Analysis of Visual Perception of Chilren in the Appalachia Preschool

28 Pages·2007·2.35 MB·English

DOCUMENT RESUME
PS 005 629
ED 062 019
Hines, Brainard W.
AUTHOR
Analysis of Visual Perception of Chilren in the
TITLE
Appalachia Preschool Education Program.
Appalachia Educational Lab., Charleston, W. Va.
INSTITUTION
REPORT NO
TR-16
BUREAU NO
BR-6-2909
PUB DATE
Dec 71
NOTE
27p,
MF-$0.65 HC-$ .29
EDRS PRICE
*Data Analysis; *Educational Programs; Educational
DESCRIPTORS
Research; Educational Television; Experimental
Programs; Measurement Instruments; Nonprofessional
Personnel; Pilot Projects; *Preschool Children;
Program Evaluation; Psychomotor Skills; Task
Performance; *Testing; Test Results; *Visual
Perception
Appalachia Preschool Education Program; *Frostig
IDENTIFIERS
Developmental Test of Visual Perception; West
Virginia
ABSTRACT
A description and application of the Frostig
Developmental Test of Visual Perception are presented. The report
includes a description of the Frostig as a total instrument and an
overall analysis, as well as separate analyses and descriptions of
each subtest. A brief summary of the experimental design andsampling
plan also is included. A'pilot study included administration of the
Frostig to a sample of children, ages 3 to 6 years, in northern west
Virginia. The results of this testing indicated overall deficits in
the areas of figure7ground perception.and form-constancy tasks.
Results of the study indicate that paraprofessiOnal personnel made a
significant contribution in the_area of same-different discrimination
ifi terms of spacial rotation and that the television-program had its
major effect on eye-motor coordination, shape'constancy, and the
ability to conserve patterns after-spatial rotaticin. (AuthoriCK)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OE
HEALTH.
EDUCATION SI WELFARE
OFFICEpF EnucATIoN
THIS DOCUMENT HAS
SEEN REPRO-
DUCED EXACTLY AS
RECEIVED FROM
THE PERSON OR
ORGANIZATION ORIG-
INATING IT. POINTS OF
VIEW OR OPIN.
IONS STATED DO NOT
NECESSARILY
REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE
OF EDU-
CATION POSITION OR
POLICY.
ual Perception
e
Appaiachia
cation Program
t
e
Dete
971
?
by
Associate Educational Development Specialist
Brainaid W. Hines
Research and Evaluation
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1
ANALYSIS OF VISUAL PERCEPTION OF CHILDREN IN THE
APPALACHIA PRESCHOOL EDUCATION PROGRAM
1
Introduction
Method
1
Description of Instrument and Results of Analysi
3
(Eye Motor Coordination)
Frostig Subtest 1
3
..
.
.
.
Frostig Subtest 2 (Figure-Ground)
6
............
9
Frostig Subtest 3 (Constancy of Shape)
13
Frostig Subtest 4 (Position in Space )
..........
Frostig Subtest 5 (Spatial Relationship
16
..
Frostig Total Raw Score
19
6WP 0.*0
...........................
22
Summary and Implications
.. .................
..
6 ..
23
. . f
REFERENCES
.
6 6
6
6
List of Tables
Table
Frostig Subtest 1 (Eye Mbtor Coordination) Pre and Post-test
16.1
Mean Raw Scores, Standard DeviatiOns, and Numbers of Sub-
jects by Age and Sex within Treatment Groups
4
. .....
ff.
Analysis of Covariance Table for Fro t4g qflhfst 1
6
. .o0o.
16.2
Frostig Subtest 2 (Figure7-Ground) Pre and Post-test
16.3
Mean Raw Scores, Standard Deviations, and Numbers
of Subjects by Age and Sex within Treatment Groups
7
Analysis of Covariance Table for Frostig Subtest 2
16.4
Adjusted Post-test Means for Males and Females on
16.5
Frpstig Subtest 2
Frostig Subtest 3 (Constancy of Shape) Pre and Post-test
16.6
Mean Raw Scores,. Standareviationsi and Numbers of
10
Subjects by Age and Sex within Treatment Groups
12
Analysis of Covariance Table,for Frostig Subtest 3
16.7
Adjusted Post-testMeans for Males and Females
16.8
12
on Frostig Subtest 3
Table
Post-test
