mode
of the individual child, i.e., by keeping the type of stimulus
constant, the preferred modality should become apparent. Scor-
ing is weighted, giving greater credit as more bits of informa-
tion is processed (see Appendix for clarification of the format
and scoring of the AVDT)

Using the original ten children for test
version com-
parison for ease of administration and child
comprehension,
this final version of the AVDT was tried
with apparent suc-
cess. The children's attention was sustained, they
were
able to give immediate responses without confusion
about the
information desired by the examiner, and the testing
time
was cut from twenty minutes to approximately twelve.
The
directions were direct, without a "story" to distract the
subject's attention, and were given as follows:
Directions
This is a looking and listening game. I want 'to

see how well you can use your eyes and ears. I
am going to show you two pictures. You are going
to tell me whether they are exactly the same or
whether they are different.
I want you to look into this projector. First I

will put one slide into it. I will give you just
enough time to look at it, and then I will put in
another slide. I want you to tell me whether the
second slide is exactly like the first. Let's
try it.
(Proceed the same way for the first six sets of

slides.
You did very well using your eyes. Now I want to

see how well you can listen, You are going to do
exactly the same thing with y our ears as you did
with your ey es .I am going t o play a set of
signals for you. It might be two sounds together,
or even thre e or four. After I play the first set
of signals I 'll wait a second and then I'll play
another set of signals. You will tell me whether
the second s et of signals was exactly the same as
the first or whether it was d if f erent
Let me show you what I mean. Here is one set of

signals. ( —.) Here is the second set. ( .)
Was that the same or was it different? (Pause)
It was the same. Now listen to this one. (— —
51
Here is the second set. (. .) Was that the same?

(Pause) No, the first had two long signals and
the second had two short ones. Let's try one more
Listen carefully. ( (Pause)
) (— .) Was
the second one the same as the first?
I think you understand now. Let's try it. Listen

all the way through the first signal each time,
wait for the pause, and then listen for the next
set of signals. Here we go.
For most children the directions seemed clear. Three
sample questions were used in the auditory section which was
more difficult for most of the children, while one sample was
usually sufficient in the visual. However, for some, the

concept of "same— different " was difficult. Here the examiner
used a pen and a pencil to illustrate difference, or herself
and the subject. With other children it was sometimes diffi-
cult to explain "set of signals" as having two, three, or
four sounds . This was illustrated orally by the examiner hum-
ming a similar set of sounds. With some children, during the
test, the examiner had to stop the tape and say "That's the
end of one signal, listen for the next to see if the sounds
in it are the same as the first." With other children, who
appeared to be strongly visual, the examiner used a pictorial
representation of the sounds in a signal, in the classical
dot-dash rendition, although this was used only as a last re-
sort in order to keep the two modalities of sight and hearing
separate
Two forms of the test were developed to be given on a
test-retest basis a month apart for reliability purposes.

I
The format is the same in each, but with different symbols
used for correlation purposes. (See Appendix for Form A

and Form B.) With the testing procedure perfected, the test-
ing began. The developer of the test did all of the testing
with the exception of the de Hirsch Battery , to be explained
later
The sub j ect . The subjects consisted of two afternoon
kindergarten classes and two first-grade classes with approxi-
mately 20 children in each, almost equally divided between
boys and girls. Although some children were "lost" during
the three month period of testing, the final number of cases
breaks down as follows:
Boys Girls Total
Group I Kindergarten (KC) 12 11 . 23
Group II Kindergarten (KM) 13 8 21
Group III First Grade (FC) 10 9 19
Group IV First Grade (FM) 10 10 20
45 38 83
All of the children attended the Amherst-Pelham Public
Schools in Amherst, Massachusetts. This is a college town with
not only a private college (Amherst College) but a large uni-
versity (The University of Massachusetts). It is also the focal
point for three other colleges in terms of joint activities.
It is far from being a typical New England town from the stand-
point of per capita income, education level, and social aware-
ness. The parents of many of the pupils tested are associated

53
with the higher education facilities either

as faculty
members or as graduate students. The education
level and
income of the parents put these children into a
comparatively
high social class. (This will be detailed later in the
Evaluation section.)
Group II and Group IV are pupils who attend the Universi-
ty of Massachusetts' demonstration school (Mark's Meadow)

and while they come from the same economic background as
Groups I and III, (they are recruited from low to high socio-
economic levels) they are more sophisticated about testing
procedure than Groups I and III, which attend the Center

Schools
Although public kindergartens are new to Amherst, (1969-70

being their first year of operation) the Mark's Meadow Kinder-
garten was established in 19 68 under Title III funds of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act to serve as a model
demonstration school for the educators of Massachusetts.
Under state law, all communities must have public kindergar-
tens by 1973* The director of this Model Kindergarten program
became director of all the Amherst Kindergartens including
those at Center Schools. Because of her experience and
orientation in the Title III program, all kindergarten pupils
in the Amherst Public Schools underwent a series of tests in
the de Hirsch Battery ,

and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary
Test. The results of these tests were made available for the
present study and were correlated with it

54
Testing procedure. All of the children were tested

individually in a separate alcove, room,
or closet. Test-
ing conditions were not ideal because
of the crowded con-
ditions of each of the three schools used.
However, the
examiner took the necessary time in each
case to assure
herself that she had the child’s complete
attention for
each test item. As this was not a ’’speed" test, subjects
were allowed as much time as they needed to
answer, although
auditory and visual stimuli were presented only
once for each
item. The testing took place in the afternoon, a difficult
time for some children (as can be seen on a videotape

of the
testing where one young man is obviously tired) . Children
were promised a reward (four of the inevitable M & M candies).
The "grapevine" passed the "M & M word" rapidly so that there
was no difficulty in getting volunteers. In two or three

cases the subject could not wait for the reward and performed
only after an advance token reward was given. As the examiner
taught kindergarten in the morning at the Center School, and
had had frequent association with the children from all three
schools, there was no difficulty in establishing rapport.
The initial testing took place in April, 1970, with a

«
week spent at each classroom. Form A of the Auditory Visual
Discrimination Test was used, with Group I being given the
Visual section first, Group II the Auditory, Group III the
Visual, and Group IV the Auditory. The second round of test-
ing began in the first week of May, with Form B, and the
I
55
testing sequence reversed, so that Group I started with
Auditory, Group II Visual, etc. In addition each child was
tested for handedness and eye dominance using a "telescope"
(rolled up construction paper) . Dominance was determined
on a 2 out of 3 trial. In addition the child was asked to
draw a picture of himself for an informal examiner rating of
self-concept, handedness, and visuo-motor performance. The
Wepman Auditory Discrimination Test was also given to the
first graders for correlation purposes, using 20 (all of the
odd) of the 40 pairs because of time and fatigue factors.
Also the same items were included in the de Hirs ch Battery
for kindergarten testing.

the
The final phase of the testing took place during
administration of
first and second week of June with a group
l Abilities
the Perceptual Speed Test of the Primary Menta
Test, Science Research Associates . Kindergarten testing was
the classroom teacher

limited to eight children at a time, with
as a total
assisting. The first grade children took the test
As this is a group test, this

procedure seemed accepta-
group.
found the concept of a
ble, although the younger children
Their scores reflect this
speed test almost incomprehensible.
section.
as will be shown in the Evaluation
complete a rating scale of
The teachers were asked to
evaluation for comparison
each child tested as a subjective
copies of the We£man
purposes. The Teacher Rating scale and
the PMA Perceptual Speed
Auditory Discrimination Tes t and
56
Test are in the Appendix.
On June 15, 1970, the testing was completed, (photo, p. 59.)

As the AVDT is a new test, it seemed advisable to run
an item analysis on both forms, A and B. An item analysis
was also done on the Wepman Auditory Discrimination Test .
The Computer Center at the University of Massachusetts with a
Control Data Corporation 3600 computer ran the program. In
addition, all other data was computed using the Statistical
Package for Social Sciences program, developed by Ronald K.
Hambleton, at the University of Massachusetts. This includes
frequency tables, mean, median, mode, variance, standard
deviation, and standard error as well as Pearson Correlation
Coefficients and Spearman Correlation Coefficients on all
data. Twenty three variables are correlated for forty four
kindergarten children (who received the de Hirsch Battery and
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test ) and sixteen variables are
correlated for all eighty three children. Correlations were
also run for both kindergarten classes with both first grades,
as well as complete correlations for the children from Center
Schools with those from Mark's Meadow Laboratory School. In
addition the classes from each school were correlated with
each other, i.e.. Center School Kindergarten with Center

with
School First Grade; and also Mark's Meadow Kindergarten
Mark’s Meadow First Grade.
Another computer system is available at the School of
Education at the University of Massachusetts; APL 360,

(A
57
Programming Language) IBM. This was used to compute means

and standard deviations on individual classes and tests,
as well as to correlate both test forms with each group and
with each other.
By using two computers, it was possible to check means
and standard deviations on the AVDT . The results of these
two systems of evaluation will be shown in the following
chapter
After the testing was completed, the investigator was
given permission to go through the audiometric* and tele-
ginocular** scores of all of the children in the study.
These are kept at the Town of Amherst Public Health Office.
One boy in the first grade at Center School had been refer-
red for further testing by his own doctor, but had done well
on the auditory section of the AVDT . One kindergarten child
at Mark’s Meadow was referred for further visual testing by
his own physician, but his score on the AVDT was also above
the mean for his class. Testing of both modalities is done
yearly for all of the children by the school nurse, with
families notified if there is some question about a child’s
acuity. There is no further check on whether the family
actually carries out the recommendation, however.
After the investigator had finished the testing and
computer programming, she retired to Williamstown, Massachusetts,
* Maico Audiometer
** Titmus Telebinocular Test
58
home of Williams College, to collate the information. It
became apparent that, with the data and raw scores, additional
correlations might well be made. The Computer Center at
Williams College was made available to her, and as a result,
additional correlations on an IBM 1130 Computer were done.
This was an unexpected and much appreciated bonus, allowing,
as it did, for further correlations of father's occupation
with test scores, and a correction in computation of the
Wepman Auditory Discrimination Scores and the AVDT . It also
gave the investigator some insight into the varities of
computers and programming that are now extant.

59
Administration of AVDT - Form B

60
CHAPTER IV
EVALUATION
It is appropriate to state again the hypothesis of
this study before going into an evaluation of the testing.
Hypothesis . It is the hypothesis of this study that,
in a randomly selected population of kindergarten and first
grade children, some children will show a preferred modality.
It is postulated that if this population were given an auditory
and visual discrimination test (with one section visually
oriented and the other auditorially oriented) the resulting
scores would indicate that some children favor one modality
over the other.
It should also be restated that the main purpose of the
study was to develop a simple, easy to administer auditory
and visual discrimination test for classroom use in the
kindergarten or first grade, which would assist the teacher

take with
in deciding what form beginning reading should
each child.
which
Table IV- 1 shows an analysis of the four groups
Father’s occupa-
were tested, by sex, mean age, and number.
seventy per cent
tion is given in detail, showing that almost
families. Professional
of the children came from professional
faculty members, but
includes not only university and college
collar refers to sales-
teachers and graduate students. White
blue collar refers
men and self employed persons, while
61
TABLE IV - 1
Total Group Analysis
Number = 83 Children
Sex = 38 Girls 45 Boys
Mean Age = 6 Years - 4 Months
Group Breakdown:
Group I - Kindergarten - Center School: 23
Group II - Kindergarten - Mark’s Meadow School: 21
Group III - First Grade - Center School: 19
Group IV - First Grade - Mark’s Meadow School: 20
Center School Total - 42
Mark ’
s Meadow School Total - 41
n %
Father s Occupation: Blue Collar 17 20.5
White Collar 13 15.7
Professional 53 63.9
Father 's Occupation Breakdown by School:

Blue Collar White Collar Professional
8 25 42
Center School: 9
28 41
Mark ’ Meadow: 8 5
13 53 83
17
i
62
specifically to such jobs as custodians, truck drivers,
and construction workers. All children were Caucasian,
except for two Negro children whose fathers were graduate
students. (There are few Negro families living in Amherst.)
The figures for each grade as well as each school are
almost equal, as well as socio-economic level as judged by
father’s occupation. Seven more boys than girls were in-
cluded in the study in an effort to analyze in some detail
the differences between boys and girls entering kindergarten.
Boys are thought to be less mature than girls in reading
readiness factors upon school entrance. This will be examined
in detail in a later table.
Table IV-2 shows a breakdown in hand and eye dominance,
a statistic that was gathered in order to see if any correla-
tions could be made showing that mixed dominance is a factor
in readiness. It is interesting that a total of 23 children
had mixed dominance of either right hand and left eye or left
hand and right eye, (5 kindergarten girls and 5 first grade
girls; 6 kindergarten boys and 7 first grade boys), but that
almost 80 per cent of the children were right handed. Some
learning disability specialists have felt that mixed dominance
was a factor in reading difficulties. A later table (IV- 26 p. 107)
shows that in this study there was no correlation between
handedness and eye dominance with either sex or with either
grade
63
0
W
P
CQ oH cm o on 0 on on c\i cm -=r
p rH cm on -=r c--
O
K E-i
-p
3 O O
CQ Eh Eh
-P
CD
PI CM on I-H O VO
P
CD
PI
>
H
0
>3
w
w
PI -P
CQ Pi
< 0
EH PI m-=r 3
- -
t>- O t>-
— —
in CM O
r\
CM in in VO 0— i i i i CM CM
K •
ii ll
II II
-P
VC
—0
I 1 0 i
—0 1 0
II P >5 II P >3
•H II o •H II o
0
—0 CD CQ CD CQ
i 1 0 —
i 1 0
0 P 0 >i 0 P 0 >3 0
•H TS O tD •H 'CD O 'CD
w CD 0 CQ 0 CD 0
P
CQ 0
P
P P
• • CD • CD • CD • CD
-p G C C G
.. CQ CM rH
— —
oo on -=r hOP hO P hOP b£IP
0 r\ i i i — —
i l i LT\ tD 0 TD 0 'CD 0 TD 0
o • PS rH PS rH PS rH PS rH
g
0 •
G -P
•H CQ
••
6
o 0
Q CO
O
G p o»
oti
<L) — 1
0 CCST O 3
G G TD 0 •*
>5
U —0 «H
P
0 O
>5
•H 0 C >3 CCS TD
s w >3 0 CQ
i 1
P CD >>CQ G
•CD •H O i
— o CQ VC 0
g CD • CQ • 0 QP P VC
P P P XS xs PP
cci
• CD • CD o Tl bO'+H hO ^ P
'CD G C Eh (D *H 0 0 »H xs
c faOP hOP X CQ PI PC P hO
0 tD 0 'CD 0 •H v — •H
SJ PS H PS rH s VC
64
cn cj\
cd
-p
o
Eh
>
H
w
>-Q
PQ
<
Eh
c\j OO o
ll
II
1
—CO 1 CO
II U >5
•H II o
co cQ PQ
—
i i CO
$Q CD >5 <1)
•H Td O Td
O cd PQ cd
U Ph
• Cd • O
C c
hOP> bO-P
Td CO xd co
« rH « rH
tQ
C
cd
w
-p
Cm
0)
65
Item Analysis . An Item Analysis Test was run, using
the Control Data Corporation 3600 Computer. Tables IV- 3 to

Table IV - shows a breakdown of the raw scores, frequency,
Z scores, and normalized scores on each of the four sections
of the AVDT , i.e., Auditory and Visual - Form A, and Auditory
and Visual - Form B. It is clear from a close examination
of these scores that the Visual sections of both tests were
"easier" than the Auditory sections, and that, whereas Auditory

- Form B remained almost equally difficult. Visual - Form B
became a little easier than Form A. This is shown in the
mean and standard deviations of both tests. In Visual - Form
A the mean is 9-7108 and the standard deviation is 1.5330.
In Form B the mean is 10.4578 and the standard deviation is
1-3559- A summary of these scores is found on page 69 .
A complete breakdown of each item is given in Tables IV-7,
IV- 8 ,
Iv-9 and IV-10. In devising a test, the originator has
to decide upon some kind of cut-off point for validity of an
item. An item analysis is useful in making this kind of
decision. The data in these tables indicates clearly that
some of the items were far too easy, i.e., that almost every-
one "got it right." As the analysis is done for all four
groups, combined, it is impossible to judge how the scores
might have changed if only the kindergarten were analyzed, or
conversely, if only the first grade were analyzed.
Tables IV-7 to IV-10 show, by item, the per cent correct
for all students, correlation biserial with the total score.

66
T3
CD
ts! CO
•H 0) ocootnoDo^^rfo
(—I P LT\ CO O — OO O CT\CO C -^3"
O
— —lOOOOOrH
to cd
P So C\l I I I
o PCO I I I I I
•H o
-P s
to
0
P
O’
CM
Cm —
i CO
O CM — CM C— - CM CM CM
HVOCMNtOrlin 04
CD C C C
-
p
P O
0 O CMiHiHOOOOi— rH
£3 CO I I I I I
e
73 CO
CD
>
•H -P
.p p CM COCO C^CMOMnONO
cd CD O — —
i I i I CM -^T LP\ r oo o
p p OOOOOOOOi I
0 0 S 0
0 -p 73 CU
CO P p o
OO H O 0
CO o TO
>H CO P
1
P
> < —
1
co
0
M cd
>
< -p p
•H
>5
O
w
PI S &H
o
£3
0
-P p
w 6 cd 0 0
CQ
< EH 73 rH 73 (M H in-? IAWCM4-
o tH rH CM OO-HT CO c— oo
I
Eh H
•
S 73
S 0
1
0
-P — P Pi
p
i
cd O pH
0 -P
O
73 Eh
•P
CO
H in H —CO CO rH
p
0 OHOHHHHHH
CM 0
O
p
0
ooooooooo *
I
Ph
5
pH o
O •H •
p
CO > CM
1
0 0 no CM
CM CTN^r OC rH CT\
>s Q 73
O 1 I— — — —
I I I I I I
p cd
T3 0
o VC
P
•p P
— ^r cd pH
•H i
£3 cd CM Td
73 -p t— p
< o cd
•p
EH
co cn
CM 0
tH p P CM 5 P loco — oo on o rH cm
cd O .=r c
— -
Q cd cd
0
t
VC o
i I i I r 1
> p
U S OO
•
co
<
Td
(D
N CO
•H (L) O LCOVO rH OV CT\CO
w
rH
Cd O
^ LTV C O
-H" rH VO CO
C E a C\J rH rH OOO rH
o Ph oo I I I I
•H o
-P
w
<D
d
Q?
CM
<*-1 i— co
O CD Cvl 0- CM VO CTv ct\
Ph t—— r I —
r I OO -H"
Ph o
CD
X3
o
co
C\J rH rH OOO rH
I I I I
s
d to
a;
>
•H -P
O OO — 0O
O O CM VO OO O
P> C rH OO t
cd
rH
0)
O
O -^3"
3 C O O O O O O rH
CO S D
p d P-C
00
H
CO
CD
£
CD
O
00 Ph Td
1 >H O d
i-O o -p
> < oo oo
M <1)
< 1
— Ph > >i
W cd CD •H O
1-0 s -p on •P C
CQ w o s oo cd (D
< Eh d rH d — C— — O VO ov oo
Eh H S d cd
r I C
rH -=r ltnvo co
i
i
6 
oo £ rH [>- CM CO OVVO t—
cd O O — CM — — — i I i I i I i
o
Ph ooooooo
< CD
P-h
I
C
< co o o
oo
a) *H
B u •P oo
Ph o cd ir\
O o •H • o
Ph oo > i — £
0) CD
1 £ Q d H VO O OOVO 0O-H-
cd a 1
i — I CM i — — —
I i 1 i
—
i
PP Td (U
cd Ph Ph
d —
1
VO cd Ph
CO cd o Td
•H -p OO £
> Eh
o cd
-p
00 co
• • Td o CD
Eh £ £ —
1
5 Ph
Q cd cd c- cd O VO t — CO CT\ O — i I CM
> Ph (D •
VC o I — — —
I I I I
< cd s av co
TO
CD
CM CO
•H 0 ooocninooovoLno
rH g ino inn sooo inc\i o
CO n) o
G
O
SO
G oo
CMCMi— IrHOOOOi—ICM
P
I I I I l l
O
-P G;
CO
0
G
o*
CM
P —
i co
o CD o^r ir\h-co o
G CM — CM C'— OO — MO —
C\J t i I i I VO
g O
0 O CO CMi— —lOOOOi— i I H
P OO I I I I I I
£
G IS3
S
CD
>
•H -P
-P G h co ctm-ioolao
cd
rHO
H oo G
p -P
> < 1
— oo
H 2 cd 0
< -p G > >5
W o 0 •H O
PI s EH P -P G
X W £ cd 0
H COC-OO^-H- O OMTtOO
< E-t 1 G rH G
h
Eh M 2 G CG c\i ooinco s-co
co £ 0
-P — G G
O
i
G cd Ph
CD -p
P o
G 9H
p
00
-p
— G H CM IANOOCM Ch OO CM LA
O
I
I— 0 OOOO — — i I i I i— I CM —
i I
< o
G oooooooooo
0
I
X
£ CO O CM
^3"
G (D •H
O G •P VO
Pn O cd O >5
o P • o
1 00 > CM G
0 0
>. £ Q G HCM^TMOHOVOCAO^r
G cd D 1
I I I I I I I 1 I I
O (X TO 0
-P G G
P i— LTv
—
cd
TO
Ph
TO cd 1
G -p c— G
< o cd
-p
Eh
..
oo m
=T 0
TO
Eh G G P £ G CO OH O rH CM
cd O LT\VO
Q cd cd vo
X o
CM IS-
— — —
> G 0
2
• i I i I i
< CO co oo
TO 69
CD
N CO
•H (D o o o p- in oo
lH £h O IA04 CM H
CO
0 O
G
O E o
G co
CMHHOOH
1 1 1 1
<H CQ
0
VO VO
oo
•H O G E • •
-P S 0 G o
—
—
I 1
CO •HO 1 1
CD 0 >-Ph
G so.
cy G
C\l o
<M rH 0 G
O 0
G
m rH oo op
LHOO O CO-^T rH
-=r
- CO
G O —
1 1
0 o CM H — OO — rH
P co 1
i 1 i
<
E 1 1 1
3 CM G
O
Cm
>3
0 G
G o m
0) O -p —
1
VO
> •H •H g VO o
•H -P TO G • .
P 4- o ooinno 0 G, O oo CM
0 O H (M4 NO •H
>
< Ph
G 0 O O O O O lH 0
0 E Ch Q
P G
VO
co
H 0
G
0
o TO
G
CO G to 0
1 >n O G TO
PI O p 0 G
>
H < CO co vo 0
s CD 1 p
< 1
G > >5 > CO
H
1
H 0 0 •H O
hO s P p OO P G TO
CQ w o E oo 0 0 w G
< Eh Eh G iH G coco ov oo —— 0
Eh H S G cr rH OOVO co
C i 1
CQ lH <C
| < G 0 rH on
• 1
— G G Eh 0 G E C'- un
0 0 O Oh 0 0 G • •
-P P s •H O CT\ —
i
G o >• Ph
0 Eh Ch
TO
3
-P -P >i
co G -4" VO CO CM CT\ F
G
<D O O — CM CM CM
i 1
0
o
i — G OOOOOO G
< 0 CO
CG
I
C 1 >3
CQ 0 o o\ G <
0 •H m
m
0 O
p
CM co
E G P •H
0 •H
E
G
r—
•
CM
•
G O 0 co >3
TO O co CM
O o •H • o kH
Ph CO > — G rH G Ph
0
i
0 0
G
<
1 •S Q G miTiHOO-4 CM
<
0 cr HH CM CM
i — VC TO 0
0 G G E
G — co 0 0
0
1
0 vo
pH
P G
•H p co
TO
G H TO O
> o 0 G *H
EH p oo 0 P
co t
TO 0
• • TO m 0 C
0
C
0 >
-H
Eh G G -=r 5 G 0 P 0
Q 0 0 • 0 O t'-CO OV O rH CM
s CO Q
> G 0 o VC O I— I r— I —
i
< CO S —
i CO
70
x:
o
oj
w
P
hfl o
c 0
•H G
G G c\i •=* on om|x> O MO C — CM Ip o cop- olt'-
0 O — |c\j
O
i
i
to G C
G CD H
3
CD P
O
G P 0
P G oo r--co cm Ip o pp- cr\|x> O OO t— I-Hko
CO 0 G — — — |p — — in — — — fp
E > O
i i i i i i i
i cxi i i i
i | CM i I i I i
I
P
CL)
P -H O
H O P —
i —
i
iH
Cd
G G
cd 0 cd
>3 0 G
p P p
P O O o
P 0 Eh El
E P G Eh
CO
G iH 0
p S< 4—’ H CM COP" H C\J 00^3- — CM COP"
c G
i I
CD
cd
P G
G O’
P 1
CO rH p
CdG P
co rH
—
•H E 0 rH o MO cn
•H i
G a 0 p o MO
CO < 0 O G P 1
—
CTM
O
CO 0 H H
cr\
i >> CM
— CO CM
i
•H G
> c
CQ G G hO o
.
o
•
o
•
H G < O O G
< CQ O fG *H
W E
PI 6 G
CQ 0 O
3 G G G 0 Eh CT\ OM OO
G 0 P p G CQ 0 in Ln CO
O G — — 0
i
1
•H P G p- ip P
P P *H •H G CQ P o .
•H iH XXP •H 0 o o o
P •H Oo — i
cq :s co
G X •H
< O rH — X 1
G CM CM o
• •
0 O p
Eh G CM 1 1 —
1
o co
Q P CM 0 — p H oo CM
H
i
> | G G G H G CO oo P
< •H Cd cd 1 G < 0 oo CTM CTM
JC 0 -H •H O P r— MO >-
o gpp 0 O G G • .
O 0 0 G
CO a s s O
O P o o o
V*. [G CO
OO CO 0
0 £ CO
II JG > O
bD O — £ i
G -H P 0 O —
i CM CO
0 K < CQ PI
P E E E E
E n II II II 0 0 0 0
G p P p P
SH CM cop- H H H H
71
x:
o
cd
W P
o
hO CD
G G
•H
G
G
O
|c
|CM
0 0 — Ip
— — I<m
l
0 7 6 2p|<CM On —
C P CM
CD o
i 1
—
i I C\J
£ g
w G
G CD

