A Kinesio-Perceptual Test's Reliability and Validity with Retarded Subjects
PAUL SOMMERS, M.S. Southern Illinois University Over the past few years, educators have shown an increasing concern for the sensorimotor development of children, thinking that a child's performance in school may be partly a function of kinesiological and perceptual (kinesio-perceptual) abilities which form part of what might be termed "readiness" for higher mental activities. For example, Frostig (1964) has emphasized visual perceptual training as a prerequisite to academic remediation forsome children. Doman, et al., (1960) proposed the prevention and remediation of learning disabilities through neurological "patterning" involving programmed motor movements, and Kephart (1960) has devised perceptual-motor training programs for slow learners. Although terminologies and emphases differ, these theorists and others, such as Barsch (1962) and Getman (1958), might be classified as physiological educators. The primary assumption of any kinesio-perceptual or perceptual-motor remediation program is that, by means of it, some reliable differentiation can be made between those who need remediation and those who do not. A further assumption is that these kinesio-perceptual abilities, reflected in individual differences in performance on the assessment devices, are relevant to performance in areas such as reading, mathematics, or other skills taught in the schools. The purpose of the present research was to rigorously evaluate a kinesio-perceptual battery (KPT) with respect to the above assumptions. None of the popular tests involving perceptual-motor abilities that are widely disseminated among special educators meets the American Psychological Association's standards for