Frostig Subtest 4 (Position in Space) Pre and
16.9
Mean Raw Scores, Standard Deviations, and Numbers of
14
Subjects by Age and Sex within Treatment Groups
Subtest 4
15
Analysis of Covariance Table for Frostig
16.10
Post-test
Frostig Subtest 5 (Spatial Relationships) Pre and
16.11
Mean Raw Scores, Standard Deviations, and Numbers of Sub-
17
jects by Age and Sex within Treatment Groups ........... ..
Subtest S
18
Analysis of Covariance Table for Frostig
16.12
Frostig Total Pre and Post-test Mean Raw Scores
16.13
Standard Deviations, and Numbers of Subjects
20
by Age and Sex within Treatment Groups-
71
Analysis of Covariance Table for Frostig Total Score
16.14
Adjusted Post-test Total Frostig Mean Scores for
16.15
21
............
.. . ...... ............. .
..
Males and Females
List of Figures
Figure
Adjusted Post-test Group Scores and Normative Means
16.1
5
for Comparable Age Groups--Frostig SubteSt 1
Adjusted Post-test Group Scores and Normative Means
16.2
....
....
for Comparable Age Groups--Frostig Subtest 2
Adjusted Post-test Group Scores and Normative Means
16.3
for Comparable Age Groups--Frostig Subtest 3
Adjusted Post-test Group Scores and Normative Means
16.4
15
for Comparable Age Groups--Frostig Subtest 4
Means
Adjusted Post-test Group Scores and Normative
16.5
18
for Comparable Age Groups--Frostig Subtest 5
*ans
Adjusted Post-test Group Scores and Normative
16.6
19
for Comparable Age Groups--Frostig Total
Analysis of Visual Perception of Children in the
Appalachia Preschool Education Program
Introduction
Education Program curriculm
A large proportion of the initial Preschool
materials are devoted
(Hooper and Marshall, 1968) and the subsequent program
Because of
learning tasks.
to teaching motor coordination and perceptual
these cbjectives and
the difficulty of developing specific measures for
the Marianne
because of its previous use in evaluating preschool programs,
used to measure behavioral
Frostig Developmental Test of Visual Perception was
change in these areas.
Frostig shares several problems
As a program evaluation instrument, the
of program
Neither was designed to be a specific measure
with the ITPA.
susceptible to
effects; both are administered individually, and thus are
designed to be diagnostic
In addition, both instruments were
examiner bias.
overall
and motor deficits rather than to measure
of perceptual, expressive
potentially
However, the Frostig test does provide a
treatment effects.
development in the preschool-age
valid and reliable measure of perceptual
national norms for comparison with a
child, and most important, it provides
sample outside of the AEL region.
Frostig as a.total.instrumeit
This report includes a description of the
analyses and descriptions of
and an overall analysis, as well as separate
design and sampling plan .
A. brief summary.of the e.xperimental
each subtest.
also is included.
.MethOd
moltded:ubinistr4tion Of
A pilot -stpdy_by Hooper and.--:MArshall'f968
years in'horthernWet--
3 o
the,-Frostig to a sample of children, ages
defidts
Virginia. .The results-Of:ths'Aestingjfidicated-olferall
by
as measured
tasks
and form-constancy
figure-ground perception
areas of
tlle test suthors as
skills were cited by
Both of those
Subtests 2 and 3.
investigate the Pooper-
In order to
reading readiness.
being relevant to
effects on motor learning
method of measuring program
Marshall data, and as a
major evrduation
was included as a
development, the Frostig
and perceptual
Education Program.
Appalachia Preschool
instrument for the
chil-
from a s,mple of
September of 1970
in June and
Data were collected
The three treatment
control group.
groups and a
dren in three treatment
groups were:
television program in
received an instructional
A group which
only).
their homes (TV