g
CO cd
p> G
G O’
CD P
d >3 O
G X) CD
p> G LPi IP Ovko O —p C olco O ^ p oaIoo 3" CT\CO p- o
co CD G PHP |P CM — — PIP
i I i I CM — — |P r-| r-| rHlH IS
£ > O
i I i
I
p
(U G
CO 2 CD
-p S P p cm on^r P cm on- P cm on^r P cm on-=r
G g
d CD cd

•H
P
CO i — d
CO cd d G
G P —
1
—
•H — £
CD i
O CO I
g p o 0 on on in
O >3 < (D o G p vo on VO
[
on
—
1
CO 0 p P -=r CM — o
1 cd P G i — CM
i
p- CM
g • •
CQ G G hO • . .
E- < < o O G o o o o
Ko fe •H
1
£ £
CD G
>
P P o
P Ip i — — r
cd cd
w 1 Pp
PI G o o e- CM VO
CQ >3 (D Eh on — CM o
 p
CD
G — G
i
— p OO CO CT\
< i
^r oo CO -=r
G < 0 E- OV ov on
O d VO VO VO E-
O g G • • • •
o P o o o o
w
-=r LT\ VO 0—
£ £ £ £ £
CD 0 0 0 0
P p p P P
P p p P P
72
-G
o
0
w P
O
hO 0
G g
•H G cm coco Or-icmcoIvo
G
Ip— HNHO\|X) O r— 1 t — OJ lo
0 rH | CM rH |CM
£ c
0 G H
G 0

G
0 0
-P G
G O
0 p
T3 >i o
G O 0
P G coco co p— to oo cr\ colp- ov^r o cmIlo o o h- oHco
CO 0 G HH rl |lT\ C\J C\J — —
i
fo — — —l|LT\ CM CM rH |VO
B
i
> I 1 I i I i I i
0 Cm -H
-P O -P —
H 0 0 0
i
cd
G G
0 G
P 4J)
P
>5 o o o
Total
P JD 0
Eh
6 P
0 G rH 0
P s h c\j <o-^r ,-h c\j ori^r rH CM CO-=T rH CM PO^T
G G
TO 0 cd
0 TO G
G G O’
G P 1
•H CO —
1
TO
-P 0 0 TO G
G •H rH •H 0 rHB
O 0 rH G P O 0 C'— CT\
O >j < 0 O G P PO CM
-=r
p- ^r
rH 0 0 HH CO rH co -^r
1 0 •H G -H" CO o vo
G ••
m G G ho • • • •
C-- < < o O G o O o o
KO Ph ’H
1 B B
0» G
> P o
M M Ph — —
i 1 i 1
0 0
W 1 •H -P
G O CM CO VO -=r
CQ
<
>5 0 Eh
0 0
CO C'- oo o
G MO P— in -=T
Eh O •H P G VO On PO OO
P CQ P O • • • •
•H •H O o o o o
TO co
G
<
EH P
Q o — 0
> 0 pi 1 p- CM p- o
< G rH G -=r p-
o
<M CTV
G < 0 cs- MO lo
O TO VO co VO
CO G G • •
O P o o O o
fe CO
o 1
1
CO 1
— rH
B 6 s B B
0 0 0 0 0
P p p p P
H H M H H
73
p
o
cd
W p
o
hO 0)
G g
•H g c\i no ovco Icm
G o |CM
0) o
£ G
CO G H
G 0)
i O
G P CD
P G CO CO CM COli-H
CO 0) G — — — — Ko
i i i 1
1
1
1
s > O
CD s o
P P CD Eh
6 p G
CO G — i
CD
P S< P rH CM CO-M-
G G
p CD cd
0 P
G
c
G
P
oG
•H co —
t
p
-P
c
CO cd G p
•H 1
— •H £ CD rH
0
O
CO 1
— G O 0 p c
kO < CD O G P CO
r— CO CD HH o
1 cd •H G CM
G • •
CQ G G hO .
t— < O O G o
IP O Pen *H
I S s
CD G
> p o
M M pH i — — 1 i
cd cd
w •rH -P
p
1
G O p
o
CQ >> 0 Eh
< G
O
CO
P
0 p
E-h •H G -=r
P CQ P O •
•H •H o o
P « ^2 co
G
<c
Eh P
Q O CO
> 0 — p i
< G rH G p-
G < 0 CO
o p [
CJ G G •
O P o
pH CO
CM
rH
6 s
0 0
P P
H H
correlation biserial corrected for
including the item, and
a break-down by quarter of the
high to low scoring children.
Roughly speaking, if the low scoring
children give a correct
answer for an item, as well as the high
scoring children,
the item is too easy. However, if the high scoring children
have difficulty with an item as well as
the low scoring, even
though the over all per cent score correctly,
the item may have
some validity.
Table IV-7 suggests that Items 1,3,9 and 11

were easy
items to discriminate. More than seventy five percent of the
children had correct answers, including the majority of
the
low scoring quarter.
Table IV-8 shows that, with the exception of Items

1,6,8,
and 11, eighty per cent or more of the children made correct
responses to the stimuli. Items 2,3,^, and 9 were answered

correctly by ninety five per cent or more of the children.
Items 5,7,10, and 12, were answered correctly by at least
eighty per cent of the children. This is an interesting find-

ing and will be developed further in Chapter V.
Table IV- 9 is an item analysis of Auditory - Form B.

Taking seventy five per cent as the cut-off point, it appears
that Items 1,3, 4,6, and 7 did not really require a refined
auditory discrimination. Similarly, Table IV-10 indicates
that Items 1 , 3 , ^ , 7 ,
8 , 11 ,
and 12, require little visual discri-
mination. Only items 2 and 6 fall below the seventy per cent
correct level. The question arises, of course, whether the

75
-C
o
cd
W P
o
bO CD
G G
•rH
G OOCMCMPr O — O
G O i I OJ |co
CD o
£ G
CO G H
G CD
< -P
G
co cd
P G
G Of
CD P
E
OS >j O
G O CD
-P
CD
P G ovco vo 3- |f—
-=
OH ov ov|ov OO rH Ov|o
H CO <D G rH |po C\J C\J — — |f CM CM CM H PO
>
i
O
I i
1
Cm -H O
>5 O P —
I
i
— —
i
cd cd cd
CO
G G p> p -p
cd
CD G
P o o o
c
P CD Eh Eh
P 6 G Eh
CD rH G CD
Td
G
S cd
G
o G P
CD o LTV cxo
M G < CD
00 CDMH
CM
LTV
PO
VO
CO
W < •H G CM —
CM
PO
6
i
PQ G G h0 . • •
i-l 6 G O O G O o o
PQ CD 0 KO Ph •H
< -P P>H
Eh H
1
— —
1
1
1
r*H cd cd
Cd
G
G G •H P
CD CD G o PO p- p-
CO G G G CD Eh o ov vo
•H (Ddd G co CD PO in o
> G r-l rH CD •H JG G VO -=r VO
r
O "H »H G p O
HGGd
OO
•H rH
PQ
K
•rH
ps CO
o o
.
o
•
o
•
Eh rG *H
Q OHHG
> G CM CM o
< CD O P
G CM I | —
i O CO
Td CM CD—IPi
oo OO OV
rH 1 G G G — Gi
l LTV —
i PO
•H cd cd 1 G< CD -=r LTV VO
,G 0 *H "H o Td o- ov ov
U G dG CD O G G •
O CD CD G O P o o o
PO o sS O Ph CO
co co O
CD 5 CO
II GG > o
hO O H 5
G vH p> CD o i — CM PO
0 PQ PQ< t-Q
P E E E 6
E ii H it II 0 0 0 CD
G P P P P
SH CM PO-=T H H H H
76
X
o
cd
W P
o
bO 0
C u
•H
u u oo i— mEr iH r— r— o 0 ono
i
-=r |i>-
0 o I i -3- cm ooEr
m(x>
o <H rH|CO
£ c
CO P
(H
C 0

E
CO Cd
-P 3
C O’
0 -P
X) >i O
E
0
3 X 0
-P
P>
CO 0
P o rH OOOlCT\ CP OO C'-ko ONChPO
H > P
O
CM CM CM — |f i
H CM CM iHlt-- CM rH 1?
oo OO rH col
HH CM i— 75
>5
«h »H
O p> o —
i
rH
1
-O cd cd
P C
cd
p P cd
p
CO 0 U o o o
Total
P X 0 Eh Eh Eh
C E -P u
0 3 iH 0
S< p iH cm oop- M cm oop-
so
rH cm oop- rH cm cop-
0
3
c?
l
o cd iserial
Includ
—
p rected Item
LP
i
CO (M
I <=£
•=r
—
i
co CO
CO PO
CM LT\
E co p so ho CM
P o o c O
0 o o O
fp
— —
w —
i
i
cd
i i
cd
El cd •H P
CO
< 3
co
u o
0 EH
m
co
-H" CO OO
Eh HT rH
•H CO 0 CO O O-
> •H x SO p pt
tP P-
(Up o
l
P- O
•H O
pc :s co
o o O O
Eh
Q
>
- •=r MO
Correc
All
udents
rH
LP
LP
— o OO
OH
i
CP
1
Ch
lp
O
r CP
O P O o o o
fc* Ip co
-=r IP MO c^
E E E E
0 0 0 0
Item
p P p p
H H H H
p 77
o
cti
W P
o
hO 0
G G
•H
G
G ovo 0 obo oOo rH |rH
O — —
1
|CM
CM Liooovofvo
OCMHCOl
o
1 i
CD 1
IrH rH rH
£ G I
W G
C 0
H
«=S P
G
co cti
P G
G O’
0
P >i P
o
E G P 0
0 P G O — |LT\ O
P CO 0 G
LP\ OH i
I — —
,
| i O 00 VO OO LTv|t-— o côool 57
H
I
CM rH rH |U0 CM CM CM CM
> O IS 1 I
— — — Ko
i I
CM rH rH
P
i I i
O
I
-H
>5 O p I —
P cti
p
cti
cti
G C o
P Cti
P
co CD G O O
Total
P P CD
EH Eh Eh
p G E P G
0 CD G
G P P CD
P rH CM POp-
G G G
rH C\J 0O-=T rH CM m-=T rH CM 00^3"
•H
P cti
co
P co
G
O’
G •H rH
0 CO rH p
1
O >i <
rH
cti TO G
i — •H 0 rH 6
1
Cti
G P o 0 VO
oo
G 0 o G P o\ -=r VO
< C CO 0 HH -=r
LT\
OO
IP
p-
o
E
•H G
VO o o
I
E ffl G G bO p-
0 G O O o
>
M P
H p
O KOfcHG o o
I
W
P 1
— —
i 1 i
CQ —
 •H P G in CT\
CM
oo
-=r
(HP O C"-
•H O O
• •
Eh
K IS CO
Q
>
P
o co
(D —
i
I p o- o CM
G .-I G CM CO
G < 0 vo CO
C"-
O vo
O p vo CO
O G G
cx\ CO vo
O P o O
CG CO o
CO
O rH
CTV i — i —
6 6 E E
CD 0 0 E
p 0 0
H p P P P
H H H H
78
p
o
cd
W P
O
EO CD
G G
•H
g
G
O
oo^ ovlm
CD o 1 —
1
S G
CO U tH
G CD
i O
E G P CD
CD P G OH NC\l|o
P CO CD G cm oj — —
H > O
i i i
i
|r-
s O p i
P cd
p
cd
G G o
CO CD G
p P CD
Eh
P G 6 P G
CD CD G rH CD
G p S
H
p G O O C O
H o KOfcH
Ph
W
P I
CQ rH —
 •H P G E'-
CO P O
•H O O
Dd Is co
Eh
Q
>
< p
O CO
CD rH p -^r
G H G ro
G < CD -=r
O p oo
O G G .
O P o
^ CG CO
CM
i —
E E
CD <D
p p
H M
79
x:
o
Cti
W
p
hO y
£ CD
•H p.
u p. H coin o ct\ o C\J vo oilo OO
CD o —
rH oo|cr\
£ o i |c\J
CO P, £
£
i y
ps x>
P p CD
h|h O
H CO CD
P.
Pi
ovco vo
— — — — fp
i l
C\J
CT\
— —
in CT\|oO o rH o ootr
i l i l i
|VO (M CM rH Id
> O
i i I i
| C\j
>5 P *H O
x> O P —
i
cti
CO Cj
P P. c p P
cti
£
<D
X>
P,
(D
o O
Total
Eh
PS
CD
6 P Pi
Eh
PS rH CD
P
PS
P rH C\l OO-H- iH OJ OOP- rH OJ OOp-
Pi
00
cd
I — d
CO I 1
G?
CT\ •(—
CO
< rH P)
|
>2
cd ps 3
P O £
I
•H CD rH
rH
> Oj CQ
Pi
O £ P
(D OJ o p-
H £
<D
CO (DHH
OO
OO
—
1
in
< S •H
OJ oo
W Pi CQ
Pi
Pi Pi hO
OJ in in
•— 6 0 O o £ O O
m (d Ph Pd o Ph -h
O
2 —
i I rH
Pi Oj Cti
o £ £ •H p
p CD CD Pi O in r~- Ol
•H £ Pi Pi CD Eh OJ p- o
PS
PS
<d
Pi
P> PJ £
CD •H XJ
co CD in
in
m o
Pi c—
i 1 i
<
1
oo
PS •H *H Pi P
CQ O
iH xx ps •H O o o o
•H oo 1 1
K^ co
• •
x •rH
o— — X
•Hop
Eh 1 1 1 1
Q £ OJ OJ o
> CD O p
< Pi OJ 1 1 1
— 1 O CO
PS Ol 0) Hp
i— 1 £ £ P H C 1 I CT\ —
•H £
cti 1 Pi < CD I"- in
i
X a> •rH *H O p5
cr\
O
o
p. P> PS CD 0^3
O P
t"-
o
*
O-
O
•
OO
•
OO o SS
a) cd P.
O fe5?. Ph c/3
O
oo co o
£ co cd
IIx > o
hO O rH £
£ •H X) (D o —
i
OJ OO
"ll 6 s s S
H II CD CD CD 0
__
•.
P p P p
)
t OJ oo p- H H H H
s:
8o
o
cd
W
hO
p
o
C 0
•H £
P £
0)
o
o
b— PP" CNJNO If—
rH i—l|PO
'
— 1 O -tr ohp
i — 1
|f
oohoo Ion
co £ £
C a>
3 o
0 £ P 0
-P
M P £ ON o co nolo P O- ON IPjVO
CO 0 £ H (MHH |c-~- — —
ON i | C'- — Eq
,
|
— — |vo
O r-1 O pobr
> o
i I i
( I CNJ i i
CNJ (NJ CNJ —
i
|t^
O
>3 <P •H
O P o |
cd rH
0 £ £ cd cd 0
P 0) £
p p P
c p 0 o o O
Total
Eh
<D s P £ Eh Eh
0
Td
0 p
£ s p i— r\j oop- rH OJ OOP" rH POP-
£ CNJ r- OJ POP-
3 co cd
1
C,
•H £
P 0 rH
O’
£ •h <t; iH Td
1
0 w a) d
O rO •H 0 rH £
—
1
1
•
£ P O 0 IP On
1 cd pq 0 o £ P in- p-
ON <
£ 0 0 HH CO
ON
P no
PO
P
e •H £ OJ CO
S
£
o
CQ £ £ hO
CNJ NO p
0 f£ KO
O O £ O O o
-H
P
M |
w 1
1
1
1
£ cd cd
CQ
<
O •H P
Eh
P £ O NO P
•H 0 Eh P" CNJ
Td 0 0 PO
CNJ
p-
ON O
£
<
HX
CQ P O
P p P
p-
CO
O
co
•H O o o
K^ co
Eh
Q
> P
O 0
0 p CNJ PO NO
£ £ PO ON
£
o p
0 p-
co
P
P ON
CO
o £ ao
p o o O o
fes. f£ co
P- P NO C—
s 6 6 6 S
0 0 0 0 0
-P
M p P P P
M M H M
x: 81
o
cd
w
P
hO o
£ 0
•H £
£ £ Op- rH mho ominailo
0 O — — coj ex) rH volo- t>-ir\oco|o
£
co £
o
£
i I i
I
|c\j
-hIcm rH rH|m HH Ip
£ 0 M
i o
0) £ X) 0
P P £ O NOffl lip o co mo
H 00 0 £ CM — — |LO CM — —
avlm oo
HH
mo Lnho oovo i— mlm
> O
i i
I i I i
—
i
I
|p- rH
i
rH rH [p
>s
XJ
<M -H
O P O
rH
cd
cd
rH —
£ £
i
cd
0 £ p P cd
P p
cd
X 0 o o o
gH o
6 p £ Eh Eh Eh
£ iH 0
T3
0 P r— I C\l POP -
rH C\l mp- H mp-

£ £ cm —
i i cm mp-
cd
£
•H
-P I
O£
£ rH
0 cd £ Td
O •H 0 rH g i
£ -p o 0
0 o £ p
m o av p-
1
CO 0 M H
vo
o CM
m m vo
cn •H £
CQ £ £ ho
m cr\
CM
p-
CM
I
KO
O O £ O O O o
Ph -H
>
H
w
h£ cd cd
OQ
< •H p
Eh
£ O
0 Eh
m
co
co o p-
CT\ CM
0 CM
CO
•H X £
h-
m C'-
vo
E- m
o
PQ P O .
LT\
•H o o o O o
|S GO
Eh
Q
> p
< o co
0 — p i
1
c o CM
£ rH £ CM av p-
£ < 0 VO LA LT\
CO
—
O X5 VO E- LA
i
O £ £ in
.OP
^ pH co
o
.
o o o
OO av 1
1
6 6 S g
0 0 0 0
P p p P
H H H H
82
-G
o
cd
W
P
bO O
G 0
•H G
G
0
G LT\ OO CT\kr
£
O H rH loo
o
0 G G
G 0 H
< -P
G
0 cd
-PG
G O'
0 -p
s T3 >1 o
0) G .O 0
-p
H
•P G IAH H C\l |CT\
CO 0
>
G H rH rH rH pr
O
>>
X3
<H -H
O -P
O
0 G G
cd
0
P 0 G P>
O
g 0 Eh
0 S -p G
TS G h
d H 0
d g S< -p h c\j oo^r
0 +3 g
G w cd
G G
•H —
i
G?
-P 0 rH
G H < rH
I
x3
0 0 cdG xj
O >s •H rH g 0
I 1
• •
G -P o 0 oo
1 cd pq 0 o G -P co
G 0 0 H M CM
I
<
S
0 Ph
g
G
O
U
•H G
ffl
KO
o O G
&0
EG -h
o
o
> -P
H H I
w >> — —
i I i
1-3 G cd cd
m o •H -P
< -p G O CO
Eh H 0 EH 0 co
T3 0 G OJ
g
<
•H ,G O
CQ -P o
m
•H CO o
« E3
-P
O 0
0r— -P 1 ^r
G H C o
G < 0 o\
O -d uo
O G G •
O -P o
^ Ph CO
CM
6 6
0 0
-p -p
H H
£ 83
o
cd p
H o
CD
faD P
c P o i I oH | cm o -=r ov-^r I t— ooH^rlin
•rH o i cm
p o
! I
CD c
£ H
COP
C 0
3 CD
oo o o — o H 00
m o
P —
— — —
1 1
*
^
t c\j tr VO 1
e •P Pi C\J CM OJ CM loo
l
CM i l i
l 1 CM C\J CM -HI C-
<D CO CD O 1
-P
M O
O P
>1 cd — — —
P
1
i
i
P c cd cd cd
<D P p p p
CO X) CD o o o
-P E -p P Eh Eh &H
C 3 — i
CD
T3
CD S a
CO O’
O CO I
i — I —
*i I i — —
i
I T3
CO rH cd T3 .3
I >1 < •H (D—ISi
rH Pi P O CD CM LA —
>
H
Cd CD o c p O CO
i
on
G CO CD HH CD CM CM
< —
pee
W
CQ
<
<D
P>
OQ
P
O
•H
CQ
PP O
Ph
P P hD
o O c
Ph -H
i
o
I
•
CM
O
•
LA
o
.
Eh H Ph
i — — I i
1
— cd cd
cd •H p
pl C C Pi O
CO CD CD CD Eh VO vo o
•H C P P CO CD rH o CM
> CD T) Pi C •H XI p -=r in -=r
Pi i 1 —
i 1 CD CQ O p i — vo co
r
Cd *H *H P •H O • • •
• •
H.c^'d OP 12 CO o o o
EH •H O O rH
Q P -H
> O H rl £
< C CM CM O P
CD O o co
PCM 1 1 H CD -H p
P CM Pi iH £ CT\ r— co
H 1 C C P < CD LA ^r ov
•H cd cd I O P t— c on
P 0 *H -H O P 3 CJ\ vo o\
u Pdd
O CD (D
cd
Pi feS.
O P
pH CO O
•
o
•
o
•
m
co co
o SS o
o
0 5 co
II p > o
bO O -H |S
P P
*H CD O 1
1 CM on
CD P< CQ PI
P E S 6
0
E
0
6 II II II II CD CD
0 p P P p
PH CM on 3 -
IH IH H H
8^4
o
a? P
W O
(D
hO G
£ £ ooo cm|c\j o h ovols o p- vo onion OOO C\J Icvi
•H O — |c\j
g O
i
i
CD £
£ M
CD £
£ CD
3 CD
6
0 O
p
£
£
>|h
po
oopH nfo
CM CMPKO
o — ncolo
cm
c
— — |p
O <H — oli
CM CM CM
i 1
—
i I i
k
O i i
CO
1
CD CD
P > O
H i cti
P £ £
<D £
H —
i 1
—
i 1
cti cti cti

co P CD P P P
-p p 6 O O O
Total
P £ P 3 £ Eh Eh Eh
CD CD S< CD
£ P -p rH CM OO- —
i I CM Onp- —
i I CM Pnp- i-H CM onp-
£ £ g
•H P cti
&£
-P CO
£ CO
O •H 1
1
O
1
CO 1
1 rH P
>> < cti£ P
1 r— •H E CD rH
Cti £ O CD P
o £ •• CD O £ P o n CM oo
—
1
< cq CO CD H H —
1
n i — o
•rH £ in p- O o
1 e 6 CQ £ £ hO i — o on on
CD £ O O £ • • • .
> P o KO Oh *H o o o o
M M Oh
•
W ,
P —
i 1 rH
CQ 1
— Cti Cti
< cti •H P
Eh £ £ O
CO CD Eh o p- o tp
•H CO CD 1
— on p
o
-
n
o
> •H P £ in CT\
CQ P O p~ p- IP VO
•H o • • • •
• •
CP ^ co o o o o
EH
Q
>
< p
o CO
CD — p
£
i
rH £ o CM o CT\
n
£ < CD in n CM
o P p- cr\ CM p-
O £ £ cr\ tp IP CT\
O P • •
o
•
o
•
Oh co o o
P" n VO P-
e 6 E E E
CD CD CD CD CD
p P p P P
H H H H M
JC 85
o p
Cd o
W CD
£
hO
£
£ o m on oo O fH o c-~-|co o On O- — |l>— O — O — Ioj
O c
—
i I i
•H a I
g £
0 H
£
CO £
£ (
 O
«M -H
O P
>5 cd
p £ £ I — i —
CD £ cd Cd
CO P 0 p P
cd
p
-P B P O O o
Total
T3 £ £ — i
£ Eh Eh Eh
0 CD < CD
£ T3 P rH C\J O0P H C\J 0O- H C\J COP- rH C\J COP
£ £
•H P cd
P co £
£ CO g?
O •H 1
—
O CO 1
— i— p
|
J cd £
1 —
1
•H CD E r—
P
1
cd £ O CD
o £ •• CD O £ P l n p LP o
1
— < pq CO 0 H H CM CP LP I —
•H £ ^r C IP
1 E
CD
E
£
m £ £ faO
O O £
i—
•
p o I —
> P O PCj O Ph *H o o o o
H H Ph
W 1
P rH —
i
m —
i
cd cd
< cd •H P
Eh £ £ O
co 0 Eh VO —
1
t
•H 0 0 -^r c oo
> •H P £ -=r —
1
CP IP
(UP O
•H O
l n
•
oo
.
p P
••
pc :s co o o o
Eh
Q
>
< p
a co
CD p
£ — £ <
on VO C\J CP
£ < 0
i
i — on IP LP
O P on o CP t'-
O £ £ oo CP CP
O P • • • •
Ph CO o o o o
o —
1
CO CP 1
— —
1
E 6 6 6 6
0 0 0 0 0
p p p p P
H H H H H
JZ 86
a p
cd o
W CD
£
£
hO £
O
OHH C — |CT\
•H O
£ £
0 H
£
CO £
£ CD
< -P
£
co cd
p £ Eh
£ O' P Q Cd ipp- CSV CSV CO CN 4- Ch
0 O > H N-OO mao c —p co co
T3 >5 CD <
£ p
P £ o o o p- hr
£ P £ CM OJ C\J — It-- P
—
i
CD CO 0 o
1
O i vo on Cd co vo Cd cr\ oo
P > o — N-VO ip on t— in vo on
H
i
Pi -H CO
O P £
>5 cd O
p £ £
0 £
•H
P
O
rH
VO rH
VO OO
PO
POO
VO
VO LH
P rH O
cd CO CO
CO P 0 p O
P £ p 0
£ £ iH co
p
(D s5 < cdd d
rH •H 0 — £ — P
m
i 1
o
i
£ P O o co
1
cd O 0 I IN- onco oo on
£ • •
0 O £ P co 0 N- on co on c--co on on
< CO 0 MM •H £
•H £ CO £
£ £ OQ £ £ hO O
CD £ o o c — O VO o on cm o cm on Cd
WOhH P c\J
i 1
P o 0 N- co o- c--oo cn [-
H Ph £ P
< £
0
—
1
1
1
— —
cd
1 1
cd
1
£
0
O p O
N- ON
CVJ p
pc--
cr\ op
c- ip
c\j
on
on
c—
cd •H P P £
£ £ o H 0
0 EH P-.
•H
co
0 — -=r N- P p- co c— p- moo
> •H
CO
p £
i
eg
Cm
O
vo on CO O vo OO CT\ ON
PQ P O n-
•H O
cn ^ co o £
Eh O oo o vo on-h- o on vo -=r
Q CO CO CN coo oo co on on
> •H
< £
0
a Cd OP ot- o vo P [—
All VO 6 N- CN N-VO C — —
C ONVO
Correct
— O
Students
I
av o
co
< —
i oo p C— OO CO N- PCO
% For
o c— on c — —
c -=r a\
co
6
0
c\j
P co
IH <D
•H
S e P
0 CD
p P P 6
H H co£ << fflffl
cd
d <m <m
0 o <> <> o << >>
Eh fe
87
items were that much easier or whether learning took place
on Form A of the AVDT , thus raising the score on Form B.

Table IV— 10a summarizes the per cent of correct answers for all
items. It is clear that there is a much closer relation-
ship shown in both forms of the Auditory Test, item by item,
than in the Visual. Auditory-Form B was apparently "harder"

than Form A, but the reverse is true in all but one of the
Visual items (re-grouped for comparison purposes in Table
IV-lOa). This will be developed in the final chapter.
An Item Analysis was also run for the Wepman Auditory
Discrimination Test with findings very similar to the Visual
sections of the AVDT . These are summarized in Table IV-11.
In other words, the majority of the children had very little
difficulty with Wepman , as is shown in the mean and standard
deviation of 12.6506 and 1.8132 respectively. The Wepman is
scored by the items missed out of a possible 15 correct.
Table IV-12 shows a correlation of the Wepman scores with
the AVDT for all groups, the latter being scored for this
purpose on the number of incorrect answers given out of a
possible 12 correct, rather than by the weighted positive
score. The mean for the Wepman is 2.34, with a standard
deviation of 1.8l. The mean for Auditory-Form A of the AVDT
was 3.16 with a standard deviation of 2.17, and a mean of 3.28
for Form B, and a standard deviation of 1.96.
Tables IV-13 to IV-16 give a break-down of correlations
of sections of the AVDT with the Wepman for each class. The Wepman
88
X3
0
N
•H O LTV CO o o vo OV o
—
i
Cd
1
0
CO LO
•
0-
•
oo
•
o .
m o . .
VO in
6 G CM —
i 1
—
1 1
—
1 1 o o o —
i i
g o 1 1 1 1 1
o o
0 s: oo
g
o
a
oo CO
0
i — G — VO — VO CT\ -=T o
o
1 1 i
cd O vo -^r CT\ oo — oo
P a • •
—
• • •
1
•
1
• •
Eh
0 oo oo C\J i I o o O o 1
— 1
I I I I I
CM
1
CO
-p 0
g >
0 •H P
r
cs P G —
3 0
—cd o
CVI
o
uo
— o o CO o
o
1 1
-p i l 1 1 CVI -=r vo CO o
oo 3 • • • • • • • •
6 g o o o o o o o —
1 1
i i
3 0
i
O fG
 cd 0 P G
IH G Eh cd 0
< H 3
W C 3 a 1
CM ^3" OV C'- OO OO OO OO
PI 6 O £ 0 H OO LT\ C— OO
CQ 0 •H 3 G
< -p
H
P O Ph
Eh cd
G
•H
6 P
•H G
g 0
o O C\J CM VO o
—
cr\ p- =r CM
co CM o O O 1 1 l— CM CM 1
1
•H oo G
Q —
1
0 o O O o o O O O
oo Ph
•
g i —
o
p l >>
•H o
Td G G
3
< •H
P
o 0
3
cr
CMCMincovoooo (— I CM C\J i—l
c vo cd 0
cd O -H G
6 in > Ph
a VO 0
0 • Q
C\J 0
H Td G
g O
i cd o
Td co
. G C vo av co r— i cm oo uo
cd cd £ I I I I I I I I I I I I
0 P cd
S co K
cd —^ I
— 1 co cm inoo o
E on co -=3- O
OV VO o
(X
0 C\J
•
rH
•
co co^r co o
OOOO rH
Discrimination
bO
CD oo OV OJ O CO
uo oo CO cn H O MO
CQ i — — i i
m- comon
> OOOHO
Auditory
bO
CD
S
CO CO
CM CT\
OAVO
cm -=r
O
o
c*-
—
i
m
ov
Wepman
CQ CO iH
vo i_n o uo^r
< OO rH oo
12 with
co bO
IV Test Q, OJ cr\ •^r o vo cm cm
3 S cm -n- ov oo cj\
Answers
O
G < •
CM rH
• •
h o«...
•
incoco
TABLE -P -p
CD > O rH OOO
O o i—
(D -P CD i—
G
G
O
(DG
Pi <
O G O
Incorrect
o G o •
G
M
O c
O H
w
0 VO 0-
— — o cr\ cr\ co
M
c -P s i 1 r o OV CM co co
1 1 O •
o -=r vo -H-
CD <$ CO CM
of 5 1 >1 CQ Pi G SSSS £
Pi Pi X) O Or
O — o S
i
iH *H < < CQ CQ 0
-p
•h
cd -P Pi
o •H O
•H -P <><>^
jC cd
x$ co xd Oh O -H
Product
3 *H ps >
<> < H CO 0
.
II II II
cd
3
ao Q
co II Xi
AVDT
• • •
*H G
bO bO b0> G G cd
cd a CD cd 0 xd
Pearson
SSS II £ ,0G G
a s cd cd
< < PQ CQ 0 3<D.p
*
90
p
cti moo rl O O
6
a
rH m m MO CM ON o
t\l
•
mvo
•
cm o
CD m cm
oOOO rH
imination
h0
CD OO H- —O
O CM CM
S ih m C
co o cj\-cr CT\
Discr
CQ — — H rn o CM LTV
i i i i
> 000IO
Auditory
hO
0
S
m cr\ i
— O O 1 VO
1HM0 M- O CM
Pino CM
CT\
• •
lpivo
—
i
CQ
<
mh
Wepman
o
O OOHOO
x:
o
co
with p
0 •
•p hO
p 0 -=r mo O O M0 O H
0 s m-M- O OWO
-M" CT\
Test o • •
o lo m m
< CM H
Answers
-P
i > OHOOO
O -P p
0 O 0
P P> 0 -p
P O P p
o 0 p 0
o p o hO .
P P o P hO
Incorrect H O P 0 0 O OO O O — —H -
O H -P X5 s: O OO o h h- co m
i I c
1 P o P •
OH-LPHH-
H
l
0 •H < H” —
i
P P
>3 CQ p P SSXS 6
o
1
0 6
Tt
— O a
P> H -P P
i 1 •H < < oa cq 0
•H -P < > < > ;3
•rl d 'H O
T* 3 TO fo
X cd
Product
CD •H
3 CO 3 >
<£ H =3| —
>
r 1
m 0
.
II II
a}
3
CM Q
II CO II X)
• • •
*H P
AVDT
hO bO h0 > p p cd
0 0 0 cd 0 xf
Pearson
SSS 6 II XI p p
a 6 cd cd
< < OQ CQ 0 3 0 P>
< > < > rs P2W
91
G
cd
E
OO CO tnoo oo ^3- o
a
C\J OO CM 0Of\J cm
ooh o
ion 0 CM !—
.
-n- o
OOOO rH
I I
Discriminat
hO
d) oo^r ooooco o^r
C\l CO HD OOVO o C\J
CQ OJ rH
C\l O o -H"
> O O O rH O
Auditory
hO
o
0
S
OO^T HNOOOCO
CO rH fONOVOCNJ
o • • co^r oh H
Wepman x: CQ ^r c\i
o
co
< O O rH O O
14 with
-
0 .
S hO
0 OO —
j
— o 0-00 CO
o
i
IV Test w -=r o O O- CO OO
• •
o....oo
Answers
< OO rH •
P P £
cd
> o rH O O O t
TABLE o o S 1
d> -p 0
£ o £ l
£ 0 £
o £ o £
o £ o 0 .
Incorrect
£
M
o
o
£
M P PO
P
£ 0 Ln e'- o rH — CO in
£ S o o mvo
i 1
cd er* CM
1 oM 1 hO • •
OHOCXI O
cvi
< CQ £
0 £ < OO C\J • • • • •
£
1 0 < 1
— o oo o
of Td
E < E o
1
£
£ £ o •H
o E o £
Ph £ Ph h
o • • • • Moment
1 Pn 1 1
£ hO hO hO &0 C
0 0 0 0 0 cd
>3
£
1
£
>iPQ £ £ s s ss 6
O
o
Correlation*
"d cx
O rH O s — •H < < pq cq 0
P cd P £ •H P <>
•H
£ t! £
£ -H O X cd
£ *H £
to O •H
Product
>
< > < rH —
i 0
II II II
cd
£
CM Q
0 II Td
• • •
*H £
AVDT
h0> £
hO hO £ cd
0 0 0 cd 0 Td
Pearson
SSS E II
X) £ £
X P E cd cd
<<£(30
<> <> ^ £ 0 P
SS co *
92
cd
s
1
1 o\ 00 0 c\i 0
c\j ^r CT\ CT\ C\| 1 i 0
cx
0) C\J
•
rH
•
co^r 00 in 0
000 O iH
Discrimination
hO
0 VO C\J CM C"— CO O CM
S OO C\J VO LTv rH 0 —
0
1 1
• •
m-^r vo LCO
(X) rH rH
> 000 —
•
1 l O
Auditory
hO
0
S
cvi in rH o\ 0m0
•^r o- VO rH O rH CM
Wepman PQ CM —
CO CO O VO CO
<
1
O O rH O O
15 with
faO
0 -=ron 0 0 ov co t'—
IV Test s Ch in CM0 H IAOV
• •
^r0 co-=r -=r
Answers
< — — •
0 — 000
i ! 1 . .
-P -P
> 1
TABLE
O O 0
CD •P CD Xi
P O P Cd
Pi CD P P
O
O
P O
P O
O
Incorrect
G O G -P hO
M O M co 0 UO CO O O — 00 1
cr\
c
H
-p O0 O CM vo VO cr\
I I o
0
• • O ^r CO CO LT\
<C CO CM • • • . .
< 1 m P < 1
00O0
1
of P
£ < O
P o
o 6 g
Ph P pH 1
1
o Moment
1 pH 1 1
G hO hO faO hO C
0 <D O 0 0 cd
>1
P
1
P
>3 CQ P G G:sSS S
Correlation*
O rH O £
TO
— O a
p 1 1 •H < < m ra o
•H
cd p> P
3 <H O
•H -P <><>^
x: cd
TO
3
CO 'd Ph 0 •H
Product
-H 3 >
<>< rH o\
—
0
.
II II II
cd
3
1 1 Q
CO II X5
• • •
*H P
AVDT
W w faO> G p cd
0 0 0
Pearson
cd 0 T3
SSS S II xi c G
a S cd cd
< < cq m 0 3 0 -p
<><> :s
93
G
cd lr\ ir\ CX)O O LPi t>-
B vo cn N NO O C\J
O.
0
•
rH rH
•
OJ HO C\1 LT\
E5 OOOOH
Discriminati
hO
0 OH" SfOChOS
EG b-oo o cm
o\ f— n-
CQ oo
• • C\J O O i—rH
> O O O rH O
I
Auditory
bO
H 0 oO NOOOHn
O S CO LPi SC\I O NO
O • • ^lAOOLT\
Wepman -G PQ C\J i — I
• • • • •
o
CQ
< O O rH O O
I
<=
o
16 with T3
cd
0 •
S
-
bO
0 o c\j o\ooono
IV Test
CO EG LP\ O — O OJ —
i | t t
• • H" O — CM LPc
Answers
G < — —
i I i
• • •
r
.
|
OHOOO
I
•P -P
G
cd
>
TABLE O o S
0 -p 0
G o G l
G 0 G
o g O 0
O G o T) .
Incorrect
G O G cd bO
H o H G 0 o CT\ O OMSN0
G
H
-P o EG UH (V) O — f— i CT\ [
O H- H- CM
1
1 o 1 • •
C\J
< CQ G
0 -P < rH 1
1
• • • •
1 co < HOOOO
of G G
6 < 6 O •H
G G O Ph
O 6 O G
Eh g Eh H
o Moment
1 Eh 1 1 G bO bO bO bO C
0 0 0 0 0 cd
>3 1 >3 PQ G G S S G EG B
Correlation*
G
O
G
O S
G O SG
rH —
r •H < < PQ CQ 0
•P
•H
4J ^
Clj
3 -H O
•H -P <><> E3
-G cd
'd CO T3 Eh O •H
Product
3 -H 3 >
<><H o 0
: cd OJ Q
ii ii ii 3
CO II G
• • •
*H G
AVDT
bO hO b0> G G cd
G
Pearson
0 0 0 cd 0
EG EG EG ll B G G G
CG B cd cd
< < CQ CQ 0 3 0 p
<><> E2 EG 2 CQ
9^
is positively correlated with all sections of the AVDT for
each group except Mark's Meadow Kindergarten, where there is
a slight negative correlation on Form A.
The Auditory Visual Discrimination Test . Although the
item analysis is interesting, and has a number of implica-
tions for the author, nevertheless it does test something,
(whether finely enough is another matter, and will be discussed
later). Table IV-17 summarizes the mean, median, mode, standard
deviation, standard error, kurtosis, and skewness of each of
the main tests administered to all of the children. ( Teacher
Rating, and the other kindergarten tests are summarized else-
where.) This summary was somewhat predictable from the earlier
item analysis results. The mean and other scores for both
sections of the Auditory test are lower than those for the
Visual section, reflecting it’s greater challenge and dis-
criminatory effect. The Perceptual Speed Test of the Primary
Mental Abilities Test may have some validity ,

although it was
as has been mentioned earlier, in contrast

a timed group test,
The mean of 18 3^ and

to the individually administered AVDT . -
a standard deviation of 6.03 reflect it's inexactness in test-
ing young children. (Several kindergarten children never

the twenty eight
completed more than two or three items out of
to be discriminated before the time was up.)
AVDT Correlations . For the Purposes of the present study,