by a para-
plus weekly visits
received the TV program
A group which
(TV-HV).
professional home visitor
visit, and which also
a home
received the TV program,
A group which
classroom CTV-HV-MC).
visited a mobile
post-test administered
compared to results of a
These pretest data wers
of
and a description
sampling procedure
Details of the
in June of 1971,
introduction to this report.
included in the
each group are
of covariance
consisted of analysis
analysis technique
The primary data
the PPVT post-
of June, 1971, and
with age in months as
using post-test data,
of variance
three-way analysis
A preliminary
covaristes.
test raw score as
Similar
covariates.
differences in the
treatment
scores revealed
on nost-test
be included
these results will
gain scores, and
analyses were performed on
where appropriate.
and
Precludes definite cause
statistical methods used
The nature of the
differences between
of significant
however, the existence
ffect reasoning;
assumed
on-the pretest was
were not evident
when these differences
group means
effects.
genuine .treatMent
to reflect
ceVariate adjusts
chronological age As d
the use of
It is assumed that
It should be noted,
treatment groups.-
moan age:among
for differences iP
(TV's:Inly) produced the'
with.the highest mean age
however, that the group
Thu$, the
evaluatien-battery.
of the
most subtests
lowest mean scores on
and may haveobscured
a.conservative procedure
coVariance analysis was
use of
effects.
actual program
only-for four
tables-are derived
nted in the ANCOVA
The eta2 values,pres
and the error
these variables,,
the interaction.of
sex
treatment
each source.
sources:
accounted for by
proportion- of variance
They represent the
term.
Description of Instrument and Results of Analysis
perceptual
The Frost g is designed primarily as a method of assessing
However, hand-eye coordination and overall
development in the visual area.
to the visual configura-
motor skills are involved in the child's responses
With the Frostig, unlike ITPA, it is difficult to
tions on the test.
acuity) from the mediating activity
separate the receptive processes (visual
For
(drawing, outlining, etc.).
(figure recognition) and the expressive act
indicator of perceptual-
this reason the instrument is considered to be an
plan, and no effort is made to
motor development in the program evaluation
which may cause variance on the total
-eparate the two areas of functioning
"face" validity,
Each of the following suhtests has fairly high
test scores.
to which it is attri-
and it is assumed that each measures the general area
factorial validity of
Technical Report No. 17 further explores the
buted.
this test.
Eye Motor Coordination)
Frostig Subtest
test of eye-hand coordina-
"... a
The authors state that this subtest is
curved, or angled lines
straight,
tion involving the drawing of continuous
to point w thout guide-
point
between boundaries of various width, or from
(Frostig, 1966.)
lines."
of subjects according
Mean raw se res, standard deviations, and numbers
Subtest 1 are presented in Table 16.1
to age, sex, and treatment group for
for pre and post-test measures.
along with overall treatment group means
graphically represented in Figure 16.1
The adjusted means from the ANCOVA are
Note that the
normative sample.
along with the mean scores of the Frostig
from the raw score total means
adjusted means in Figure 16.1 differ slightly
in Table 16.1.
As shown in Figure 16.1, two treatment groups and the control group
exceeded
scored slightly below the ribrm, while one group (TV-HV-MC) slightly
Table 16.2.
The analysis of covariance summary table is presented in
the norm.
of confidence.
The treatment effect was significant at:the .01 level
t
5
6
3
5 7
2
2
4
7
1
6 8
4
s
9
1
6
9 6
4
4
7
7
3
6 5
2
.
e
.
.
. .
.