The first, cor-
Tables IV-18 to IV- 20 are of great interest.
groups with itself
relation of sections of the AVDT for all
95
CD O- -=r C"- t>- VO
£ ^r -=r LO oo on
£ • • • .
0 o o o o o
l l 1 1 I
co
co
•H
CO C\ o ov C\J t'-
o I>- OJ 1
— CM VO
-P • • • .
£
—
O I
o o o o
1
1
t3
Groups
£
cd £
X3 O lo oo CO on VO
a £ lo on on VO
cd £ • • • .
All -P H o o o o o
co
-
£
X) o
Scores
£ *H
cd -p OJ VO CT\ i— on
x) cd o -=r on o o
£ -H • • • • •
cd > LO o ^r on VO
-P 0
Test
00 Q
All O o o o o
0 O o o o o
TO • • • • •
of
O lo LO 0- in ^r
s C\l OJ —
1
OJ OJ
£
Summary
cd co LO l>- LO
•H o i— LO
•
CM
•
CM
•
TO •
<D CTN o 0~- CM co

: S 1
— OJ 1
— OJ i —
AVDT
LA 1
— VO co -=r
£ C\J on OJ t— on
• • • • •
cd
CD CO o o- 1
— co
—
S 1
— OJ 1
— OJ i Cases
83
i — =
1 1
cd
£
>5 >5 1 -P
a
1
£ < —
< £
O
CQ
—
CQ
O 1 1 • CD t3
-P £ cd £ -p £ cd£ < O 0
Number
•H £ £ £ •H £ £ £ • £ 0
Td O co O T3 O o o
c s 0 a
£ fo •H fe £ fx, •H pin Pn co
< > < >
96
•
— — 1 rH .
— C\J —
OOO
I i 1
t 1
ooo
i
hO bO
•H OOO •H ooo
CO CO
(XI
G OO VO OO G OOP CM
6 G p -
lt\-=t (X) G p- POP
G O • . .
O ...
O O ooo S o ooo
Ph G
O
1
pH
>5
< CQ
1
G CQS s <
Level
O G — G
P
i
S o Ctf o S
•H G Ph G Ph G
TO O CO o .01
G Ph 1 •H pH
CO < >
1
Section
Q. 1 >5 >3 1
2 G G the
o rH o •
O rH .
G ctf P <c P G<

CO G -H •
•H G •
w TO S TO s CO at
rH •H G •
G *H • Speed
i
<
— >< Ph < > Ph
1
* Significant
G
IV O
•H Perceptual
P
<G
i —
TABLE o -
G m
G -
O • —
i 1 rH i
— 1
• r
— 1 C\J —
i
ooo OOO
1
O bO bO
•H ooo •H OOO Test
CO • • •
co . . .
Coefficients
EH
Q
>
< < • •
VO p- t>-
G vo vo ro G
e G OO LT\p- < G ro ro in Abilities
G O .
O . . .
O O ooo s O ooo
G pH G
0) O
G 1 Ph
to m <
—
i >: •
1 Correlation
•H G < 6 — 6 (XI
x: O G i 1 G Mental
o P 6 O nJ o g
•H G Ph G Ip G
ro TO O CO O
oo G Ph 1 •H 1 Ph
< >
ll 1 >3* >3 1
G * G
G — O • O rH • Pearson
Primary
p
1
CD a}P< a) < (G <> Ph

97
and the P.M.A. shows a positive relationship either at the
.001 level of probability or, in the case of the two sections
of the Visual discrimination test, the .002 level. This

positive relationship is reflected throughout the various
schools and classes, as shown in Tables IV-19 and IV-20. The

test scores are highly comparable for both kindergartens and
both first grades, although the first grade children at Mark's
Meadow Laboratory School test slightly higher than those at
Center School, due, perhaps, to their greater sophistication
about testing as mentioned earlier in this study, and also to
better testing facilities. (The examiner was able to find a
secluded closet at Mark's Meadow, and a hall corner for Center
School during the first testing, but used a small closet
for the second round of testing at Center. The scores remained
about the same through both.) The slightly negative score
with the two Visual sections of AVDT for Mark's Meadow First
Grade have already been touched upon.
Tables IV-21 to IV-24 show further variations in correla-
tion possibilities, using the scores of kindergarten children
only, first grade only, Center School only, and Mark's Meadow
only with the various sections of the AVDT and the P.M.A. It
is apparent that there is a higher test correlation between
kindergarten and first grade children of Mark's Meadow School
(Table IV-24) than in any other combination. Again, one is
reminded that this is_ a laboratory school. The next closest
correlation is with the kindergartens only (Table IV-21).

TABLE IV - 19
AVDT: Cross Correlation* by Group
AA = Auditory - Form A
VA = Visual - Form A
AB = Auditory - Form B
VB = Visual - Form B
Kindergarten - Center School
AA VA AB VB
Mean 16.39 19.95 16.47 21.60
Standard Deviation 4.37 3.67 3.44 2.68
AA 1.000 0.363 0.518 0.187

VA 0.363 1.000 0 601
. 0.315
AB 0.518 0.601 1.000 0.466
VB 0.187' 0.315 0.466 1.000
Kindergarten - Mark’s Meadow
AA VA AB VB
Mean 16.52 18.66 15.42 20.42
AA 1.000 0.390 0.691 0.271

VA 0.390 1.000 0 .404 0.161
AB 0.691 0 . 404 1.000 0.457
VB 0.271 0.161 0.457 1.000
* Pearson Product Moment

TABLE IV - 20
AVDT : Cross Correlation* by Group
First Grade - Center School
AA VA AB VB
Mean 18.21 20.73 18.63 21.68
Standard Deviation 4.93 3.43 4 . 56 3.02
AA 1.000 0.354 0.358 0.515

VA 0.354 1.000 0.336 0 . 483
AB 0.358 0.336 1.000 0.566
VB 0.515 0.483 0 566
.
1.000
First Grade - Mark' f
s Meadow School
AA VA AB VB
Mean 22.25 22.05 18.80 23.55
AA 1.000 0.300 0.444 0.335

VA 0.300 1.000 0.422 -0.006
AB 0.444 0.422 1.000 0.030
VB 0.335 -0 006
. 0.030 1.000

100
•
OJ 1
— 1 ^r cm oo in
hO ooo O a\ rH
•rH ooo ooo
co • • •
CQ .
u tn-
4-VO^-
on m c— vo i>-
s u CQ H" OJ CO
p o • .
o o ooo 6 ooo
w Oh U
rH o
O 1
Ph
p:
O < CQ
>3 1 Level
o CQ£ 6 <
CO o P 1
— U
p S o CD o S
£ •H U pH 3 Ph p
-p o w o .01
o .
Pn 1 •H pH
<
1
CQ > Section
1 >3 >3 1
1 u u the
H o O rH •
—
cd P> < Oh <C > CQ
CD
OJ P
U
I cD Significant
h0
>
H
U
(D
Perceptual
T3
W C
H •H
-
CQ
< -
Eh
• CT\ — —
i i CT\ — —
i i
* hO O O VO ooo
c •H ooo ooo Test
o co . . . • . .
•H
P Coefficients
cD
i
—
CD < •
ovroov
U o. av cr\oo
U 6 P on vo
... c\i < poh" -nr Abilities
O U o . . .
O O o ooo £ ooo
C pH U
0 o
• •
u 1 Pn
Eh X PQ <
Q 1 1 >1 1
Correlation
> •H u < 6 £ CQ
< jd o U rH U
Mental
o p £ o aj o 6
•H U On d pH U
o O o
-=r 3 Ph 1 •H 1 pH
< > *
ll 1 >* 3 >3 1
u* u * Primary
U rH O • O rH • Pearson
0 cD P < CQ <> Ph

101
•
oo
CM .
CO CM LA
hO CM CO M3 hO —
P OoO •H
1
oo
CM |
1
1
CO co
cq
r~t
G t— LA o g oo c— M3
E G oo CO CO CQ G CO CO CM
G O o
O O ooo E o ooO
fo G
CO
1
— 1
O
o
1
Ph
o >5
< PQ 0
P G CQ E
|
< E
>
o O G rH
Cl'
co P G
E O cd e o
l-Q
•H G Ph G
JG G Ph — G
T) o CO o
i
o
-P G Ph •rH
O
o 1
Ph 1 • •H
cq
<c > P
1 >5 >5
1
CD O
G .£ CD
I
rH O i — O I
P co
Cd -P
P cd p
I 1
G
CO TJ
G P P T5
CO Td
C •H G G
cd CD
O >< Ph
•H
>< cg p a
CD
co G CO
CM 0) cd
—
CM
pp
1
cd cd
G 
H P
G
hO
PC
CD
co
P o
W G co G
CD
hQ •H
CQ Ph i Ph
<
Eh 1 •
COO p- .
p
coco p
co 1
hO H CO 03 hO o
— — c P
* P ooo P
i
ooo
i
CO
£ co • • •
CO . . .
P
Cl)
CD
O O
P P
Eh
-P
2 — cd
Q •H G < E
1
E PQ
i
pCD
> .£ O G — G G G
< o
i
P E O cd o e G (D
P G Oh G pH G O s
03
CO
Td
G
o
Ph •H
co o
Ph
o
1
>2
<
1
> c G
II 1 >2* >2 1 o cd
G *: G CO E
G P O •
O P •
G p
<D cd P< Ph <> CL, * *

102
H CM H — moo
oo
ooo
•
bO
o oj m
i
i
•H
00
o bO
•H OOO
00 • . .
0)
DO
Grad Ph o moo 3 O LPvLO
6 Ph a^t ^3- 3 la mm
u O
0
PH
o 000 . . .
O
o 000
First
1
>5
< DO
u DO S
o 3 £ < Level
and 4-5
£ O 3
H Ph Ph
0 g
TO 0 Pn 3
3 pH I
O .01
1 pH
1 >5 Section
>5
u u
I
rH o •
O rH the
Kindergarten «! -P < 4-5 <
•
3 -H •
•H
ctf
3
m no S to w s
•
at
•H 3 •
3 -H
>< CL,
<> CH
•
Speed
23
-
Significant
IV
School
Perceptual
TABLE
O O O m rH
A CM
-
•
OA
Center
•
bO
•H rH O O
bo A OJ O
00 ... •H rH OO
CO • . .
Test
-
Coefficients
<
Ph OOAO rn A-nr
£ Ph m
c\j -=r
o <
Ph
CO mA
Ph o
o
. .
Ph
o ... Abilities
Correlation*
£
O
pH
• oo £
Ph
O OOO
0)
u 1
0
Ph
TO
1—1
>:
CQ <
•H
x;
^
o
< s
1
£ CQ
Correlation
Ph rH
o A 6 o Ctf
Ph Mental
•H Ph Ph 3
C\J
=»
TO 0 W O
3 Ph I •H
AVDT:
< >
I Ph
II
1 >4 * >5
Ph * Ph
I
Ph — o
1
I
•
O rH •
rimary
0) B) 3 < Bearson
4-5 Ctf <C

X> 3 -H *
•H 3 •
E
3
w TO
•H 3
S •
TO CO g
S 3 iH •
>< Oh <> CL, -

103
• PO rH — .
on cr\ c\i
OOo
1 1
hO
ooo bO o cm o
•H
CO • • •
•H ooo
cq
0
0
p
C5 CQ .
Pi LO CT\ O lpv^t co
-p 6 P HT0 LA CQ -nroo-nr
co Pi O . .
•H
Pi o O ooo s ooo
Ph p
pH O
1
Ph
c
< CQ
>5 1
0 Pi CQ 6 £ <
Level
O P i
— l
P
p -P 6 o 0 0 S
0 •H P Ph 0 Ph P
-p X) O CO o .01
p 0 Ph 1 •H pH
0
hO
< >
1
Section
1 >5 >5 I
— P p
Pi
the
0 i O 1
•
O — i I
•
X5 0 -P <c •p d <:
0 0 -H •
•H 0 •
•H
PI
wdS
0
T5 OT 2 at
•H •
0 vH • Speed
>.< Ph <> Oh
-nr
c\i —
i
O
I O Significant
&
> o
M cq Perceptual
w £
01 o
CQ Xi -
< 0
Eh 0 -
S . 1
— — — 1 1 .
— CT\ —
ooo
1 1 i i
bO hO O CM O
—
CO •H ooo •H OOO Test
c/o . . . CQ
X
p Coefficients
0
s
< • •
1 P LP\ CJN^r P LOnj- CM

£ P Loco in 3 1 Correlation
0 •H P < 6
—
6 CQ Mental
P ,0 O P i P
P o P> £ o 0 0 £
O •H P Ph 0 pH P
o 1
— T3 O CO o
nr 0 Ph 1 •H 1 Ph
< >
» • II 1 >3* >1 I
Eh P * Pi
Q P rH O O — i I
<
• Pearson
Primary
> 0 0 -P < -P cti
< ,Q 0
wdS -H • •H
Td
0
m S
•
6
0 •H3 0 -H •
# **
2 >< P* <> Oh
10*1
The Visual section of Form A correlates the most

closely with
the PJVLA. in the tables, with Visual - Form B not
as close,
again raising the question whether visual learning took
place
on Visual - Form A, thus invalidating Form B to some extent.
Table IV-25 correlates various sections of the AVDT with
sex. The mean for the girls is perceptibly higher in Auditory -
Form B, but otherwise the scores are not significantly different.
There is a positive correlation in all scores, although

the statis-
tical significance was not computed for this particular table.
(This was programmed at the Williams College 1130 as a personal
favor to the researcher.) -A quick off-the-cuff evaluation of

this table would suggest that there is little variation in
scores between boys and girls on this particular test.
Graphs were also made of the scores of all of the child-
ren by class. They are interesting in that they show clusters
of scores on the positive side, with greater cluster among
the first graders. They also indicate that, although there
is an apparent close correlation with both visual and audi-
tory discrimination abilities as measured by this test, there
are notable exceptions to this within each class. These ex-
ceptions will be dealt with later on an individual basis.
One more set of variables was correlated for all groups
using the AVDT as one of the variables. This is shown in
Table IV-27. Each section of the AVDT was correlated with
age, sex, hand and eye dominance, teacher rating, and father’s
occupation. The only positive correlations significant at

TABLE IV - 25
AVDT Correlation* by Sex - All Groups
Girls
AA VA AB VB
Mean 18 15 20.68 18 15
.
. 22.10
AA 1 000
.
0.331 0.577 0.282
VA 0.331 1.000 0 .407 0.165
AB 0.577 0.407 1.000 0.288
VB 0.282 0.165 0.288 1.000
Boys
AA VA AB VB
Mean 18.33 20 00
. 16.51 21.53
Standard Deviation 4.85 3-83 5.23 3.20
AA 1.000 0.541 0.613 0.542

VA 0.541 1.000 0.515 0.460
AB 0.613 0.515 1.000 0.545
VB 0.542 0.460 0.545 1.000

106
the .01 level were Teacher's Rating; , and this was true for
all sections of the AVDT . Neither hand nor eye dominance
were significant, which is interesting in view of
the number
of theories that have been introduced by psychologists
and
educators over the past fifty years. (It is interesting to
note that in Table IV-33, Teacher Rating correlated with
all
other scores for first grade only,)hand dominance apparently
becomes more significant than in the present table, which

includes all groups.) Sex is negatively correlated with
Form B of the AVDT in Table IV-26 and has a negligible sig-
nificance with Form A, but becomes more significant a factor
in Table IV-33 also.
Father's Occupation . Although it is apparent from Table

IV-26 that father's occupation has a small correlation with
sections of the AVDT , this has been broken down into further
analysis in Tables IV-27 to IV-30. In these tables, each
section of the test is treated separately, by low, middle and
high score, and low, middle, and upper economic class (blue
collar, white collar, and professional). The results are
interesting. In Table IV-27 (Auditory - Form A) we find
that although only 20.5 per cent of the fathers are in the
blue collar class, 30.4 per cent of the group receiving the
lowest score for auditory discrimination are in the blue
collar group. In Table IV-29 (Auditory - Form B) we find
that an even larger per cent, 37- 5> are in this category.
Similarly, in Auditory - Form A, 41.2 per cent of the blue

107
Level
w .01
Oh
O
O
o the
0
—
I
at
rH
VO
<
CM 1
I *
c
> o Significant
H •H
O
W aj
I —
(D
< O
Eh U -
O
O
Eh
Q
> Coefficients
<
C
<D
U
—
I
•H Correlation
x:
o
on
co
ll
0 Pearson
<D
£>
e
o
is *
108
TABLE IV - 27
AVDT: Scores Correlated with
Father's Occupation
Auditory - Form A
Low Score = 0-15
Middle Score =16-20
High Score =21-25
Low Middle High

Score Total
Score Score
Blue Collar
Number children
receiving this score 7 4 6 17
of all children who
%
scored at this level 30.4 15.4 17.6 20.5
% of blue collar
children receiving
this score 41.2 23.5 35.3 100.0
White Collar
Number children
receiving this score 3
• 5 5 13
% of all children who
% of white collar
children receiving
this score 23.1 38.5 38.5 100.0
Professional
Number children
% of professional
children receiving
this score 24.5 32.1 43.4 100.0
Total Number of Children 23 26 34 83
% of Total 27.7 31.3 41.0 100.0
109
TABLE IV - 28
Father's Occupation
Visual - Form A
Low Score = 0-15
Middle Score =16-20
High Score =21-25
Low Middle High

Score Total
Score Score
Blue Collar
Number children
% of blue collar
children receiving
this score 11.8 52.9 35.3 100.0
White Collar
Number children
scored at this level 0.0 1
i— \s\ CO
18.4 15.7
% of white collar
children receiving
this score 0.0 46.2 53.8 100
Professional
Number children
1
scored at this level 1 60.5 65.8 63.9
—
% of professional
children receiving
this score 9.4 43.4 47.2 100.0
% of Total 8.4 45.8 45.8 100.0
110
TABLE IV - 29
Father's Occupation
Auditory - Form B
Low Score = 0-15
Middle Score =16-20
High Score =21-25
Low Middle High

Score Total
Score Score
Blue Collar
Number children
%of all children who
% of blue collar
children receiving
this score 52.9 41.2 5.9 100.0
White Collar
Number children
% of white collar
children receiving
this score 30.8 61.5 7.7 100.0
Professional
Number children
% of professional
children receiving
this score 20.8 49.1 30.2 100.0
Total Number of Children 24 i
HI 18 83
% of Total 28.9 *49 . 21.7 100.0
Ill
TABLE IV - 30
AVDT : Scores Correlated with Father’s
Occupation
Visual - Form B
Low Score =0-15
Middle Score =16-20
High Score =21-25
Low Middle High Total

Score Score Score
Blue Collar
Number children
% of blue collar
children receiving
this score 5-9 29.4 64 . 100.0
White Collar
Number children
% of white collar
children receiving
this score 7.7 23.1 69.2 100.0
Professional
Number children

% of professional
children receiving
this score 0.0 32.1 67.9 100.0
% of Total 2.4 30.1 67.5 100.0

112
collar children received

the lowest score, and
on Auditory -
Form B, 52.9 per cent of
the blue collar children
received
this score.
In contrast, 24. 5 per cent of the

professional children
received a low score on Auditory
- Form A, and only 20.8
per cent of the professional
children received this low
score
on Auditory - Form B. On the other hand, of the
children
receiving the highest score on
both forms of the auditory
test (Tables IV-27 and IV-29,
PP.108&110) 17.8 per cent and 1 5 .8
per cent of the blue collar
children scored high while 67.6
per cent and 88.9 per cent of
the professional children
scored at the high level. Although the numbers are small,
this is interesting in terms of
Cynthia Deutsch's (1964) find-
ings about poor auditory discrimination
in lower class child-
ren as reported earlier in this study.
This trend does not
hold up m visual, as can be seen in Tables IV-28
and IV-30 (pp.
109 & 111). Here the scores hold up fairly evenly
throughout
both forms of the test for all children
in all economic classes.
K indergarten Ratings . Table IV- 31 summarizes the mean,
median, mode, standard deviation, standard error,
kurtosis,
and skewness of the teacher ratings, de Hirsch
Battery and
—ea b°dy Picture Vocabulary Test , for kindergarten only.
(The last two named were given as part of an evaluation
bat-
tery by psychologists on an individual basis for the Amherst
Public Schools for placement purposes in May, 1970, and were
made available to the examiner.) The top possible score for

113
co
CO in p-
CD i — on .39 o
CTn
o 01 m
o
G
£ o on o o o o |
o
CD
X
00
1 i i
1
CO
•H o -=r CM -=r cn m
CO
O
on o O on on VO
i
|
in
o
P
G
o
1
m
—
r
—
i i — —
i
o !
o
| i i
G i i l i
l
i
•• X: l
CO Eh G l
CD > G l
G
O
Ph
Ph
cd
G O
G i
in
m
b-
^r m CO
l
| —
on
i
O .20 -=r on in
G G i
c/d g cd G o o o o o O
c PW | CM
p cd CO
l
l
CO
CD >3
Eh G
CD
C P G
CD P G O
—
i
p c G *H
on G pq cd p in C\J LT\ =d- o co
cd G cd vo 0- o (AJ co oo
I box: G -H • • • •
G o cd > — — eg eg
>
1
H
CD CO P CD
i
LT\
G Eh C/D Q co
CSV
G -H -=r
w •H K o
I
a w
CQ
<
CD
G
o o o o o O o G
Q— i CD o o o o o O
1
co S o E
Eh O G • • •
1
G
>> bO
*\
O o tn- i — —
1
-=r in i VO
l
E in
. •rH
X
Eh G
OJ 1 •H o cd
cd *rH
X
E P S
cd
E cd
o
G P^
o P
C/D cd CM 0- -^r ^r o O -=r o
Eh
CD
•H
G
CT\
•
vo
•
VO
•
VO o m I
i oo 1 o vo
CO
CD
• .
^r . t—
*• G CD o un eg eg m m VO
1
cn
Eh
Eh O s CM
i
£ o E
Q cd
l
G G
>3
G
> CD
E E
< Eh
•H —
I
cd
G G
C^ CM —
1
CT\ lr\ in i •H •H O
G ^r CO OO i — in i o 2 CM cd
cd • • • • • —
i i — o
CD —
i in eg eg l n in o
2
i l
CM l vo cn
O >
i — CD
G
CD i G
bD bO —
1
G i P
C G cd G i o
o
•H •H G CO H •H
P
i
sc O G i CD . a
-=r cd o P CD CD i bO G f
VC p o > > i < •
>3
ii cd 2 P G CD •H i H G
G l 2 1 i— hO G PC P i
—
i O
G CD G o cd G CD O i I cd 1 O
CD .G co G CDG P •H P p •H i p cd
G o CD G G CO CO aP co G i EH G Eh CD
S cd P O G -H CD a cd G CD i > CD > a
G <D cd ^ CD > CD cd a O G a2 a
S
i
Eh CD pq EH a i a a *
114
each Item is given in the chart below:
Teacher Rating ... 32
Gates Word Matching . . . number wrong out of 12

Bender Visuo-Motor Gestalt Test . . . number wrong out of 6
Tapping Pattern . . . number wrong out of 5
Horst Reversal . . . number wrong out of 9
Predictive Index (based on total score)... 0-10, 0-3 poor)

(
Peabody Picture Vocabulary . . . scored by mental age and

I . Q
It is apparent that the mean represents about a halfway
mark in the scores, although Teacher Rating is considerably
higher, as would be expected from a subjective rating scale.
The mean mental age of 6-10 is higher than the mean age of
5-10, giving a mean I.Q. of 109*12. This is interesting in

view of the fact that the minimum mental age and I.Q. was 4-4
and 76 , while the maximum was 10-8 and 149.
Table IV-32 correlates these scores with the four sec-
tions of the AVDT ,

Forms A and B. All sections correlate
positively with Teacher Rating at the .02 level at least,
with Auditory - Form A and B and Visual Form A correlating
even more significantly at the .003 to .008 level. Gates
Word Matching and Horst Reversal , which might be considered
visual (as well as word and letter recognition on a cognitive
level), have a significant correlation with Form A of the
visual section of the AVDT at less than the .05 level, but
this drops in Form B. Tapping Pattern , which should have a

115
TABLE IV - 32
AVDT: Correlation* - Kindergarten Only
Teacher Rating, de Hirsch Battery and P.P.V.T.**
Auditory - Form A Visual - Form A

Corr Sig. Corr. Sig.
Teacher Rating 0.43 .004 0 40
. . 008
Gates Word Matching 0.21 204 -0.34
.
.037
Bender Visuo-motor 0 004 .980 -0.37
.
. 029
Test
Tapping Pattern 0.09 572 -0.07
•
. 665
Horst Reversal 0.55 . 001 -0.38 . 016
Predictive Index 0.36 .023 0.43 .006
P.P.V.T. - I.Q. 0.13 .433 0.36 .025
Auditory - Form B Visual - Form B

Corr Sig. Corr Sig.
Teacher Rating 0.44 .003 0.34 .023
Gates Word Matching -0.21 .186 -0.19 . 254
Bender Visuo-motor 0.32 .060 -0 29. .088
Test
Tapping Pattern -0.23 .171 -0.29 .077
Horst Reversal -0.58 .001 -0.55 . 001
Predictive Index 0 .48 .002 0.39 .013
P.P.V.T. - I.Q. 0.16 .324 0.43 .006
* Pearson Correlation Coefficients - Significant at the

.01 Level
** P.P.V.T. - Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test
high auditory element, (patterns of loud-soft done by the
examiner and repeated by the child) has practically no
correlation with either section of the AVDT , possibly be-

cause it is a combined auditory and motor test. In this
study the examiner found that although children apparently
recognized an auditory pattern, they were unable to repro-
duce it on the telegraphy "Make-Break" circuit. Peabody
Picture Vocabulary Test does not correlate to any extent with
the Auditory sections but it does with the Visual section of
both tests, at the 0.25 level on Form A and at .006 on Form
B. This is interesting in terms of Coleman and Dawson's
( 1969 ) report, previously summarized in Chapter II, concerning
the reliance given to adequate visual functioning in most in-
telligence, achievement, and readiness tests. They postulate
that the child with a deficit in visual perceptual-motor
function will do poorly on most of these tests, with a con-
sequent misjudgment on their ability.
The de Hirsch Battery is significant mainly in terms of
predictive value. Dr. de Hirsch's ( 1966 ) studies have not
been validated, although a number of schools and clinics are
using the battery. Their value to this group of children
cannot be measured until they have completed two more yeai s
completing
of school, when, presumably, the children will be
activities.
second grade and will be well launched in reading
Table
First Grade Correlations with Teacher's Rating .
chapter in a
IV-33% referred to briefly earlier in this
TABLE IV - 33
Correlation* of Teacher Rating with Variables
for First Grades Only
Teacher Rating
Corr Sig.
AA 0.39 .015
VA 0.31 .05
AB 0.22 .167
VB 0.22 .179
P.M.A. 0.39 .014
Age 0.38 .817
Sex 0 . 30 .062
Hand 0.21 .195
Eye* 0.05 . 748
- Significant at
* Pearson Correlation Coefficient
.01 level
118
discussion of hand dominance, shows the correlation of

Teacher s Rating for first grade only with other aspects
of the study. Although one might assume that a high cor-

relation would be present between auditory and visual skills
and teacher approval, this is found only in Form A, where
auditory correlate at 0.39 and a significance of 0.15, and
visual at 0.31 with a significance of .05. These both drop
in Form B, again raising the question of learning on the
first sections of the test. Neither age nor eye dominance
are significantly correlated, and hand dominance is slightly
so. (Gone are the days when teachers insisted that all
children become right handed!)
The Mavericks . Graphs of the correlation between
auditory and visual scores for each class, although they
were generally positive, also showed that in each class
there were some children who were "out of line" (photographs
pp . 120-121). By and large, those who fell into the cate-
gory of "Maverick" were low in auditory scores and high in
visual. The concept of low and high varies with each
class, depending on the class mean. The mean and standard
deviations for each test section is summarized by class
on page 130. It is apparent that both kindergartens were
remarkably alike in their responses. However, Mark’s Meadow
first graders received consistently higher scores on all tests.
To highlight these differences, "case histories" follow.
Table IV- 3 4 gives a visual presentation of AVDT scores for

TABLE IV 119
- 34
'C'ÔctH-O.C
>
C
&
H-
rt
0 5 10 15 20 25 05 10 15 20 25
Visual Visual
Legend - Boy = X Group I = Kindergarten, Center

Girl = Y School
Group II = Kindergarten, Mark's
AA Auditory Form A
,
Meadow School
VA Visual Form A Group III = First Grade, Center
AB Auditory Form B
, 1
School
VB Visual Form B Group IV = First Grade, Mark's
Meadow School
120
*>
»o
*)
vj
'o
$ N
S
V
\»
N \
\j
APL\360
"ft
ft
Using
Correlation
of
"1
VK
V*

\S <^>
X V*
^>
I
*
*1!
A^ \»
v>
^ * 'b
if
\
Sr v: V
'•
o
v \J
X-
•i
;n ^ ^ t •- * » -, *
s * ***- « v> » n >i
\o
>.
•o
\
121
ft
*> s>
• t.
• •
••
.
QQ ^ 'h
Vi U-
5
k
* *4
\
H
V v
7
*
\^
^
:
<3 Vj
' v>
k Vj
§
> ; ^ k \>
APL\360
X
^5: i
3 * ? ' * ?
•"»>,, \ ^ v«
X X
N t>
Using
Correlation
X
of 5
\ -- 4
$
x — f— - t |-
<3
Graphs
'n
\
4
k <X
5^ \
5 $
*
Y.
£ Vx
X < X
4 V
*t •» n ^ 4nVk- X x-\ v»
X X
•> 1
X^^ vx?
122
one boy ana one girl
for each group.
(These do not reprg _
sent all of the children
who fall outside the
expected
correlation, but simply
represent typical cases.)
In Group I (Kindergarten
- Center School)
Girl Y, C.A.
-
5 10 , received low
auditory scores on the ’
AVDT (1 2 and 13
respectively, one standard
deviation below the mean),
and
also has a comparatively
low Wepman score of
4, (3.11) was
the mean for her oiflcci u
class). Her visual scores on
the AVDT
are 20 and 22 and on
the reiceptuai
PerceDtual Speedh section
^ aâry_M^^ she &
of
^
compares favorably with
the mean of 13.6 for her
Class (Table IV- 35 ).
In other words, she
appears to be a
little low in auditory
skills as measured by the
AVDT. Her
mental age as measured by
the Pea body Picture Vooah„ 1aT... m..,
and her I.Q. ls 85. On the Teacher Rating Scale
her
teacher gives her a score of
18, which is somewhat less
than
mean for all kindergarten
groups as a whole; 21.1)7,
(Table IV- 31 Her teacher states "She does
).
not communicate
orally, but can do written
work." During the testing,
she
responded by nodding or shaking
her head rather than speaking.
Her drawing of herself is
almost gross (see p. 123 ). In sum-
ming up this child, one might
say that she is immature, has a
borderline I.Q. from the standpoint
of doing well in school,
and that a visual approach would
probably be the most effective
mode for her to learn to read.
Her Predictive Index in the de
H irsch Battery is 1, boding some
difficulty in first grade.
123
Boy X in Group I, as shown in Table IV— 34, is very
interesting. His auditory scores in both forms of the AVDT
were 14 and his visual score 24 on Form A (he missed only one)
and 21 (missing two), on Form B. His Wepman score was 4, be-

low the class mean of 3-14. On the P M
. . . he scored 16, 2.4
points above his class' mean. On the Peabody Picture Vocabu-
lary Test his mental age is 10-8 and his I.Q. 149, the highest
of all of the kindergarten children who were tested. The
Teacher Rating is 20, and his teacher says of him "Well adjusted,
polite little boy - always willing to help and please." His
drawing of himself is immature and featureless, and his

writing shows
poor form. Th e
^Jiiilsch_Pred ictiive IndoY
gives him a score

of 6 ât
Vlhxt no
can one deduce from
scores for this these
particular child.
lld 0n
-
0ne •
K
mi Sht hazard a guess
fVi , u
® t0 °' Wil1 d
° best a visual approach
ppiUd cn to learning.
1
p
Phonics may have liffi.
.
6
tle meaning t0 hlra
.
-til he can read we '
en
enough h through
a visual approach
to ue
be aDle
able to process in-
. _
n
ellec tually the rulp^ n-p
phonics and word
structure On
the other hand,
this may, of course,
course hbeP a „temporary
*
, develop-
men al lag, or he
n
may have a chronic
sinusitis
inusitis which could
affect his auditory
discri mi nan ~
scnmmation, or the ATOT may
not be
testing what the
researcher feels it does!
The two children in
Group II, (Kindergarten,
Mark's
Meadow School) are also
eo interest-,-
interesting no- k
because of their scores.
The girl has a low score of
9 (more than one S.D. below
the mean) on Auditory and
22 (one S.D above the mean)
on Visual-Form A. On Form B she has an auditory
score of
14 and a visual score of
22. Her Wepman score is 4 and her
P M A
. .is 21, a markedly high
.
score for her class, whose
mean is 15.5, (Table IV-35). On the Peabody Picture Voca-
bulary Test her I.Q. is 95. Her
teacher gives her a rating
of 21, and predicts that she
will do fairly well in first
grade, with a Predictive Index of
5 on the de Hirsch Battery
Her picture of herself indicates

that she probably has a
fairly good self concept. Her auditory score suggests she
may have some difficulty if a phonetic
approach t< reading
is used.
Ki tt\
The boy in Group II, (Kindergarten, Mark’s

Meadow School) has low scores of 8 (almost two S.D. below
the mean) on Auditory-Form A, and 11 on Form B (one
S.D. below the mean). His visual score on both tests
is 18, just above the mean. His Wepman score is

126
2 and his PjJHiA* is 16, just about

the mean for his class
° n the
—
cher Rating he was given 22, and
the de Hirsch
Pr edictive Index is
5, which is adequate but not high.
(The high score for this is 10.)

His I.Q. as measured by
the abod y Picture Vocabulary Test is
2g..
110. The picture
he has drawn of himself is strikingly
immature.
I
127
8*
This is one of those boys, known well to
first grade
teachers, who will probably be "a late bloomer."
It is
difficult to judge whether he is slow developmentally
, as
demonstrated by his drawing of himself, whether he has
a
poor self concept, or whether he will be one of those
child-
ren who does well in math (which is both visual and cogni-
tive) in contrast to excelling in language skills. On the

other hand, he might do well in all subjects. However, if
there is any validity to the AVDT , the first grade teacher
should be alerted to the fact that phonics may make no sense
to him, and that a visual approach w ould be more successful.
The other four children shown in Table IV-34 will not
be discussed in detail as there are no I.Q. or predictive
scores available for them. Their vital statistics for the

purposes of this study are as follows:
Group I - First Grade Center School
Girl Class Mean Picture of Self
Chronological Age 7-2

Auditory - Form A ** 18.21
Visual - Form A 19 20.73
i *
Auditory - Form B — ^r 18.63
Visual - Form B 17 21.68
Wepman Auditory 3 2.21
P.M.A. Perceptual 19 18.3^
Teacher Rating 18 21.47
* One Standard Deviation below

the mean
** Two Standard Deviations below
the mean
Boy 128
Class Mean
Chronological Age Picture of Self
7-7
Auditory - Form A
13* 18.21
Visual Form A -
13** 20.73
Auditory - Form B
7 ** 18.63
Visual Form B
13 *** 21.68
Wepman Auditory
6 2.21
P-M.A. Perceptual
13 18.34
Teacher Hating
14 21.47
Group IV - First Grade -Mark's Meadow School

Girl
Class Mean Picture of r
Auditory - Form A 21 22.25
Visual - Form A 19 22.05
Auditory - Form B *
15 18.80
Wepman Auditory
3 1.65
P.M.Aw Perceptual
.
21 18.34
Boy
Class Mean Picture of Self
Auditory - Form A 16 *** 22.25
Visual - Form A 19 *
22.05
Auditory - Form B 13 **. 18.80
Wepman Auditory 0 1.65
P.M.A. Perceptual 18 18.34
One Standard Deviation

the mean below
** Two Standard
Deviations below
the mean
below the mean

129
What, if anything, can be gleaned from these reports
without actually knowing the child? What might one look
for? Girl in Group III, (First Grade, Center School) has
consistently low scores in auditory discrimination, and a
somewhat low teacher rating, but aside from that, little
shows up. Obviously she needs to be rechecked on auditory
discrimination, there should be some measure of her predicted
intelligence, or achievement level, and finally, her teacher
observations should be given weight. Her teacher states,
"She is the poorest reader in the high reading group. She
does not work to capacity." Perhaps if she were put in the
middle reading group where she could be the best reader, and
given extra visual approaches to language arts, she might
become a better performer. Only time will tell.
Boy in Group III, (First Grade, Center School) has had
considerable emotional problems (according to teacher’s re-
port) has been in the "Readiness Class" for children with
language problems, and, according to his teacher, needs a
good deal of structure. (In other words, he is a teiror in
the classroom and on the playground - ed .

’ s note.) His draw-
large
ing of himself is striking in view of the fact that he is
the child-
for his age and is considered a "Bully" by most of
It is interesting to speculate upon his

reasons for not
ren.
including hands in his self portrait. Testing indicates that
that he needs a
he is a slow learner, and the AVDT suggests
before being introduced
good deal of success in visual learning
i
130
TABLE IV - 35
Mean Scores: Primary Mental Abilities Test -
Perceptual Speed Section: by Groups
Group I - Kindergarten - Center School - 13.6

Group II - Kindergarten - Mark’s Meadow School - 15.5
Group III - First Grade - Center School - 22.6
Group IV - First Grade - Mark's Meadow School - 22.6
Group I & II - Kindergarten only - 14.5

Group III & IV - First Grade only - 21.5
TABLE IV-35a
AVDT Summary by Class of Mean and Standard Deviation
AA VA AB VB
Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Mean S.D
Group I 16 . 4.4 19.9 3.8 16.5 3.4 21.6 2.7
Group II 16.5 5.1 18.7 3.3 15.4 5.0 20.4 3.2
Group III 18.2 5.0 20.7 3.4 18.6 4.6 21.7 3.0
Group IV 22.2 2.6 22.0 2.2 18.8 3.3 23.5 2.0

131
to phonics. His father is a "Blue Collar Worker" raising
again the question what is his home environment? Has this

boy learned to tune out because of a noisy home environ-
ment ?
Girl in Group IV, (First Grade, Mark's Meadow School)
has a highly interesting teacher comment: "Vacillates

between almost total withdrawal and passivity hyperactivity
with no controls. Headstrong." Her drawing of herself
has a "Dennis-The-Menace " quality, and her scores vacillate
also without apparent reason. Again more information is
needed before one can get a. true picture of this child's
learning style. She may have emotional problems which are
contributing to the uneveness of her performance, or she
may have a chronic physical condition which affects her hear-
ing and sense of general well being. The classroom teacher
is in an ideal position to evaluate this child, using achieve-
ment tests, individual intelligence tests, referrals to the
school nurse for repeated audiometric reports, (which might
result in a referral to a physician) parent conferences, and
home visits. Her father is a self employed storekeeper, and
it may well be that, if the family is trying to keep a small
grocery business afloat in spite of the competition offered
by chain stores her parents may be preoccupied by economic
concerns and the girl is not getting enough parental atten-
tion. Her low Teacher Rating is the greater reason for being
concerned about this child. All factors should be evaluated

132
before any radical change is made in her educational pro-
gress .
Boy in Group IV, (First Grade, Mark’s Meadow School)
shows some discrepancy in his test scores, but he is con-
siderably younger than the rest of his classmates, his
Teacher Rating is high, 27, with a mean for the class of
21.^7, and his Wepman score is 0, or no errors. A note on
his score sheet indicates that he had a cold when he was
tested, which was probably a contributing factor to his low
score in Auditory - Form B of the AVDT . However, his audi-
tory discrimination should be rechecked when he is free of
nasal congestion. Although his self portrait is somewhat

immature, so is he, and it is not unusual for six and a half
year old boys to exclude such details as fingers, hands,
feet, hair, and clothing from self portraits. Therefore,
one would expect the teacher to adopt a "wait and see" at-
titude in working with this child. Tables IV-36 to IV - 39
show the comparable scores of all children on the AVDT ,

P .M . .
and Wepman. Those with asterisks show a preferred modality.
Final Comments on Evaluation . It is appropriate, in
winding up this section of the report, to include some of the
children's reactions to the AVDT . Although no one refused to
be tested, the visual section was considerably "easier" for
most of the children than the auditory. During the testing
again and again a child would comment spontaneously "I like
looking best!" Or, "I'm glad I'm through with the listening."
133
TABLE IV - 36
Raw Scores - All Tests by Groups
Group I - Kindergarten - Center School

Auditory - Form A = AA
Visual - Form A = VA
Auditory - Form B = AB
Visual - Form B = VB
Wepman Auditory Discrimination Test = Wepman
Primary Mental Abilities Test - Perceptual Speed Section = P.M.A.
Girls
AA VA AB VB Wep . P.M.A
1 . 19 22 17 23 5 16
2. 16 20 17 19 3 9
3. 20 18 17 24 2 17
4. 16 23 15 20 1 17
* *
5. 12 20 13 22 4 12
*
6. 15 19 16 25 4 10
7. 24 25 20 25 0 18
* *
8. 11 20 16 25 9 17
* 14
9. 15 21 16 25 2
* 18 20 0 13
10. 8 17
11. 19 22 17 20 2 11
Boys
AA VA AB VB Wep . P.M.A
1 19 15 17 20 5 9
2. 14 17 13 16 5 14
3. 9 10 5 16* 9 3
4. 18 25 23 20 1 17
21 16 18 24 3 12
5.
6. 20 22 18 22 1 17
19 19 22 24 1 17
7.
14 24 14 21 4 16
8.
8 19* 16 24* 2 16
9.
18 19 5 6
10. 21 24
19 23 2 24
11. 18 25
14 20 2 6
12. 21 16
* Children with preferred modality

134
TABLE IV - 37
Group II - Kindergarten - Mark’s Meadow School

Girls
AA VA AB VB Wep P.M.A
1 16 15 16 19 2 14
2. 21 20 22
*
25 2 15
3 . 25 25 25 23 1 21 .
4 13 22 * 20 12
. 23 1
5 - 17 14 15 22 3 19
6. 22 * 14 22* 4 21
9
7 . 23 17 20 20 1 19
8. 18 20 13 13 3 13
Boys
1. 19 17 11 21* 4 5
2. 8 18* 11 18 2 16
3 . 11 13 11 25* 0 12
4 . 24 23 19 25 1 26
5 . 13 20 17 21 4 21
6. 17 18 17 16 6 11
7 . 14 17 12 21* 1 12
8. 10 14 9 19 * 1 14
9 - 11 17 6 17 * 3 10
10 25 21 19 21 2 24
11. 15 16 17 16 2 12
12. 16 24 * 8 18* 2 16
13 . 22 19 22 24 3 13

135
TABLE IV - 38

Group III - First Grade - Center School
Girls
AA VA AB VB Wep . P.M.A.
1. 20 18 19 25 3 20
2. 13 23* 19 21 1 23
3. 21 19 21 19 2 28
4. 14 20 17 22 2 24
5. 16 25" 20 23 2 25
6 9 19* 19 20 4 20
7. 18 17 18 22 3 17
8 25 25 23 20 0 21
’
9. 8 19* 14 17 3 19
Boys
AA VA AB VB Wep P.M.A.
1. 22 20 22 23 3 17
2. 23 25 23 25 1 27
3. 24 20 25 22 0 27
4. 22 25 19 25 2 25
5. 16 17 25 23 0 21
6. 19 19 16 22 3 24
7. 18 25 22 25 1 26
8. 13 13 7 13 6 13
9. 20 25 11 20* 3 27
10. 25 20 14 25* 3 25

136
TABLE IV - 39

Group IV - First Grade - Mark's Meadow School
Girls
1 . 25 23 17 22 2 23
2. 20 21 20 24 2 21
3. 22 25 21 25 1 27
4 . 23 23 22 20 0 24
5. 21 22 19 22 1 24
6. 22 19 20 25 1 23
7. 25 25 20 25 1 16
8. 25 24 19 23 0 27
9. 25 18 20 25 2 20
10. 21 19 15 25* 3 21
Boy s
1. 25 23 23 25 0 23
2. 23 22 22 25 2 25
3. 23 25 25 25 1 25
4. 23 19 17 22 1 25
5. 25 22 18 23 3 16
6. 21 22 11 25* 4 24
7. 23 25 21 24 1 26
8. 16 22 18 17 5 24
9. 21 23 15 25* 3 24
10. 16 19 13 24* 0 18

137
There is an interesting shift downward with

Form B for the
auditory in Group IV, explainable perhaps because
of a
sudden change in teachers during the last month
of school.
There was also a chicken pox epidemic which left some
of
the children listless. This is not reflected in the visual
portion of the test, which required less concentrated at-
tention for most of the children than the auditory.