.
.
.
. .
.
2
t
7
2
5 5
6 9
3
8
2
3
6
3
1 4
5
7
7
7
-
1 0
1
1
1
1
t
1

s
= .
=
=
=
=
=
_ =
=
=
=
=
. =
=
o
=
=
=
l
i
i
N N
N
a
0
N
0 0
x
N
i
N y
0
x
P
a
i
i
o
r
1
t
-
1
1
,
n
7
1
o
7
3
8
9
8
4
4 0
0
2
0
3
9
C
t
5
7
-
0
7
5
1 4
5
1
1
6
6
.
s
.
.
.
7
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
2
5
e
3
4
1
9
7 0
5
2 2
0
4
2
2
3
2
3
2
8
t
6
1
-
1
1
e

r
=
=
=
= =
=
.
-
=
=
= =
=
=
w
P
= . =
=

N
N
-
i
N g
N
N
g
G a
a
0
i N x
a
R
,
'

' '
n
,
a
t
1
2
1
8
6
4
9
3
0
7
9
6
0
0
e
e
5
3
s
5
1
7
1
8
3
2
1
7
9
5
0
g
M
.
.
e
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A
3
3
9
t
6
2
9
9
3
2
4
5 1
8
2 0
5
5
5
0
4
8

t
-
6
1
1 1
1
1
y
1
s

b

e
s
=
=
=
=

.
=
-
.
=
=
=
= =
=
=
t
.
= =
o
= =
=
f
i
N
s
N
R
-
g
a
0
x g
c
N
-
i
N
P
i
N
l
t
t
n
c
s
'
, I
o
H
e
o

j
P
8
5
V
7
5
0 4
b
5 6
4 0
4
O
8
3

3
t
7
T
1
u
1 0
6 5
0 6
2
6
1
4
d
.
s
.
s
.
6
S
. .
. .
.
. .
,
.
n
9
6
p
e
8
0
8

8 7
3
6 9
2
1
3 3
7
1
6 5
5
3
a
3
0
u
t
f
6
1
1 1
1
1
1

o
e
=
o

=

e
r
r

N
=
=
=
= =
=
. =
=
=
=
. .
r
= -
a
.
G
P
-
-
s
x
N
a
N
R R
0 a
x N
P
N
N
0
-
r

t
e
)
1
n
H
h
n
e
t
o
m
u
6
t
4 2
7
2
0
4
6
9 9
6
1
2
i 3
t
N
3
1
s
0 5
9
7
2
4
9
0 3
2
6
7
1
t
a
.

.
. .
e
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
,
6
a
e
d
4
3 8
t
2
0
2
3 7
7
3 9
2
2
0
5
2
1
4
1
5 8
6
n
r
n
- 3
2

2
1
2
1
1
1
2
i
a
T
1
t
e

d

s
s
=
=
=
=
=
= =
=
=
=
r
n
. =
l
=
-
.
=
. =
. =
o
=
,
N
R o
N
N
N
N
E
- 0
i
o N
a
-
0
N
O o
V
P
R
s

h
o
H
n
a
t
C
H
-
,
T
o
H
i
V
i
w
r
6
T
t
8
5
1
0
7
5
8
0 0
7
8

8 0
o
3
t
4
a
9
0
3
6
3
9
8
8
2 0
x
5 3
t
.
s
.
i .
4

.
.
.
.
.
. . . .
e
4
o
e
0
2
v
8
.
4
8 0
4
3
0
9
3
5
9
0
1
6 3
S
0 5
M
1
t
5
e
0
1
1
1
1

1
1 1

e
1
D

d

e

r

=
n
=
=
=
=
=
=
. =
=
= =
y
=
= =
=
= =
P
d
=
=
.
a

i
a
o
N
N
N
x
0
N
2
N
t N
x -
a o
N
r
0
q
i

(
a
'
I
I

d
i
1
n

a
3
t
5
9
9
1
0
5
4
8
5
5
8
0
t
t
1
s
8
3
6
4
1
1
3
0
5
2
8
5
s
S
.
.
e
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
.
.
e

3
2
5
t
9
3
1
3
3
6
9
5
3
2
5
9
2
0
1
3
2
t
,
1
-
9
1
8
1
1
1
2
1
1
b
s

t

t
e
.
s
=
=
=
=
-
=
=
=
= - = =
S
=
r =
=
=
=
.
=
C
-
o
=
N
G

0 x
N
N
N
N

o
0
0
a
N
M
0
P
R
0
g
d
-
S
i
1
V
t
H
s
5
-
2
1
7
0
0
0 4 2
1 7
7
3
o
5
V
3
1
3
t
4
2 9
7
5
6 6
6
8
r
.
.
T
.
.
s
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
F
6
5
8
9
3
1
e
5 7
8
6
3
9
5 9
6
0
1
9
4
4
0
6
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
e

r
=
-
=
.
=
= -
=
= =
=
- = = -
=
-
P
=
=
=
N
x
N
x
x
a 0
N
N
N
N
0
R
1
1
F
L
A
'
T
O
e
T
g
A
Treatment Mean
Normative Mean
12
6
9.42 1001
8.75
7.71
8.58 9.35
9.39 9.35
Control
TVHV-NC
TV-HV
TV only
mos.
59 mos.
65
62 mos.
62 mos.
F1gure 16.1
-test Group Scores and Norma ive
Adju- ed Po
Means for. Comparable Age Groupsr
F-ostig Subtest 1