I
Many children became engrossed in drawing pictures of
themselves, putting in tiny details that an adult would
not think about; i.e., many girls drew themselves in the
dresses they were wearing that day; polka dots, flowers, or
plaids. The boys were apt to concentrate on action picture's
of themselves. Several drew pictures of themselves as hunters,
suggested by the story the examiner told them to determine
which hand and eye were dominant. Only one child refused to
draw himself, a kindergarten child who has had a difficult
problem with asthma. The field of self portraiture and
academic prediction is a rich and intriguing area for further
investigation. Dennis (1966) has done some fascinating work
with children’s drawing, as have Wolff '
( 19^7) and Goodenough
(l926), with their work on Draw-A-Person Test . This area,
unfortunately, is beyond the scope of the present study, but
leaves the examiner with a strong desire for further research.

138
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Background
The primary purpose of this study was to develop a test
to investigate the relationship between auditory and visual
discrimination in young children. It is the hypothesis of
this study that, in a randomly selected population of kinder-
garten and first grade children, some children will show a
preferred modality. It is postulated that if this popula-
tion were given an auditory and visual discrimination test,
(with one section of the test visually oriented and the other
auditorially oriented) the resulting scores would indicate
that some children favor one modality over the other.
Behind this hypothesis is the realization that
very little is actually known about how children use
their modalities in learning to read, and that, in fact,
very little is known about the reading process. A sur-
vey was made of the literature, both specific to the
particular concern of auditory and visual discrimination,
and general ;
i.e., the reading process, the relationship
to
of phonics to auditory discrimination and ’’look-say"
chil-
visual, the problem of auditory discrimination in
contribu-
dren from low income urban settings, and the
made by in-
tion of knowledge that has been and is being
In
vestigation of children with learning disabilities.
addition, studies that were developed primarily in the
audio-visual field were used as they related to this
specific problem of auditory and visual discrimination.
A general impression gained from a review of the
literature is that little is yet known about the func-
tioning of the physiological and psychological processes
of the human organism or how these processes relate to
the activity that is called reading. One can measure
the process itself, to a certain extent: that is, one
knows when a person cannot read, and reading "levels"
can be assigned within a year or so with some degree
of assurance, and yet no one can be really sure of
what happens within the cortex when a word is seen,
processed, and expressed. Obviously, the two modal-
ities of sight and hearing have something to do with it,
It was decided to try to investigate this phenom-
enon by devising a test which could be used easily by
the classroom teacher, with a minimum amount of train-
ing in the administration of it ,

and minimum cost to
the school system.
Procedure
The Auditory Visual Discrimination Test was de-
veloped by trial and error, using a built-in laboratory
of 26 kindergarten children who were the pupils of the
investigator. The auditory section of the test was pat
terned after the Seashore Measures of Musical Talents,

140
using a same frequency sound (3000 cycles per second as
measured by the Williams College oscilloscope) from a
telegraphy "make-break" circuit, and requiring the chil-
dren to discriminate between similar and different stim-
uli presented at one second intervals . The International
Code was used for the format. The children were asked to
process auditory stimuli varying from two to four bits in
a twelve item test. The visual portion of the test was
developed using the same symbols (signals). Slides were
made of pictures of the symbols and were shown in a
lighted projector for a one second exposure. The children
were asked to discriminate between two slides for each
item, telling whether they were the same or different.
After perfecting the test and the technique of using it,
permission was asked and granted for testing two kinder-
garten classes and two first grade classes in the Amherst,
(Massachusetts) Public Schools. All of the testing took
place in the afternoon, using various secluded spots in
near by "cubby holes" of the schools. An effort was
made to have a fairly even mixture of boys and girls,
but in some cases there were more boy than girl volunteers
who were anxious and ready to leave the classroom. A
reward of four M and M candies was offered. Testing time
averaged about twelve minutes for the first test form and
fifteen minutes for the second test form. This is a _
parallel test which was developed to test the reliability

of Form A.
On the second testing in order to establish hand and
eye dominance each child was asked to pretend that he was
a ship’s captain and had to sight through his telescope
to see land. He was given a cylinder through which to
sight. He was then asked to pretend that he was a hunter
sighting a bear with his rifle. If there were any doubt
in the investigator’s mind about dominance, another story
was told, and two out of three consistencies provided the
basis for eye and hand dominance. Each child was also
asked to draw a picture of himself and to sign his name.
This was done as a rough estimate of the child’s maturity
and self concept, and also to further test hand dominance,
which has been thought to be a factor in some reading
problems of children.
There was no difficulty in establishing rapport with
the children as most of them were acquainted with the in-
vestigator through her work as a substituting teacher,
"playground duty" or classroom visits. There was a high
degree of homogeneity in the two schools used, judging
from father's occupation. However, the Mark's Meadow
School is also a laboratory school for the School of
Education of the University of Massachusetts and these

procedure,
pupils seemed more sophisticated about testing
give
rewards, and "blackmail" ("I’ll come with you if you
me some candy.")
142
The investigator was fortunate in being

allowed to
use testing results from a battery which was
given to
the kindergarten children in all of the Amherst
Public
Schools in May, 1970, (in some cases overlapping with
the investigator's testing.) These consisted of the

de Hir sch Battery to predict reading readiness,
and The
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test . Teachers were asked
by the investigator to fill out an informal rating scale
for each child used in the study, and although it was
not standardized, it gave some insight which was useful
later in evaluating the children.
The testing took place over a two and a half month
period. Only one child was lost from the study, return-
ing to Sweden at the end of his parent's academic year,
rather than at the end of the public school year. One
other child was eliminated from the study after it was
found that he had a hearing loss as measured by the
Maico audiometer. Score sheets were kept for each child,
and included not only both forms of the Auditory and
Visual Discrimination Test ,

but score sheets for the
Wepman Auditory Discrimination Test (which was given for
correlation purposes), and the Perceptual Speed Section
of The Primary Mental Abilities Test . This last test
was given on a small group basis at the end of the entire
testing. Although it is not ideal, being a speed test,
it is a standardized test for both kindergarten and first

143
grade children, in contrast to the typical readiness

tests
which are too "primary" for most first grade children's
tastes
Eighty three children were tested, all by the same
examiner, (with the exception of the de Hirsch Battery
and Peabody P.V.T. for the kindergartens) with a fairly
even distribution between grades and schools. These

statistics have been outlined in the previous chapter,
together with the significant correlations found between
the tests and other variables.
The findings show that there is an overall, signif-
icant correlation between auditory and visual modalities
as tested in the AVDT , at the .001 level in most classes.
It was also found that the two forms of the AVDT are
fairly reliable, again at the .001 level, except in the
case of Visual-Forms A and B, where the significance
dropped to .002. (See Table IV - 18, p. 96 . ) Correla-
tions were done at the Computer Center, University of
Massachusetts, on a Control Data Corporation 3600 com-
puter, using an Item Analysis to evaluate the test
items. The program that was used was developed by
Ronald K. Hambleton, School of Education, University of
Massachusetts, and is known as The Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences . This last program gave the investigator
means, standard deviations, standard error, kurtosis and
skewness for most of the test scores as well as cross

correlations with twenty
three variables.
( An embarrass-
ment of riches!) In addition to the

above program, an
IBM APL\360 computer
with a closed terminal
was used for
cross checking, information,
and excitement. It provided
all three.
After completing the original

data gathering and
computations, the investigator
retired to Williamstown,
Massachusetts, home of Williams
College, to collate, sift,
and analyse the material.
When it was discovered that
some errors had been made by
the investigator in program-
ming for the University Computer,
the facilities of the
Williams College IBM 1130 Computer
were made available.
This became a splendid learning
experience in comparing
programming, computers, and higher
education facilities
and policies in regard to using
computers. There is
some variation in the way the data
is presented as a re-
sult of these three different computing
programs, but
the results are still the same.
Results and Conclusions
The net result of this investigation is

acceptance
of the hypothesis; namely, that in a randomly
selected
population of kindergarten and first grade children,
some children will show a preferred modality,

as
measured by an auditory and visual discrimination
test which uses the same basic data for processing

1^5
modalities, on the whole, are

commensurate, and well cor-
related. This is shown in a series of
tables in Chapter
IV. By and large, for the majority
of the children
tested, those receiving a
comparatively high score on
the auditory section of the test,
also received a high
score on the visual section. There were exceptions, how-
ever, and it was that kind of a
child who originated this
study. This will be dealt with later in
this chapter.
The most appropriate question at
this point has to
do with the test itself. Did it really test auditory and
visual discrimination? This is a difficult
question to
answer. The correlations of both sections of the
test
with the Wepman Auditory Discrimination Test
, the test
which is most commonly used to evaluate auditory
dis-
crimination, and the Perceptual Speed section of The
Men tal Abilities Test indicate that it did.

However,
the Item Analysis, which was discussed in detail
in
Chapter IV in Tables through 10 (pp. 66
3 - 86), raises
some question about the validity of calling this an
Auditory and Visual Discrimination Test for kinder-
garten and first grade children. The scores in the vis-

ual section in particular are high and apparently require
little real discrimination. This is especially true of
the second visual test. Form B, and raises the question
whether learning took place on Visual Form A and was
carried over from this to Visual Form B. This question

I
146
cannot be answered, but gives rise to another question,
namely, were the auditory and visual sections of the test
truly commensurate? The procedure for testing the auditory
was sequential, but the items in the visual section were
presented simultaneously, rather than in sequence. In other
words, the children were asked to process "chunks” of in-
formation in the visual section, rather than sequential bits,
because of the nature of the slides. In retrospect, had
the visual items been presented in film loops, with one bit
of information per frame, rather than as complete "pictures"
would the results have been more nearly comparable with
auditory?
Another question which arises, of course, is whether
this could truly be called an auditory-visual discrimination
test, or was it an auditory-visual memory test? It is dif-
ficult to say what can rightfully be called memory, and what
can be called discrimination. Again, this question cannot
really be answered. Both qualities are certainly involved.
It was also very clear to the examiner when a child was not
discriminating. This was not simply a matter of inattention
on the part of the child, although this did occur in some
cases. Frequently those children with very low scores
on auditory seemed to be listening the hardest. Those
with high scores were more apt to seem inattentive, but
also sure of themselves. They listened and answered ef-
fortlessly .
14 7
Although the visual section was comparatively

easy
for most children, several gave wrong
answers on "re-
versal' slides i.e., when the first picture was
presented
as __ and the second as
.
.
__ (Item 1. Visual-Form A)
0^, *
—— and •
(Item 6. Visual-Form A). This
kind of mis-viewing is familiar to kindergarten
and first
grade teachers. It is not unusual to find it in young
children, who frequently reverse not only the letters

of
their names, but often the entire name, lettering it from
right to left rather than left to right. (This pattern of

left to right reading and writing is of course an arbitrary
custom of the English language, not found in Hebrew or
Chinese, for instance.) However, if a child persists in
this form of viewing or writing, there is some cause for
concern on the part of both teachers and parents. It
would be interesting to check this kind of response on
visual tests with the classroom teacher to see if there
were a correlation with this and reversed letters. As
the visual test needs to be revised both for content and
procedure, it should be possible to devise an entire
visual test which depends on testing the reversal response.
The International Code lends itself readily to this kind
of test
However, for the majority of the children the visual
section of both tests offered no real challenge. This was not

true of the Auditory section, although some items in
this were also "too easy" and were answered by more than
eighty percent of the children. One might hazard a guess
that visual impressions are more apt to be stored in a
memory bank than meaningless auditory stimuli. This

processing of meaningless auditory and phonic impres-
sions has been studied in a number of research projects,
including one that has been reported in Chapter II of
this study (Bishop, 1964) where Arabic letters were used
in both whole word and phonics training. The group which
had received the letter sound correspondence training did
significantly better. The telegraphic signals used in
the AVDT were not taught as a code and, presumably, were
totally unrelated to any previous learning the children
had received. On the other hand, our society is filled
with visual codes, such as road signs, television com-
mercials, and even children’s games and may have prepared
the children with a mental set for processing visual codes.
The old saying, "One picture is worth a thousand words"
may have some merit.
One question to be raised concerns the difference
for most children in processing the visual over the audi-
tory. Almost without exception the children preferred
the visual, saying "That’s easy, I like to do it. The
other (auditory) is hard". It was particularly difficult
to maintain the attention and interest of some of the

149
kindergarten children during the
auditory testing. It
was clear in some cases that
the child was not listening
at all, and had, in fact,
"tuned out", if the visual is
"easy" and the auditory is
"hard," what are the implica-
tions for combining this kind
of a test? For this inves-
tigator it seems clear that such
a combination is not
feasible. The alternate demands
upon students either to
"listen carefully" or "look at this
picture hard" (when
the child has already processed
it before one has fin-
ished the sentence) make for an
uneveness in testing
procedure and examiner-examinee relationship.
It seems clear that a visual

test using sequential
film loops might be productive for
younger children or
kindergarten children from a. less sophisticated
back-
ground than those at Amherst. However, it should be sep-
arated from the auditory discrimination test.
The auditory test would be considerably

easier to give,
and might have more valid results if it were given
to chil-
dren at the beginning of first grade, rather than at
the
end of kindergarten. Scores for the first grade chil-
dren were higher (a mean of 2 to 4 points more than for
kindergarten children) , the directions were more easily
understood by the older children, and the testing time
was about four minutes less. All of these arguments lend

weight to using the auditory section of the test with be-
ginning first graders. Another argument for this was

150
suggested at the beginning of this study.

The investi-
gator’s interest and concern is focused
primarily upon
the child who is just beginning to
read. It is not un-
like the child who is just beginning
to walk. He needs
something sure that he can hold on to. For the beginning
reader, this may well be using his "best"
modality, the
one with which he functions most easily.
There is one other argument for keeping the

Auditory
section of the test more or less intact, (although the
examiner would probably drop two items, thus turning
it
into a ten item test of shorter duration), with no
attempt
to test visual discrimination. The Wepman Auditory Dis-
crimination Test has a number of faults that have been
referred to earlier in Chapter II. One of the faults can

be defined as variations in stimuli. Because pairs of
words are read by an examiner whose voice, accent, and
dialect can differ from item to item, the test suffers
from inconsistency. (The present examiner had diffi-
culty in keeping her voice, tone, pitch, and timbre con-
stant while using the Wepman in this study.) One of the
values of using a tape recording and a mechanically pro-
duced sound is that it becomes not only culture free, but
universal. It can be used equally well in a rural set-
ting or an urban one, an affluent school system or a
depressed one, in an English speaking country, or in
any other part of the world. The original impetus for

using the International Code came from
the fact that it
is, in fact, universal.
It would have been interesting to use

the AVDT with
a class of Head Start children
to see whether the two sec-
tions of the test are comparable, or
whether the same
demarcation between visual and auditory holds
for the so-
called disadvantaged as well as the Amherst
children.
Although this has not been possible at this time,
the in-
vestigator plans to try it with a Head Start class
some
time in the future.
Final Summary
1. There is a significant correlation between the aud
tory and visual discrimination abilities of kindergarten
and first grade children.
2. Visual discrimination may develop at a faster
pace than auditory discrimination, as evidenced by higher
scores and greater ease of subject while participating in
the test.
3. In every classroom there were five or more chil-
dren who had a significant measurable discrepancy between
the auditory and visual sections of the test. If tests
can be devised to measure both auditory and visual discrim-
ination and they help identify the child who needs a spe-
cialized approach to beginning reading, this preliminary
study has been useful.

152
^ A visual discrimination test,

depending entirely
upon symbols to be viewed, rather than
acted upon in a
"motor manner”, might be useful in identifying
visual
problems in young children; i.e. the
preschool child,
or the so-called disadvantaged urban child.
5. A new auditory discrimination test is

needed to
supplant the Wepman Auditory Discrimination Test , which
is subject to human error. Such a test should take ad-
vantage of modern media both in tone production, and in
standardization; i.e. through taped reels or cassettes.

By using pure tone sounds .rather than the human voice,
the test would be both culture free and universal.
6. It might be possible to use such a test as de-
scribed in Item 5 above on a small group basis with first
grade children, using ear phones and their own score
sheets. This, of course, would require the supervision
of a teacher or a teacher's aide.
Implications
1. The present study reveals that there is a need
for an improved auditory discrimination test which will
not be dependent upon human error. Such a test should
be readily available to classroom teachers, without prior
experience in auditory testing, and should be economically
produced so that every first grade teacher could use it.
2. Visual discrimination tests of the same caliber.

153
but of greater difficulty and using

sequential processing
rather than simultaneous presentation,
should be produced to
to parallel the auditory discrimination
test.
3. There are individual differences in some
children's
auditory and visual discrimination
abilities with one modality
preferred over the other. This should be
evaluated before be-
• ginning reading
4. There is a need for further investigation of

how
children process information, and the part that
auditory
and visual discrimination play in this process.
5. Longitudinal studies starting with infants should

be developed to include all available data on sensory
perception and discrimination, as well as intelligence and
achievement, socio-economic analysis, and school success.
The pyrpose of such a study would be to try to determine!
1) the relationship between maturation and heredity,
2) the sensory processes and learning, and 3) the role of

the environment in affecting learning.
Generalizations
The final thought that comes to one after investiga-
ting auditory and visual discrimination in regard to be-
ginning reading is a bit unsettling. Will reading still
be a part of the educational experience thirty years from
now? With the rapid increase in all media, the instan-
taneous reproduction of news events, the use of news
satellites, computers which can "read" and which almost
product their own creative material, what is the role of

154
reading and the teacher of reading?
One still comes back to the human entity, the mind,
the brain, and the central processing agents. In a world
which is increasingly dominated by audio-visual materials,
the mechanism which triggers recognition and discrimina-
tion is worthy of investigation. Reading may not be here
to stay, but the eye, the ear, and hopefully, the mind
and heart of man will continue to function. Thoughtful
discrimination in all endeavors is surely a goal still
worth working for, and it is to these ends that this
study is focused; to help all children everywhere better
to understand and use their abilities and to develop their
full potentialities. That, finally, is the hope of all
mankind
155
REFERENCES
Abravanel, Eugene. The development of intersensory
patterning with regard to selected spatial
dimensions Monographs of the Society for Re-
search in Child Development, Serial No. 118, 1968,
Vol. 33s No. 2. University of Chicago Press.
Anastasi, Anne and D'Angelo, Rita Y. A comparison of
negro and white preschool children in language
development and Goodenough draw-a-man IQ. Journal
of Genetic Psychology, December, 1952, pp . 147-165.
Anastasi, Anne and D'Angelo, Rita Y. Language and draw-
a-man test. Journal of Genetic Psychology, Vol. 8l,
1952, pp. 1147-1165.
Anderson, Paul. Skills in elementary education.
MacMillan Co., New York, 1964.
Bangs, Tina E. Language and language disorders of the
pre-academic child. Appleton-Century-Croft s
New York, 1968.
Bannatyne ,
Alex D. A comparison of visuo -spatial and
visuo-motor memory for designs and the relationship
to other sensori-motor psycholinguistic variables.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol. 2, No. 9 ,
Sept. 1969, PP- 451-475.
Beery, J. Matching of auditory and visual stimuli by
average and retarded readers Child Development,
1967, Vol. 38, pp. 827-833.

156
elmont, L. and Birch, H. Lateral dominance , lateral

awareness , and reading disability . Child Develop-
ment, Vol . 36, 1965, pp. 57-71.
Birch, H. and Belmont, L. Auditory -visual integration
in normal and retarded readers.
American Journal
of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 34, 1964, pp . 852-861.
Bereiter, Carl and Englemann, Siegfried. Teaching dis-
advantaged children in the preschool . Prentice
Hall , Inc . , 1966
Berry, Paul. APL primer - Student Text. T. J. Watson

Research Center, Yorktown Heights, New York, 1969.
Blank, Marion. Cognitive processes in auditory dis-
crimination in normal and retarded readers. Child

Development, December 1968, pp . 1091-1102.
Bloom, Benjamin S. Stability and change in human
characteristics . John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1964.
Bond, G. L. and Tinker, M. A. Reading difficulties. (4th ed.)
MacMillan Co., 1966.

Bond, Guy L. The auditory and speech characteristics of
poor readers. Bureau of Teachers College, Columbia
University, New York, 1935.
Bruner, Jerome S. The process of education. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, i960.
Buras , Oscar K. (Ed.) Mental measurements yearbook.
(6th ed. Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New
Jersey, 1965.
157
Chall, Jeanne. Learning to read: the great debate.
McGraw Hill, New York, 1967 .
Cohen, S. Alan. Studies in visual perception and
reading in disadvantaged children. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, October 1969, pp. 498-508.
Cohen, S. Alan. Cause vs treatment in reading achieve-
ment. Journal of Reading Disabilities, March 1970,
pp. 43-54.
Cohen, S. Alan. Teaching them all to read 3 theory ,
methods and materials for teaching the dis-
advantaged. Random House, New York, 1969.
Coleman, Howard M. and Dawson, Sarah Taylor. Educational
evaluation and visual-perceptual-motor dysfunction.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol. 2, No. 5,
May 1969, PP* 242-251.
Day, Robin. Troubled relfections of a television
journalist. Encounter, May 1970, Vol. 34, No. 5,
pp. 78-88.
de Hirsch, Katrina, Jansky, J. J. and Langford, William 0 .
Predicting reading failure. Harper and Row, New
York, 1966.
Dennis, Wayne. Group values through children’s drawings.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1966.
The lives of children. Random House,

Dennison, George.
New York, 1969.

158
Deutsch, Cynthia P. Auditory discrimination and learning:

social factors. Merrill Palmer Quarterly of Behavior
and Development, July 1964, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp . 277-
296 .
Deutsch, Martin. Facilitating development in the pre-
school child. Merrill Palmer Quarterly of Behavior
and Development, July 1964, Vol. 10, No. 3,
pp. 249-263.
Deutsch, Martin. The role of social class in language
development and cognition. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, January 1965, pp . 78 - 85 .
Dykstra, Robert. Auditory discrimination abilities and
beginning reading achievement . Reading Research
Quarterly, Spring 1966, pp. 5-34.
Elam, Stanley. The age of accountability dawns in
Texarkana. Phi Delta Kappan, June 1970, Vol. 51,
No. 10, p. 509514.
Ellingson, Careth. The shadow children: a book about
children’s learning disorders. Topaz Books, No. 5,
Wabash, Chicago, Illinois, 1967.
Erikson, Erik. Childhood and society . W. W. Norton and
Co., New York, 1963.
Falk, Claire T. Object and pattern discrimination learn-
ing by young children as a function of availability
of cues. Child Development, September 1968, pp
923-928.
159
Fernald, Grace M. On certain language disabilities:
their nature and treatment . Mental Measurement

Monographs, Serial No. 11, August 1936. Williams
and Wilkins Co., Baltimore, Maryland.
Fraiburg, Selma. The magic years. Charles Scribners,

New York, 1959.
Frank, Lawrence K. On the importance of infancy.
Random House, New York, 1966.
Fresch, Rudolf F. Why Johnny can't read and what you can
do about it. Harper and Row, New York.
Frost, Joe L. Early childhood education rediscovered-
readings. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, 1968.
Frostig, Marianne. Development test of visual perception.
Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto,
California, 1963.
Gates, A. I., Bond, G. L. and Russell, D. H. Methods of
determining reading readiness. Bureau of
Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University,
New York, 1939.
Gibson, E. ,
Gibson, J., Pick, A. and Osser, H. A
developmental study of the discrimination of letter-
like forms. Journal of Comparative Physiological
Psychology, Vol. 55, 1962., pp. 897-906.
Gibson, Janice T. and Hayden, Barbara L. A cross com-
parison of written and spoken responses with visual
and auditory comfirmation in a paired-associate

160
simulated reading task. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 1968, Vol. 59, No. 6, pp . 452-455.
Gillingham, Anna G. and Stillman, Bessie W. Remedial
training for children with specific disabilities
in reading 3 spelling and penmanship. Education

Publishing Service Corporation, Cambridge, Mass.,
I960.
Golden, Nancy E. and Steiner, Sharon R. Auditory and
visual functions in good and poor readers. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, Sept. 1969, Vol. 2, No. 9,
pp. 476-481.
Goodenough, Florence. Measurement of intelligence by
drawing. World Book Co., New York, 1926.
Goodman, Kenneth S. (Ed.) Psycholinguistics nature of
the reading process. Wayne University Press,
Detroit, Michigan, 1968.
Hall, Vernon C. Acquisition and transfer differences
between kindergarteners and second graders on orally
and visually presented paired-associates using an
a-b 3 a-c design. Project #2 of Project Head Start,
Syracuse University, November 1967, ERIC-Microf iche
#Ed . 026 139.
Hall, Elizabeth. A conversation with Jean Piaget.
Psychology, May 1970, pp. 25-56.
Harrington, Michael. The other America. Penguin
Baltimore, Maryland, 1962.

161
Holt, John. How children fail. Pitman Publishers,

New York, 1964.
Holt, John. How children learn. Pitman Publishers,

New York, 1967.
Hunt, J . and Mac V. Intelligence and experience . Ronald

Press, New York, 1961.
John, Vera P. The intellectual development of slum
children- - s ome preliminary findings. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, October 1963, pp . 813-
815
John, Vera P. and Goldstein, Leo S. The social context
of language acquisition . Merrill Palmer Quarterly
of Behavior and Development, July 1964, Vol. 10,
No. 3, pp. 265-278.
Johnson, Doris J. and Myklebust, Helmer R. Learning
disabilities educational principles and practices
Grune & Stratton, New York and London, 1967.
Kass, Corrine and Myklebust, Helmer E. Learning dis-
ability: an educational definition. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, July 1969, Vol. 2, No. 7,
pp. 377-379.
Kephart, Newell C. The slow learner in the classroom.
Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., Columbus, Ohio, 1964.
Kessen, William and Kuhlman, Clementina (Eds.) Thought
in the young child. Report of a Conference on
Intellective Development with particular attention

162
to the work of Jean Piaget. Charles E. Merrill Books,

Inc., Columbus, Ohio, 1964.
Kirk, Samuel A., McCarthy, James J. and Kirk, W. D.
Revised Illinois test of psy cholinguis tic abilities
University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois, 1968.
Klaus, Rupert A. and Gray, Susan W. The early training
project for disadvantaged children: a report after
five years. Monographs of the Society for Research
in Child Development, 1968, Serial No. 120, Vol. 33,
No. 4. University of Chicago Press.
Kling, Martin. Some relationships between auditory and
visual discrimination . California Journal of
Educational Research, September 1968, pp . 170-181.
Leeds, Donald S. Illinois test of psy cholinguis tic
abilities - summary of research and commentary
The Journal of the Reading Specialist, May 1970,
Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 169-183.
Levin, Harry, Gibson, Eleanor J. and Gibson, James J.
The analysis of reading skill. Department of
Psychology, Cornell University, U. S. Department
of Health, Education and Welfare, December 1968.
Lindamood, Patricia C. Facilitation of language and
literacy development through intensive auditory
and perceptual training. ERIC - Microfiche
ED. 028 430, March 1969-

163
Lorge, Irving and Thorndike, Robert

L. The Lorge-Thorndike
tnte llvgence tests. Houghton Mifflin Company,
Boston, 1962.
Metropolitan achievement tests. Harcourt, Brace & World,

New York, 1958.
McKee, Paul, Harrison, M. Lucille and

Stroud, James B.
A pre-reading inventory diagnostic tests.
Houghton-
Mifflin Company, 1962.
Meyers, C. E., Orpet, R. E., Attwell, A.
A. and Dingman,
H. F. Primary abilities at mental ag e six.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development. The Antioch Press, Yellow Springs,
Ohio, 1962.
Mira, Mary P. Individual patterns of looking and listen-

ing preferences among learning disabled and normal
readers. Exceptional Children, May 1968, pp . 649-

658.
Money, John and Schiffman, Gilbert. The disabled reader ,
education of the dyslexic child. The Johns Hopkins
Press, Baltimore, Maryland, 1966.
Myklebust , Helmer, R. Edited by Progress in learning
disabilities . Grune and Stratton, New York and
London, 1968.
Orem, R. C. A montessori handbook. G. P. Putnam & Sons,
New York, 1966.

164
Orton, S. R. Reading , writing, and speech problems

of
children. Norton, New York, 1937.
Otto, Wayne. The differential effects of verbal
and
pvctorial representation of stimuli upon
responses
evoked. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal
Behavior, 1962-63, Vol. 1, pp . 192-197.
Phelan, Sister Mary Benedict. Visual perception in
relation to variance in reading and spelling.
A dissertation. The Catholic University of
America, Washington, D. C., 1940.
Piaget, Jean. Six psychological studies. Random House,

New York, 1967.
Pick, Anne D. Some basic perceptual processes in
reading. Young Children, January 1970, pp . 162-

181 .
Postman, Neil. Illiteracy in America: position papers;

the politics of reading. Harvard Educational Review,
May 1970, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp . 244-252.
Riessman, Frank. The culturally deprived child. Harper,
New York, 1962.
Ripple, Richard E. and Rockcastle, Verne N. (Eds.)
Piaget rediscovered. School of Education, Cornell
University, 1964.
Russell, David, et al . Manual for teaching the reading
readiness program. (rev. ed. Boston: Ginn,
1961, pp. 55-57.

Ryckman, David B. and Wiegerink, Ronald. A comparison of
the factor structure of the ITPA on
18 factor analyse
Michigan University, Ann Arbor Center for
Research
on Language and Language Behavior, February
1968.
Office of Education, H.E.W., Washington, D. C.
ERIC Microfiche Ed 021 230.
Seashore, C. E., Lewis, D. and Saetveit, J. G. Seashore

measures of musical talents . (rev. ed.) The
Psychological Corporation, New York, i960.
Spodek, Bernard and Robison, Helen F. New Directions in
the kindergarten . Teachers College Press, Columbia
University, New York, 1965.
Strang, Ruth. Reading diagnosis and remediation.
International Reading Association Research Fund,
Newark, Delaware, 1968.
Stretch, Connie Barrett. The rise of the "free school."
Saturday Review, June 20, 1970, pp. 76-93.
Taba, Hilda. Cultural deprivation as a factor in school
learning Merrill Palmer Quarterly of Behavior and
Development, April 1964, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp . 147-154.
Travers, Robert M. W. A study of the advantages and dis-
advantages of using simplified visual presentation
in instructional material. Sponsor, Office of
Education, H.E.W., Washington, D. C. ERIC
Microfiche Ed 031 951 .

166
Travers, Robert M. W. Principal Investigator. Research

and theory related to audio-visual information
transmission. (rev. ed.) U. S. Department of

Health, Education and Welfare, Washington, D. C. ,
1967.
Thurston, T. G. Primary Mental Abilities. Science

Research Associates, Chicago, Illinois, 1963.
Wepman, J. M. Wepman auditory discrimination test.
Language Research Associates, Chicago, Illinois,
1958.
Wolff, Werner. The personality of the preschool child
The child’s Search for Himself. Grune and Stratton,

New York, 1947.
Wood, Nancy E. Language disorders in children . National

Society for Crippled Children and Adults, Inc.,
2023 West Ogden Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, 1958.

167
RELATED REFERENCES
Anastasi ,
Anne. Psychological testing. (3rd ed.)
MacMillan Co., New York, 1968.
Bourisseau, Whitfield, David, 0. L. ,

Jr. and
Yamamoto, Kaoru. Sense-impression responses to
differing pictorial and verbal stimuli AV
Communication Review, Fall, 1965, pp . 249-254.
Brearly, Molly and Hitchfield, Elizabeth. A guide to
reading Piaget. Schocken Books, New York, 1966.
Crosby, R. M. N. with Liston, Robert A. The waysiders 3
a new approach to reading and the dyslexic child.
Delacorte Press, New York, 1968.
Hechinger, Fred. Preschool education today. Doubleday
& Company, Garden City, New York, 1966.
Holloway, V. A study of the factor involved in audio
and visual coordination affecting language delayed
children. Final Report. Southern Illinois
University, Carbondale, Illinois, September 1968.
ERIC - Microfiche Ed 029 450.
Kerpelman, Larry C. Stimulus dimensionality and
manipulability in visual perceptual training. Child
Development, June 1967, 38, No. 2, pp . 563-569.
Kohl, Herbert R. 36 children. New American Library,
New York ,
1967
Kozol Jonathan. Death at an early age. Houghton-

,
Mifflin, Boston, Massachusetts, 1967.

168
Levine, Samuel E., Freeman, F. Development of a social
competency scale for pre-school children . Columbia
University, New York, February 1968. ERIC -
Microfiche Ed 020 004.
McLeod, John. Some psycholinguistic correlates of reading
disability in young children. Reading Research
Quarterly, Spring, 1967, pp. 5-17.
McNeil, John D., assisted by Coleman, James C. Auditory
discrimination training in the development of word
analysis shills . University of California, Los
Angeles, U. S. Department of Health, Education
and Welfare, July 1967*
Pines, Maya. Revolution in learning. Harper & Row,
New York, 1966.
Pitcher, Evelyn G., et al . Helping young children learn.
Charles Merrill, Columbus, 1966.

-
Rosenberg, Leon A. The Johns Hopkins perceptual test
measure Oj
its development and current status as a
intellectual functioning. Johns Hopkins University,
Baltimore, 1966. ERIC - Microfiche Ed 0l4 75^.
Rosenberg, Leon A. and others. The Johns Hopkvns per-
rapid ^ntell^gence
ceptual list , the development of a
Johns Hopkins Uni-

test for the preschool child.
ERIC - Microfiche
versity, Baltimore, April 1966.
Ed 020 787.
Auditory
Siegenthaler ,
Bruce M. and Barr, Carolee A.
.
169
figure-background perception in normal children
Child Development, December 1967, pp . 1163-1169.
Smilansky, Sara. The effects of socio-dramatic play on
disadvantaged preschool children. John Wiley and
Sons, New York, 1968.
Sullivan, E. T., Clark, W. W. and Tiegs, E. W.
California test of mental maturity . New Cummerland,
Pennsylvania, California Test Bureau, 1957-
Thomas, Chess, Birch, Hentzik & Korn. Behavioral
individuality in early childhood . New York
University Press, New York, 1969.
Vygotsky, L. S. Thought and language. Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, 1962.
Williams, Joanna P. Training kindergarten children to
discriminate letter-like forms. American Educational
Research Journal, November 1969 ,

Vol. VI, No. 4,
pp. 501-512.
Wylie, Ruth. The self concept. University of Nebraska

.
Press, 196.
170
APPENDIX Page
Auditory and Visual Discrimination Test -
Form A - Score Sheet 169
Auditory and Visual Discrimination Test -

Form B - Score Sheet 171
Wepman Auditory Discrimination Test -

Form II - Score Sheet 17^
Primary Mental Abilities Test -

Perceptual Speed Section 176
Teacher's Rating Scale l8l
Program Specifications - Control Data Corporation -

3600 183
Original Data Sheets - Control Data Corporation -

3600 • 185
Auditory - Form A - Raw Scores 19^

Auditory - Form A - # Wrong
Visual - Form A - Raw Scores
Visual Form A - # Wrong
Auditory - Form B - Raw Scores
Auditory - Form B - # Wrong
Visual - Form B - Raw Scores
Visual - Form B - # Wrong
Wepman Auditory - § Wrong
P.M.A. - Perceptual Speed - Raw Scores
Correlation Charts - APL 360 195
Group I AVDT - Form A

- 202
Group I AVDT - Form B
-
Group II - AVDT - Form A
Group II - AVDT - Form B
Group III - AVDT - Form A
Group III - AVDT - Form B
Group IV - AVDT - Form A
Group IV - AVDT - Form B
AVDT Score Sheet - Form A
Child’s Name Birth Date
Grade Teacher
Date of Test Examiner’s Name
Audio Score Vis .
AUDITORY I
Same Diff. Score
1. A .
- N - .
2. I . . I .
3. M - - M - -
4 . S . . . 0 - - -
5. D - . . D - .
G - - W - -
6. . .
Total
VISUAL I
Same Diff. Score
A -
1. N - . .
2. I .. I ••
M - - M - -
3 .
4.0 S . . .
5 . D - . . D - . .
6. W G •
.
Total
AVDT Score Sheet
Child’s Name
AUDITORY II
Same Diff. Score
7. U . .
- U . .
-
8. K - .
- R . - .
9. H Z - - . .
7.
10. C - . - . C - . - .
11. B - ... Q - - .
-
12. V ... - F . . - .
Total
VISUAL II
Same Diff. Score
U..- U . .
-
8. R . - . K - .
-
9. Z - - . H
10. C - .
- . C - . - .
11. Q .
- B - ...
12 . F . .
- V ... -
Total
Comments
173
AVDT Score Sheet - Form B

Child ' s Name Birth Date Sex
Grade Teacher
School Date of Test
Examiner Time Started
Ended Child's Handedness
Eye Dominance Audio Score Vis .
AUDITORY I
Same Diff Score
1. I . . I . .
2. N - . A .
-
3. T - - T
4. S ... K - .
5. W .
- - W .
-
6. D - G - -
Total
Total I & II
VISUAL I
Same Diff. Score
1. I . . I . .
2. A . - N - .
3. T - - T - -
4. K - . - S . .
5. W .
- - W .
-
6 . G - - . D - . .
Total
Total I & II
AUDITORY II
Same Diff. Score
7. T - - - R . - .
10.
8. U . . - U..-
9. V ... - y - .
- -
X-..- X - . .
-
11. J .
- - _ p . .
12. -
Z - .
. Q — — .
—
Total
Total I & II
10.
VISUAL II
12. Same Diff. Score
7. R . - . T -
8. U . . - u . .
-
9- Y- --V . ... -
X-..- X - . .
-
11. P .
- - . J .
- - -
Q--.-Z--..
Total
Total I & II
Coment s
175
Child's Picture of self:
Child's Name:
(by self)
AUDITORY DISCRIMINATION TEST
FORM II
X Y X Y
n
1. gear - beer 21. bar - bar
2. cad - cab 22. bum - bun
3. led - lad 23. lave - lathe
4. thief - sheaf 24. shot - shop
5. sake - shake 25. wedge - wedge
6. jail - jail 26. suck - sock
7. ball - ball 27. vie - ’

thy
8. lake - lake 28. rich - rich
9. head - deed 29. pit - kit
fH
o rub - rug 30. guile - dial
11. wing - wing 31. rash - wrath
12. gall - goal 32. chew - chew
13. pet - pit 33. fag •- sag
14. lit - lick 34. phase - phase
15. bug - bud 35. sick - thick
16. lass - lath 36. wreath - reef
17. cope - coke 37. map - nap
18. pool - tool 38. mus s - mush
19. zone - zone 39. cart - tart
20. fret - threat 40. cuff - cuss
X Y
Copyright 1958, by Language Research Ass.. 300 N. State St., Chicago. Ill- 60610. Printed in U. S
A
any other
This form is copyrighted. The reproduction of any part of it by mimeograph, hectograph, or in
way, whether the reproductions are sold or arc furnished free for use, is a violation of the copyright law.
Name of Child:
177
Date Tested:
Examiner’s Name:
Age: Date of Birth:
S
Grade Name of School:
Disabilities: Hearing:
Reading:
Speaking:
Other:
I.Q.: Test:
X Y
Form C /30 / .0
Error Score:
F orm D /30 2
Additional Comments:
\
Speed
Test
Page 10
178
7-1901
Percoptual
Speed
179 Teat
Page 11
wjy t L4. u/x
! Spoed
Tost
Page 12
l8o
7-1901
Perceptual
Speed
l8l Test
Page 13
Perceptual
Speed
Test
l Page 14
182
183
S3
o
•H
P
aj
Sh >i
0
0
>
P
•H 73
> 1
0 —
i
•H
•H CO •H bO
-P
a
Sh P •H >3
aj Ph
0 < P3 p
Sh
•H
<D 0 33 —
i
P a bO •H
aj
73
•H 73 P
Q 33 0
33 0 <
> 33
i — O bO
0 73 Sh •H
> 0 P S3
6 S3 P
ss
H O
S3
O
S3
S3 0
aj
Sh
O
•H > 1
P
P •H £ co
c
O
P bO •H
O •H Q aj
0
O < w S3
CQ
0
0 P >5 co o
iH
'S3
aj
bO i — S3 Q
aj Sh O
S3 aj l —
£1 73
o o —
i <:
0
aj >3
—
CO i— aj 0 >
S3
O CQ
i
—
O & — •H P
i
P
i
aj
bfl o O '-v O CQ CQ ss
S3 S3 CO 0 > aj Sh CQ
•H a •H 0 o
P co O •H H
S3
a P
3S S3
aj
P3
(X P O P
•H >5 S3
CD > — O
0 P
i
•H —
P
i
aj aj S3 —
Sh
0
•H p O S3 aj
i
aj
u 0 aj O S3 0
P (X •H •H CO
S3
o
O O Si 6 CQ •H 0
S3
0
aj
0
Sh
(x
O’ S3
—
a5
o
S3
O
0 S3 P
r
aj O CQ
Eh a >3 S3 o •H C3 •H •H
aj —
r a O P O P P
P
Sh •H S3 o C3
•H Sh 0 0 >3
aj aj Sh P Sh r—
Ph S3 73 .
P •H 0
3*3
o
S3 0 i — < 0 73 Sh
> 0 P aj
0) i — > P — S3 £ P3
P
i
O 0 Sh o •H O
O > P O Sh aj 1
1
r — —
i
S3 33 P Sh 1
H
1
CD
>
0 S3 CO S3 P o
0 > O O 0 Cm
(L> > 0 >3 •H S3 0
•H P i — P P3
to
73 0 0 a3 0 r — 0
—
i
>i 0 P Sh Sh S3 aj £ S3
•H P aj 0 aj P O S3 0 >3 O
£ •H Ph 0 P3 S3 S o Ph P S
S3 > Sh 0 •H •H
*rl 0 O P r —
<M Sh P P S3 O •H
O 0 O S3 O 6 P
pO < H S3 W <3
CD
6 aj
aj <D
S Eh i — (\l m
rH 184
£ £
£ P
O 0
0 0
0 0
P O
cd
O
0 £
CO
£
O p >3
0 —
p
i
cd
P
hO
0 o •H
£ •H p
£
P
0
< •rH
p >3
>3 a P
rH o —
p
hO
co ^ I
£
0 O
•H
•H
P I — P
0 •rH P
£ p •H
0
£
P
CO Q
£ cd 0 0
O S p i—
<D
—
rH
O
£ P
i
0 O 3 £
•H
hO 0 hO >3
P •H
0
cd £ P
0 CQ 0 —
0
I
K Q P £
>3 O
0 0
rH
— P •rH
0
i
£ P
£ O
0 0 P
0
£ •H
p
)
P
•rH O hO Q
o• •H £
O 0 •H 0
0 P 0 0 6
CD
Eh
O 0 o
O 0 co
O K
i—
•H >3
0 0 ,
p
P £ £ —
i
0 £ O £
0 P •H o
0 >3 0 P •H
0 P -p s O P
0 O *H s •H P
£
0
£ H 0 rH
0 £ 0 Q 0
£ £ P >3 £ P
cd cd cd 1
— P P £
<
£ 5 s p 0 0
cd bO O 0 S
£ —
i
•H •H £ B
—
i
3 cd P 6 C 5 o
cd £ 0 o
£
0
0 p
£ 0 £
•H 0 o 0
> O < P
o
0
0
VO C-— CO EH
185
Control Data Corporation 3600
Program for Auditory Visual

Discrimination Test
Columns Field Specification

01-02 12 Auditory Score - Form A - 25 top score
03-04 12 Auditory Score - # wrong Form A - 12 items
05 - Blank
06-07 12 Visual Score - Form A - 25 top score
08-09 12 Visual Score - Form A - # wrong - 12 items
10 - Blank
11-12 12 Auditory Score - Form B - 25 top score
13-14 12 Auditory Score - # wrong - Form B - 12 items
15 - Blank
16-17 12 Visual Score - Form B - 25 top score
18-19 12 Visual Score - # wrong - Form B - 12 items
20 - Blank
21-22 12 Wepman Score - # wrong - 15 items
23 - Blank
24-25 12 P.M.A. Visual Score - # right - 28 items
26 - Blank
27-28 12 Chronological Age - Base 5 years = 0
29 - Blank
30 11 Sex - 1 = Female 2 = Male
31 - Blank
32 11 Handedness - 1 = Right 2 = Left
33 - Blank
34 11 Eye - 1 = Right 2 = Left
35 - Blank
36-37 12 Teacher Rating Scale score - 32 items
38 - Blank
39 11 Father’s Occupation 1 = Blue Collar
2 = White Collar 3 = Professional
40 — Blank
41-42 12 Gates Matching = #wring 12 items (K only)
43 — Blank
44 11 Bender Visuo-motor - # wrong - 6 items
(K only)
45 — Blank
46 11 Tapping Patterns - # wrong - 5 items
(K only)
47 — Blank
48 11 Horst Reversal - # wrong - 9 items
(K only)
49 — Blank
50-51 12 Predictive Indes - 10 top score, 0-3 poor
(K only)
52 Blank
186
Control Data Corporation 3600
Program for Auditory Visual

Discrimination Test
(Continued)
Columns Field Specification

53-5-4 12 Peabody Picture Vocab . - M A
. . base
4 yrs . = 0 (K only)
55 - Blank
56-58 13 Peabody Picture Vocab. - I.Q (K only)
59-70 - Blank
71-73 13 Child s I D #
' . .
74-75 12 School & Grade - K = Kdgn; F = First

C = Center Sch.; M = Mark's
Meadow Scho.
76 11 Year - 0 = 1970
77 11 Month - 5 = May
78-79 12 Total Test Scores = TT
80 11 Card Identification Number = 4
187
07/05/70 PAGE 2
SOf’h I| F K0 iV Y L f i
vi
VA i AR )
fc 'ti)E
V Al UE A n S 0 uy f t HFLA I L Vt adjusted CUMULATIVE

t 9E 00 L NC 7 P 4p uUf vjC 1 F PEUUlmcY AD 3 E P F 0
( hfPCE'i 1 ) (PEPCEmI (PERCENT
8 4 4,4 4 . 4.8
9 3 3,b 3.4 8.4
10 i 1.2 1 •? 9.4
J l J 3,b 3.4 13.3
18 i. 1.2 1 .2 14.5
13 4 4.4 4 * 8 19.3
14 4 4 . 4.3 24.1
1 3 3 3.o 3*4 27.7

» v 6 9.4 37.3
18 .
1.7 2 2.4 2.4 39.8
1
8 o 0,0 o.n 45.8
1.9 6 7.2 7.? 53.0
?.o j 0 . 6,0 59,o
81 9 10.9 10.3 69.9
82 0.0 6 . o 75.9
23 t 8.4 8.4 84.3
24 3 3 . o 3.4 88.0
25 10 1 2 . 12.0 100.0
0 j 0 . M l SS 1 No 100.0
I
1 CT AL » 1 00. 100.0 100.0
188
Fi tfc y 0m
S u hHi>- kc
'/•' Hi ARI.E •
,
•
,f j
v
ALt'L A iS'Ot-U T L HFLA f i
AD JUSTE O' cumulative
f HrjJJt H'T F HFQU£ $j Y F rtf-'OUt -!C T adJ freQ
( hfhce v )
(PE RCCKiT )
(Pt.HcFNT )
"* —
I 1 i 13,3 I5.i 15.1
2 I 3 5 7
1 „
1 7 32.0
3 lo 9. 3 q
I 2 1 • 54,3
4 I 8 lb,/. A
1. 7 • ^2.6
8 o 7.2 8 • ? 80.3
b 3 3,o 4 . l 84.9
7 10 12,0 13.7 98.6
8 1 1.2 1.4 loo.o
0 10 12. Ml SSI Mb
j
100.0
Total 8 T 100.0 iOO.o 100.0
VAn 1 AR[ £ V 1 4 ("
'JUi-i •,
_ut .vjSOuui k 3rL/vl V£ 1

AO JlJOTfc'o COMULaTT f
k wtoutNc y FKFQU£:,vcr FKEDUlmcV AO 3 FRED
(Pfkce.«j f
)
( PE^CLK! $
10 i
1.2 1 .9 1.2
13 2 2.^ 2.4 3.4
A 2
l
2. A 2.4 6 .0
lb 2 2.4 2.4 8.4
6 3
1
3 .b 3*4 12.0
17 d 9.0 9.4 21.7
13 b o.O 6 . 0 27.7
9 12
1 a „ "t 14.9
j
42,2
?• > id 12.0 12.o b4 m 2
21 3 . o 3 . b7 « 8
22 lvl 2 0 12.0
1
69' 9
23 ( b.H 8.4 78.3
24 4 4. M 4.8 83.1
2b 14 10.9 16.9 100. n
0 d 0 MXS5
. 1 N io
100.0
FU.t MO m ” i~e
S^nF I LiF KL (\1 :
K ( F M
V A- i AR IK. v J. s '
f'o
UE SV t '
!
Rf'La’I V L AU JUbTM)
I
f-
t
CUmULaTTVf
K REQUcjMCY K'KFWUE it FÊOULMCY A 0 J FREQ
(HfkcK'n' 1
) (
P £ R c £m r
(plRcem 1
)
4 14.6
J ]
17.4 17.4
2 c'U 24.1 29. n 46.4
3 21 25 . j 30*4 76.8
1.
12.0 14.8 ^1.3
5 b 6 • 0 7 • ? 98.6
•> i ) .2 1 .4 100.0
0 1H Id. 9 M I SSI NO 100.0
191
F i Lt. r ''Jr
S u filXLF KC
VAP i AR | E Hijljr U(v i.-'
v,-i ue 4>j$GLUT £ *FLa V£ 1

1
'SiDJObTEu CUMULATIVE
E wEOUtNC F^r our c 8 £ Q IJ t M C Y
F AOJ FORO
(Ffhcf m i
(Pp^CLM 1
( Pt 8cFM 1 )
5 1
1.2 1 . 2 1 .2
6 1 1 .2 .2
1
2.9
7 i 1 .2 .2
1
3.6
.8 1
1.2 1 *2 9.9
9 1 1.2 1 . 2 6.0
i 1 b 0
to •
6»o 12.0
12 1 1.2 .2
1
13.3
13 <4
9.8 9 o
.
18.1
19 8 6 . 0 6 n
. 29.1
) b 4 8. «
i 9 . 28.9
to D 7.2
1
7.2 36 .
17 1 3 3 13.9
1 1 .
99.9
18 f 8 . 4 6.4 57.9
19 4 10.8 10.9 68.7
20 o 9.8 9.6 78.9
21 3 3.6 3.6 81.9
22 (
« . 8 8 .4 90.4
23 8 8.8 9 . 95.2
2b 4
8 . 9 . w 100.0
0 0 0.0 19 1 SSI Mo 100.0
T OTAL 8 •
100.0 1 00 . n 100.0
192
F Lf.
i. l\i J r ! it
sori- ilf. K L i\ i t u t>l
\/Ar i ARL £ MljUttNF 9
'Ai.ut: jSOLUT P F l_ A v/t

AD 3n b Tfp
\ l
1
C'JMULATT Vf
r 9 tUUc.NC.Y F'Kpt iiJt. v L'r
FHfb H.MC Y jl
mQ J FRpO
( FF^tt 'i 1 )
(PFb'CLM 1 )
( PlKcfmI
1 1 i 13.3 1 3 . 13.9
2 1.9 22.9 29. 1 38.0
3 -1
l ] 1 19.0 57.0
'+
12 A- „ b lb.?
l
72.2
b 9 12. ’0
1
12.7 84 # R
6 b b 0
. b. 3 91.1
7 o 7.2 t . A 98 •
7
9 1 1.2 1 . 3 100.0
0 H H 8 M I SS
. i \l'i 100.0
OTAL 8J 1 00.0 1 00 . 100.0
193
f l- v- ri ' M !
S^hK i I
r KU r, 1
F u Kit
VAHiARl t v l |,-
v. .-i--u.tr.-.. .. cni viti- l j —

\u jus rto
.
V*' «-
-
•M I .
r: t r‘ y u /v i
.1
v t.
CUmULaT vp
h MtQULNc (--OptJUt mc I FiêUHtMCY A(1 0 F Op Q
H KCt-' 0 £ *' C 2
( l-
1 1
) ( **-l 1
) ( 0 t, 0 c p M 1 )
13 c . 2 „ A 2*2 2.4
b A 4.d 2 A
)
. 7.2
7 3 3 6 3.2
1
.
o•X
l« 2 2”, a 2.2 13.3

q b
l 6.0 6.0 19.3
20 1 J. 13.3 13.0 32. 5
21 o 7.2 7.d 3^,*

;
22 1 13.3 13.0 £ UJ
• O
W
23 10. d 1.0.8 63. ()
24 d y .6 9.6 73.8
23 22 20. S 26. 100.0
0 0 0.0 MI SSI MO 100.
1 OTmL. d '<
1 00*0 1 uo. o 100.0

FiLt mOjaiF
SUwFIlf kc [\ I
I- rt
VaR iArtLt v | Sv'fu
V AL Ut. a asolu r f WF L A V t A!) JUOTt D

1 I
t" R t Q U C. C Y
!\|
FRF out. iC r
CUMULATIVE
F KFQUt \ic Y ADJ FREQ
J
(
F^ct.A r
(
F p CtM r ( PFRcFM 1 )
— —
1 23 27 W 3 7.7 37.7
2 2u 24. i
32.im 70.5
3 R
i 0. d 1 4 . A 8k
>,2
a
b 4
.
11.4 90.7
5 2 2.4 3.7 100.0
0 22 2d • 5 MI SSI Mo
100*0
OTAL da
1 L> 0 • '
J
00 #0
1
100.0
195
F 1 L ii nOna^C
S d r J.LF
t .
KC IV- r o f- I I
I Ut ' s souu r h 4R_A iivt AO JObTtO CUMULaTTVF

K WLQUuiv'C * F KrwUh mC Y FRROUtMC 7 And FRFCJ
(
HFKt£ \! 1 ) (PFKCLM f
( PtRCF.Nl }
1 2o 24. 1 27,2 27.4

2 20 24,1 27,4 54.8
3 J
r
*.3
l 1 21 .0 76.7
4 ri
11*0 87.7
5 0 8 . 0 6 • « 94 .5
•
2 2 • '+ 2*7 9 7.3
y 2.4 2.7
c.
100.0
*
0 1U 1 2 „ MISS 1m vi 100.0
TaL t) <
1 00 « 100*0 100,0
it
Not missing, computer did not process zero score.
Redone on Williams College IBM 1130 Computer.
,
- W * y w •
M *4' 1
C
SOiih Hj: KC A i- 4 FH
V MH 1 ARlE 2 (v i\ i j 5
vai ut A\fcJS0i— U 1
(- RF L. A n vt_ ADJUSTED cumulatt vf
F 9 10U c >1 CY F'Kf QUF v)CY FÊOOEmcY Af)J F f_ 0
( PF«CE v! 1 ) ( Or. R CtK] 1 ) (PERCENT
3 1 I .2 1 .? 1.2
5 1 1 . 2 1 . 7 2.4
fc 2 2 . 9 2.4 9. ft
9 2 2 .
'4 2.4 7.2
i
10 c 2.9 2 . 4 9.6
1 1 2 2.9 2.4 12.0
1
o 7.2 7.3 19,3
13 “4 ^ * ^3 ^4 • A 29,1
1 9 9 9.3 4.9 28.9
1 5 1 1.2 1
.'9 30.1
l 6 ( 3.9 9.4 38.6

•
17 n 9.o 9.6 98.2
1* 2 2.9 2.4 80.6
1.9 3 3 • o "i • ^ 89.2
20 3 3.6 3.6 87.8
2 l
i ft • -4 ft • 4 66 . 3
23 9 9.3 4. ft 71.1
29 9 10.3 10. ft 81 .9
2b o 7.2 7 . ? 89.?
2b 3 3 . o 3.6 9?.
27 6.0 6 • 0 98.8
?JS i 1 .2 1 . ? 100,0
197
Group I
*0Y C €V
A
II 0
U ©
*
19 A .
D 4 ©>
ft .
I
n
T /i
/?
0 )H 9 *
1
j -] ;
ll
R n 0
//
Y
/o •
t —
*7 j-M
0
?
7
(o c ‘I 7
o
i
r
/
O / £3*^6 7 i $ *7 // /2l ."i

/
Y -'! <‘t sy /t Ja 2/ U •ts
V I S U A L
AVDT - Form A
Auditory Mean 16.6* S.D. 4.42*
Visual Mean 20.1* S.D. 3.69*
* Done before one child left, slightly higher than later

correlations
198
Group I
A*
cf-l,
A
1
1-6
!*)
U
/?
D n
/t
I
/s
T /V
/3
0 /i-
//
R Jl5
Y 9
r
V
J
X
° SJ /y /S-/6 ' // '9 2/3x252
• J- 3 y S’ 6 7 f' 9 // /J-
VISUAL
AVDT - Form B
Auditory Mean 16.8 S.D. 3.62
Visual Mean 21.4 S.D. 2.78

199
Group II
Kindergarten - Mark’s Meadow School
r j * — ©
eiy &
XJ $
Jx ©
A XI *
JU
U
/? 6
D /r u
1
/; 0 ©
I /£ ©
/* A
T
/¥ » #
0
/S 0 &
n t ! t 1
R // © 0
/ r
t | ;
Y j _L
9 i i
p
L
9 j
j
j
6
S
V
3
X !
^ 6 J $ ^
/£> 4 /2 s$ /¥ /S' /£ '7 s? Ja J/ XS
V I S U A L
AVDT - Form A
Visual Mean 1 oo
—
f-
S.D. 3.3
200
Group II
Kindergarten - Mark's Meadow School
C
J y 6 7 ? y *9 U At ^
VISUAL
AVDT - Form B

201
Group III
•2-T
A3
A £4
X!
U Sid
/I
D
'?
I /7
/S,
T /S'
0
n
/3
R /JL
//
Y /o
9
r
7
6
S
V
3
O , £.3 y s 4 7 t ? '! 'S '¥ /s /4 /) / 1 /? id H If*
VISUAL
AVDT - Form A
Visual Mean 20.7 S.D 3.43

202
Group III
o , a. 3 v 4" 6 7 e ? ** //'•*/$ /f /r s* /? /? & 3/ JJ.M Jy
V I S U A L
AVDT - Form B
Auditory- Mean rH CO VO
S.D. A. 57

203
Group IV
First Grade - Mark’s Meadow School
c 3 V J~ /x •* /? xo 2/
/ J- t 7 ? 7 /a // '3 'y // /? Si
VISUAL
AVDT - Form A
Mean 22.3 S.D. 2.62

Auditory
Mean 22.1 S.D.
Visual 2.2
Group IV
First Grade - Mark's Meadow School
As
£.5
A3 e
A At
A L , 1 L » i
U
W & &
D /f »
o / 5 V <* ?? $ /o // /A /f /9 &M 43 Ay
VISUAL
AVDT - Form B

An Auditory and Visual Discrimination Test For Kindergarten and F PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

An Auditory and Visual Discrimination Test For Kindergarten and F PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

University of Massachusetts Amherst

An auditory and visual discrimination test for

Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1

FOR KINDERGARTEN AND FIRST GRADE CHILDREN

Sarah S. Van Camp

Submitted to the Graduate School of the

Major Sub.ject Reading

FOR KINDERGARTEN AND FIRST GRADE CHILDREN

Sarah S. Van Camp

Approved as to style and content by:

This study would not have been possible without the

Fred and Ruth Greene nurtured and nested me during

Finally, my son, Jonathan, deserves heartfelt thanks

July 14, 1970

LIST OF TABLES AND PHOTOGRAPHS ii

CHAPTER I - The Problem 1

CHAPTER II - Review of the Literature 20

CHAPTER III - Procedure 46

CHAPTER V - Summary and Conclusions 138

LIST OF TABLES AND PHOTOGRAPHS

CHAPTER II - TABLE II-l Early Studies Comparing the

CHAPTER III - Administration of AVDT - Form B

CHAPTER IV - TABLE IV-1 Total Group Analysis 6l

TABLE IV- 2 Hand and Eye Dominance 63-64

TABLE IV-3 Item Analysis -

TABLE IV-4 Item Analysis -

TABLE IV- Item Analysis -

TABLE IV-6 Item Analysis -

TABLE IV-7 Item Analysis -

TABLE IV-8 Item Analysis -

TABLE IV-9 Item Analysis -

TABLE IV- 12 Correlation of Incorrect

TABLE IV-13 Correlation of Incorrect

TABLE IV-14 Correlation of Incorrect

TABLE IV- 15 Correlation of Incorrect

TABLE IV- 16 Correlation of Incorrect

TABLE IV- 17 Summary of All Test Scores -

TABLE IV- 18 AVDT - Correlation -

TABLE IV-19 AVDT - Cross Correlation by

TABLE IV- 20 AVDT - Cross Correlation by

TABLE IV-21 AVDT - Correlation

CHAPTER IV - TABLE IV-22 AVDT - Correlation -

TABLE IV-23 AVDT - Correlation -

TABLE IV- 2 4 AVDT - Correlation -

TABLE IV-25 AVDT - Correlation by Sex -

TABLE IV- 2 6 AVDT - Correlation - All

TABLE IV- 2 7 AVDT - Scores Correlated with

TABLE IV-28 AVDT - Scores Correlated with

TABLE IV- 2 9 AVDT - Scores Correlated with

TABLE IV- 30 AVDT - Scores Correlated with

TABLE IV- 31 AVDT - Summary of Kindergarten

TABLE IV- 32 AVDT - Correlation - Kinder-

TABLE IV- 3 3 Correlation of Teacher

Graph of "Maverick" Scores . . 119

Photographs of AVDT Correlation using 120

CHAPTER IV - TABLE IV- 35 Mean Scores - Primary

TABLE IV-35a AVDT Summary by Class

TABLE IV- 36 Raw Scores - All Tests

AUDITORY AND VISUAL DISCRIMINATION TESTS

involved in reading. It is a field which encompasses psy-

and, of course, education. Many authors write about the im-

significance of being able to

It is estimated that one